2023-05-24 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 24 May 2023

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 1

Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Ms 00AMR Ballarat CATHERINE KING (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Animal welfare is important to the Australian community and they expect robust oversight, accountability and transparency of animal welfare in livestock exports. The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 reinforces the government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare by expanding the current office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to provide enhanced focus on animal welfare. This bill, together with the funding that we have already committed through the October 2022-23 budget to expand this office, delivers on our 2022 election commitment. The additional objects and functions proposed in this bill will help to increase oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in exported livestock, and deliver on the government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare. This bill provides for an expanded and independent office of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. It does this by building on the established Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports role with a focus on expanded animal welfare objectives and functions. The government supports independent and transparent arrangements around the regulation of the livestock exports. Importantly, the central role of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports will continue to be reviewing the conduct of Commonwealth officials regulating livestock exports, as the current office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports does. This bill expands on that role to provide a new level of focus and assurance that Commonwealth legislation and standards are achieving good outcomes for animal welfare, through the objectives put forward in this bill. These objectives include to: monitor, investigate, and report on how the Commonwealth implements animal welfare and live animal export legislation; promote continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in its role as the regulator of Australia's livestock exports, including improvements in the development of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock; provide an additional layer of accountability and assurance over the regulation of Australia's livestock exports; and ensure that livestock export officials, in performing functions and exercising powers, consider the welfare of animals in Australia's livestock exports. In addition, the Inspector-General's functions, as outlined in this bill, are to review the effectiveness of: the activities of livestock export officials under animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards; Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports under such legislation and standards; the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock as part of such systems; and Commonwealth reporting relating to animal welfare and livestock exports matters. A focus on these four pillars of our regulatory system—activities, systems, standards and reporting—will help to improve and assure the systems in place to achieve export animal welfare outcomes. For the first time, the Inspector-General will provide an independent layer of oversight over our animal welfare export standards, to assure that Australia's livestock exports continue to be underpinned by high standards and the best available science. Many of the objectives and functions have been shaped through a public consultation process. The consultations revealed broad concerns around how—and what—information is reported in relation to livestock exports. This includes whether current arrangements are appropriately considering and reporting on animal welfare outcomes, and whether the current reporting arrangements assure commercial information is appropriately managed. For this reason, the government has taken steps to substantially expand the role of the Inspector-General around reviewing the reporting arrangements that are currently in place, with a view to ensuring they are fit for purpose—or to recommend improvements as necessary. This encompasses what is currently reported to the parliament under the Export Control Act 2020. Together, these new functions will help to inform the government on the best approach to public reporting of livestock export and of welfare outcomes. The independence of the Inspector-General was another central theme raised through consultation. This bill responds by clarifying certain processes around how the Inspector-General conducts its reviews and publishes information. Through this bill, the government is providing for transparent arrangements around how the Inspector-General can engage consultants for specialised advice, as well as how the Inspector-General publishes information. The Inspector-General must also prepare an annual work plan for each financial year, in consultation with the minister. Annual work plans (and variations) must be published on the Inspector-General's website. The Inspector-General will also prepare and publish their work plan for the financial year ahead, setting out key outcomes and priorities. The Inspector-General will not be subject to interference. This bill provides for the Inspector-General to have complete discretion in the performance its functions and powers. While the minister may direct the Inspector-General to conduct a review, importantly, the Inspector-General will not be subject to direction in the conduct of a review or the content of any report. Together, these enshrine the new Inspector-General's independence from the regulator of Australia's livestock exports. In summary: the additional objects allow for the Inspector-General to monitor, investigate and report on implementation by the Australian government of animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards. The additional functions include conducting reviews into the effectiveness of Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports under animal welfare and live animal export legislation. The bill also provides for independence of the Inspector-General and provides a legislative basis for the Inspector-General to operate independently, impartially and transparently. Together, the expanded role will increase accountability for—and transparency of—animal welfare in exported livestock. The bill delivers on a commitment of the government to strengthen animal welfare and underlines our commitment to holding ourselves accountable. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 2

Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:09 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The amendments proposed in this bill support improved and fairer processes under the Migration Act. They improve the effectiveness of the notification of decisions and actions under the act, and reduce inefficient processes relating to the making of valid protection visa applications for dual citizens. Schedule 1 to the bill comprises a number of commonsense technical amendments to strengthen the notification framework for visa related decisions. For cancellation related decisions and actions, the amendments will make it clear that the person affected must be notified in writing, and in the ways specified in the regulations. These amendments will effectively reinforce existing mechanisms which ensure the affected person has the best chance of actually receiving the relevant documents. This enables them to seek independent advice on their options and to avail themselves of natural justice or review rights. Schedule 1 also introduces a substantial compliance framework in relation to notifications into the Migration Act. This is in response to a number of court decisions over time that have found notifications invalid for failing to comply strictly with prescribed requirements, despite clearly achieving their purpose, and where there was no prejudice to the recipient's legal rights. The measures proposed in this bill will ensure that, where a minor or technical error exists in the content of the notification, which has not resulted in any substantial prejudice to the person's legal rights, then the notification requirements are taken to have been met. This commonsense approach, which already exists in other legislative frameworks, will provide greater certainty in relation to the notification of visa related decisions and actions for both the minister and the recipient of such notices. These amendments will reduce uncertainty about highly technical notification issues, and will not diminish the person's ability to fully exercise all available legal rights. Importantly, this bill does not purport to fix errors of substance in notifications, or errors that substantially prejudice a person's legal rights. Importantly, these changes ensure that people who receive visa notifications, including relevant information about any natural justice or review rights, will not be disadvantaged. These changes provide greater certainty that notifications relied upon are valid, and a person's legal rights are upheld. The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill will remove the prohibition on nationals of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa. Subdivision AK of division 3 of part 2 of the Migration Act currently prevents any person who is a national of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa, but allows the minister to lift the bar if it is in the public interest to do so. The removal of this subdivision from the Migration Act will improve administrative efficiencies across the onshore protection visa program and streamline the application process for dual nationals seeking protection in Australia. From 1 July 2019 to 24 March 2023, 401 prospective protection visa applicants were assessed as being impacted by the application bar. However, in the same period, in excess of 55,000 protection visa applicants had to be assessed against this provision before their application could be progressed for further processing. Of the 401 prospective protection visa applicants impacted by the application bar, 196, almost half, were minors. Currently, dual or multinational minors included on a valid protection visa application lodged by a parent or other family member are barred from making a valid application without the intervention of the minister. The removal of this subdivision will ensure that family units can make a valid application for a protection visa together, and minimise the risk of family separation. This ensures that dual citizens are afforded the same benefits as those with single nationality, by having protection claims to be considered comprehensively under the relevant statutory criteria, without requiring the minister to consider lifting the bar. The government's position remains unchanged: those who can avail themselves of protection from a third country because of nationality or some other right to re-enter and reside in the third country, should seek protection from the third country instead of applying for a protection visa in Australia. The amendments in this bill do not make substantive changes to the notification framework, nor do they change the eligibility requirements for the grant of a protection visa. They provide for greater effectiveness and streamlining of processes and create a fairer and more accountable framework. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 3

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:14 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australians are rightly proud of Medicare and of the committed group of doctors and other health professionals who deliver Medicare services. Bulk billing is the beating heart of Medicare and after nine years of cuts and neglect by the former government, we know it's never been harder or more expensive to see a GP. The government is making Medicare stronger for all Australians, delivering critical funding, and investing in reform for the healthcare system of tomorrow. This budget delivers more than $6 billion in new investments to strengthen Medicare, as well as an indexation boost to Medicare rebates of more than $1.5 billion—delivering the biggest increase in 30 years. The centrepiece of our Strengthening Medicare package is $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentives for GP visits—the largest ever investment in bulk-billing incentives. In our major cities, it means a 30 per cent increase in the payments to a bulk-billing GP. In rural areas and regional centres like Cessnock, the increase to bulk-billing GPs will be around 50 per cent more. Families and pensioners will all get free trips to the GP because of this record investment in bulk billing. Five million children and their families and seven million pensioners and concession card holders will all benefit from the increase to bulk-billing incentives. This historic investment means three out of five visits to the GP will be bulk billed. Only a Labor government strengthens Medicare. And Strengthening Medicare also means safeguarding the taxpayer funds that underpin it and this government is committed to that task. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 responds to the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, known as the Philip review. The Philip review was commissioned by the government last November to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. While the Philip review found that most health professionals are well meaning and protective of the health system, it also noted that changes are needed to modernise the compliance system underpinning Medicare to ensure it remains rigorous and effective. The government is committed to protecting the integrity of Medicare. This bill makes several priority amendments in response to recommendations from the review. The measures in this bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, as well as improving the effectiveness of the current process for auditing payments relating to Medicare services. In essence, the bill: removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association, known as the AMA, in the appointment process of the director of the PSR; amends consultation requirements for appointments of other statutory office holders of the PSR, including deputy directors, panel members and members of the determining authority, to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly; enables the appointment of associate directors of the PSR; and removes the need for engagement with stakeholder groups as a prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. The PSR is an independent statutory agency responsible for protecting the integrity of the Medicare program by investigating whether a person has engaged in inappropriate practice. In doing so, the PSR protects patients and the community in general from the risks associated with inappropriate practice. The PSR addresses the behaviour of a person who may have engaged in inappropriate practice through a review by the director or by committees made up of clinical professional peers. Currently, the director of the PSR cannot be appointed without the agreement of the AMA. The government considers that this veto power is not consistent with public expectations and undermines confidence in the independence of the PSR as a regulator. This veto power has also never been exercised, raising further questions of the need for this requirement. Given the potential conflict between the PSR's objective to safeguard Medicare and the AMA's role in representing the interests of medical practitioners who may be subject to PSR review, it is appropriate for the veto power to be removed. The bill will also enable direct consultation with relevant medical peak bodies regarding appointments of deputy directors and panel members of the PSR, instead of making arrangements for the AMA to coordinate and provide advice, as is the current requirement. Similarly, the bill removes the requirement to consult with the AMA on the appointment of the chair and other members of the determining authority. Instead, the minister is to consult directly with relevant peak bodies on appointments of medical practitioner members of the determining authority, which is consistent with current requirements for other health practitioners subject to the PSR arrangements. These changes will remove potential conflicts of interest to enhance public perceptions of the PSR Scheme and ensure the PSR process can operate with impartiality and independence. Allowing for associate directors to be appointed will also improve the PSR process by managing conflicts of interest, unexpected absences, and high case volumes. The director of the PSR is currently the sole decision-maker for most aspects of the PSR Scheme. There is no contingency in place if the director is unable to make decisions on a particular matter due to a conflict of interest or if they are otherwise unavailable. To address the risk that a case may lapse if a statutory time limit passes while the director is unavailable to make a decision, the bill makes provisions for a new statutory office of associate director. The bill will provide for multiple associate directors to be appointed on a full or part-time basis which will allow for the recruitment of more wide-ranging medical expertise. An associate director would be able to review inappropriate practice in the same way as the director and make relevant decisions such as whether to enter into a written agreement with a person under review or to refer them to a committee of their peers. Associate directors will not have any functions relating to the administration of the PSR. The director will remain the sole statutory agency head and the accountable authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Finally, the bill will remove the need for engagement with stakeholder groups about documents relevant to substantiating Medicare payments, as a prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. This amendment will strengthen and speed up Medicare compliance functions, without limiting the types of documents a person may provide during an audit of payments. Importantly, this change will not have any impact on procedural fairness requirements for a person being audited. There will continue to be an opportunity for the person to make submissions about their compliance matter and to provide any information or documents they consider relevant. Robust structures to identify and address noncompliance and inappropriate practice are essential to ensure that Commonwealth resources are directed to necessary health services and to ensure that Medicare remains sustainable. By supporting the integrity of Medicare, this bill will ultimately benefit all Australians. The former government was given five separate reviews, including from the Australian National Audit Office, that told them billions of dollars in taxpayer money was being lost each year. They failed to act to protect Medicare. Australians know that the overwhelming majority of our doctors and health professionals are honest, hardworking and comply with Medicare rules. But they also understand that, at a time of great pressure on household and government budgets, every dollar in Medicare is precious and must be spent directly on patient care. Strengthening Medicare means safeguarding the taxpayer funds that underpin it and this government is committed to that task. Debate adjourned. Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023 5

Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:24 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Transplantation through organ and tissue donation gives people a second chance at life, allowing them to resume the roles they love among their family, friends, and communities. One organ and tissue donor can transform the lives of many people, and transplants are a well-researched and highly effective treatment. The benefits of organ and tissue transplantation to our society are undeniable. Australia has implemented a best-practice donation system. In 2009, under the then Rudd Labor government, Australia commenced our national program to increase organ and tissue donation for transplantation. Since then, there has been a significant growth in donation rates, with more than 16,000 Australians receiving a life-changing transplant. Few people have the opportunity to become an organ donor. An individual needs to die in a hospital, with organs functioning well, to be a donor. Only around two per cent of people who die in a hospital are able to be considered for organ donation. That's only around 1,400 people a year. The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, also known as the Organ and Tissue Authority, has led the national effort to increase organ and tissue donations, in partnership with: state and territory governments; national DonateLife agencies; the donation and transplantation clinical sectors; eye and tissue banks; and the community. Critical to this work of the Organ and Tissue Authority and DonateLife agencies are promotional and educational activities to increase community awareness of organ and tissue donation. The key aim is to encourage people to register on the Australian Organ Donor Register and talk to their family about donation and what they would like at the end of their life. These activities include commemorative services, educational and community awareness materials such as posters and flyers, and social media content, which often include the sharing of experiences by individuals and families involved in organ and tissue donation and transplantation. Currently, there are provisions in both state and territory legislation, and the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008 that prohibit the sharing of some information related to deceased donors and recipients for the purposes of community awareness and other educational activities by the Organ and Tissue Authority and DonateLife agencies. As a result, the Organ and Tissue Authority, and Commonwealth funded state and territory DonateLife agencies are limited in the ways they can deliver the national organ and tissue donation and transplantation program, and in particular, community awareness, educational activities, and commemorative events for donor families. This bill will amend the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008to allow the Organ and Tissue Authority, DonateLife agencies, grant recipients and authorised family members to publish, disseminate or disclose information about deceased donors for the purposes of the Organ and Tissue Authority's community awareness, educational or commemorative activities. Currently, the OTA act has restrictive provisions on who can provide that consent being limited to partners of the deceased donor, or by parental guardians if the donor was less than 18 years. These changes will allow the Organ and Tissue Authority and DonateLife agencies to obtain consent for this information from an extended list of family members of donors and recipients that includes a partner, parent, child, sibling, grandparent and grandchild. With this consent from the family, this information about the respective deceased donor or recipient can then be included in community awareness and educational activities, and in remembrance services for families to commemorate their family member. The sharing of these experiences is invaluable, as it: creates greater understanding among the community of organ and tissue donation and the significant impact it can have in saving and improving lives; generates discussion among and encourages Australians to register their intent to be a donor at the end of their life; and can provide comfort to individuals and families who may be faced with making this decision in the future. The disclosure of this information is restricted to the functions of the Organ and Tissue Authority and DonateLife staff and purposes of the activities as defined in this bill. It is important to note that these amendments are not intended to facilitate direct contact between donor families and organ and tissue recipients. Governments intend to protect the right of both donor families and transplant recipients to remain anonymous. These legislative amendments align with the sentiment that many donor families wish to commemorate their family member in remembrance services, and some also want to help raise community awareness about donation and transplantation. I would like to acknowledge the valuable work of the Organ and Tissue Authority and DonateLife agencies in leading the national program to increase organ and tissue donation. And of course, none of this would be possible without donors and their families. I cannot express the extent of my admiration of the families who, during such difficult circumstances, have made the incredible decision to give the ultimate gift of life to another by saying 'yes' to donation. Not only do these families make these decisions, but often they then share their experience to encourage others to do the same. This is truly remarkable. I would like to finish by sharing the incredibly moving story told by Mr Rob Clemmens. I met Rob and his two adult daughters, Emily and Isabella last month at the announcement event for the 2022 donation and transplantation outcomes at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Rob was there to share his story and raise awareness about donation. Rob lost his beloved wife Katie last year. Rob and his daughters, made the decision to say yes to organ donation because Katie was always giving to others. Together, they believed it was the right thing to do and something Katie would have wanted. Rob and his family are immensely proud of Katie's legacy as an organ and tissue donor, giving the ultimate gift of life to people through the donation of her liver and kidneys, as well as skin, eyes, and bone. As Rob says, 'Katie gave herself in life and in death.' I pay tribute to Katie and her family today. I acknowledge and sincerely thank every donor for the ultimate gift—giving a chance at a full and long life for those needing a transplant. The sharing of donor family stories, such the story of Katie Clemmens, is very powerful in showing what a true gift organ donation is, and in raising community awareness of the importance of organ donation. This important legislative amendment will enable more families, who would not have otherwise been able, to share their extraordinary stories with the Australian community. This is crucial to improving donation outcomes in Australia. It is vitally important for all Australians to have a conversation with their families about what they want at the end of their life and if they want to be a donor, to register. I encourage you all to do this as soon as possible. The ability to communicate the stories of those who have given the gift of life, and of those who have received this gift, is vital to saving lives, and improving the quality of life for more Australians. These changes will support the Organ and Tissue Authority and DonateLife agencies in more effectively achieving these goals. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 7

Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 7 09:38 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [09:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES 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. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 51 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. 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. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. 0 PAIRS

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

 Consideration in Detail 8 09:44 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (line 1), at the end of subsection 8(3), add: ; and (c) the person is not an existing or former member of the governing body of: (i) a company engaged in coal, oil or gas extraction; or (ii) an energy company based on the burning of coal, oil or gas. 09:44 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for the constructive way in which she has engaged on this bill. The thing that I've really have learnt throughout all of this process is just how passionate people are, not only about infrastructure and investment but also about getting much more transparency around how that investment is made. That being said, the government won't be supporting the member's amendment, because individuals with appropriate skills and qualifications in infrastructure investment are really hard to come by. There's a really limited pool of people, and we don't think they should be excluded from contributing to the work of Infrastructure Australia solely because of who they may have been employed by in the past. There are lots of people who work in construction and infrastructure investment who have worked on projects that the Greens political party may or may not like, but I can't make decisions about who commissioners are on that basis. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. 09:45 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland At the request of the member for Maranoa, I move opposition amendment on the sheet revised 10 May 2023: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes this Government's record of cancellations, cuts and delays to infrastructure projects across Australia; (2) criticises the Government's failure to adhere to processes of assessing infrastructure investment projects they set themselves before the 2022 election by agreeing to invest $2.2 billion in the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop and $2.5 billion in the Brisbane Arena without first obtaining advice from Infrastructure Australia; and (3) notes the nation-building and economy strengthening $120 billion 10-year pipeline of infrastructure investments inherited by the Government upon its election in May 2022". This amendment is an important, practical and fair measure that will ensure that regional Australia has a strong voice on the board of Infrastructure Australia. In appointing the commissioners on the board of Infrastructure Australia, our amendment requires that the minister must ensure that at least one of the commissioners has a substantial connection or substantial experience in a regional area through business, industry or community involvement. The federal coalition urges the House to support this amendment. While I have the opportunity, I want to turn to the minister's summing up speech last night in the Federation Chamber. She is becoming increasingly desperate in trying to justify the infrastructure review process associated with the Infrastructure Australia bill before the House. For the record, I want to make it very clear that I have made every attempt since the election to help the minister with her job in Victoria, to deliver infrastructure that Victorians want and Gippslanders want. Unfortunately, my attempts have been largely ignored. This minister can't help but play politics and turn to talking points rather than constructively engaging with a member who is trying to represent his region to deliver important safety improvements when it comes, particularly in this case, to the Princes Highway as it travels through Gippsland. So I'm glad the minister has a new assistant minister to help her do her job and, hopefully, get a more constructive working relationship with local members. This may seem harsh, but I've written to the minister on seven occasions and I've met with her staff face to face as well as on the phone to try to engage with them in a very constructive manner. If you would like, Mr Speaker, I will release those letters publicly. They describe how I want to find some room to allocate priorities in the community to save lives associated with the Princes Highway works. The minister talks a lot about trying to find some headroom in the program to deliver projects. What the minister doesn't tell you is that the Princes Highway east program has $60 million in it, and my requests to her are all about finding out how many of the unallocated funds were still available, because there is money available— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but this process has been long established. This is not an opportunity to go through various clauses and parts of the bill. Technically, under the standing orders, there is one motion before the House, which is about appointing commissioners. I have allowed some latitude but this is not a free-for-all debate, just so all members know. We've had this issue before. I will allow the shadow minister to have some broad context, but I will draw him back to the specifics. Mr CHESTER IPZ Thank you, Mr Speaker. The context is in relation to Infrastructure Australia being able to consider nationally significant infrastructure initiatives in our amendment to have a reasonable voice. The point I am trying to make is that regional voices that provide an input into the minister's office in a constructive way need to be heard. The minister, in her comments last night in the Federation Chamber, made it very clear that she believes Infrastructure Australia and the federal government should only be involved in projects that they regard as being nationally significant infrastructure investments and have productivity or enhance our freight routes. There projects are nationally significant in regional communities because they save lives. The minister, last night, in a summing-up speech made a broad range of comments in relation to the previous government. She was very critical about what she called 'unallocated buckets of money to announce small projects such as traffic lights'. The point I'm making with my amendment is that having reasonable voices on Infrastructure Australia's board would allow Infrastructure Australia to understand that those investments in projects like traffic lights are nationally significant if they're part of a corridor that saves lives. There is a complete misapprehension from those opposite that things like the Princes Highway upgrade through my electorate are not nationally significant. I have gone to the minister repeatedly to try and describe how to work constructively to deliver these projects with state government not prepared to work with you. There was a hostile state government when we were in government, and now she has a hostile state government, which is basically broke. They're not going to help you very much. If you have willing partners in your communities—and, in this case, it may well be local government—I call on the minister to engage with local government as part of the infrastructure review process. Will local government get a chance to make any submissions whatsoever? Local government needs to be heard, just as local voices need to be heard, and the amendment put forward by the coalition is all about local voices. I encourage the minister to listen to local people, particularly in regional communities, who have different perspectives on some of these issues. The amendment that the coalition has moved deserves the support of the House. 09:50 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I am a regional MP. Sometimes people seem to forget that. I live in regional Victoria. I have been a regional MP and represented a regional seat for 22 years; I understand the reasons pretty deeply. I've been a regional development minister previously in a past government and have travelled extensively throughout the country. So I understand; I understand the issues. But we won't be supporting this amendment, not because I don't think it's important that we have commissioners or regional voices on the advisory panel—it's very important that that occurs—but because when you have a very clear mandate to increase transparency around the appointments process, you have to have a merits based appointments process. By starting to build particular parts into that then creates a problem in terms of the merits based process. In accordance with the bill, the commissioners are to be selected through a merits based process. It's publicly advertised so that qualified regional people who fit the skills required to be a commissioner are absolutely welcome, and should be encouraged, to apply. When advertised, I'm very happy to let the shadow minister know. If he thinks there are suitably qualified regional people that he's aware of, he should encourage them to apply. In addition to having the appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and expertise, the minister's appointment decision has to take into account representation from states and territories and local government areas. That is part of what I will do when I look at this. I say to the member: the very problem you have been writing to me about—and I've been pretty tardy in replying to you, and I apologise for that—is exactly the problem that I am dealing with. Because projects were announced without co-funding partners and they were reliant on the state, I have millions of dollars, in some cases, billions, sitting in the infrastructure investment pipeline that I simply cannot deliver. I have to make a decision. Do I basically say that we cannot deliver this project? I will work with states to try and do that, particularly along corridors like Princes Highway, which is a nationally significant road. I get that. It is incredibly important for the freight of our country. We saw that when we had those terrible fires through there. I visited your community, and having that road cut off for such a long time had a significant impact, not just on your community but on the whole country, in the way freight moved. So I am acutely aware of that. But the very problem you have highlighted is the problem that I've got. If I can't deliver a project, do I just leave that money sitting inactive in the pipeline forever? I can continue to say that I've promised this money. Or do I actually get on with delivering projects where I can employ people to improve infrastructure? That's what we're trying to focus on in terms of the review. And you did a lot of it, and that's the problem that we're facing. Again, I'll say that we won't be supporting this amendment. 09:53 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I commend the amendment to the House. It is important that those in rural, regional and remote Australia have a strong voice in terms of Infrastructure Australia. The Australian road network spans some 800,000 kilometres; 600,000 kilometres is under the management of local government, a disproportionately high proportion of which deals with rural, regional and remote communities. Before I go to my contribution, I want to highlight the fact that we've had from the minister perhaps a nomination for understatement of the year when she said to the shadow minister, 'I was a little tardy in my response to you.' My understanding is that that response came 10 months or so after the shadow minister wrote to her. If that's 'a little tardy', that is a meritorious nomination in the category of understatement of the year. Of course, questions around efficacy and tardiness—these are things that, I expect, are looming large in the minister's mind because the minister has held the exalted position of minister for infrastructure for 12 months or so, yet only in recent weeks have we received advice, and has the nation been told, 'We're going to undertake a root-and-branch review.' I can understand a newly minted minister in a newly elected government in the early days of that government coming into this place, sitting down and saying, 'You know what; I think we need to undertake a review of the infrastructure pipeline.' That would be fair enough. But I'll tell you what is 'a little tardy'—waiting almost 12 months to do that. All the time we're seeing costs of projects blowing out. Why? Because inflation in and around construction projects is running at six, seven or eight per cent. Of course projects are more expensive in May 2023 than they were in May 2022; that's the reality. But, in the time I have, I want to point out something that has emanated from this building like a shockwave that's hit road authorities right around the country, whether they're state based road authorities or local government based road authorities. The review I speak of was one that we anticipated would relate only to projects. We had a fair expectation of that because the minister herself indicated that this would relate to projects. In my own home state— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will resume his seat. I'm just going to remind him, like I did with the shadow minister, that there are four lines connected to this amendment regarding the schedule. He's had a pretty good go. I'm going to draw him back to the amendment. Mr PASIN 240756 I'm certain that if we had a regional officer at Infrastructure Australia, or someone connected to regional Australia, as one of the three commissioners appointed by the minister, they would be cognisant of how important the following programs are. Roads to Recovery is now under review. This is a program that has existed and operated continuously since 2001—so 22 years. With programs like Bridges Renewal, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity, and the national road maintenance network, a commissioner from regional Australia would understand their importance. But, I've got to tell you, the one that sticks in my craw a little bit is a program that dates back not to 2001 but to last century, to 1996. At a time when our nation is facing, sadly, an unprecedentedly high number of road deaths on our national road network, $110 million a year of continuous funding going to the black spot road safety program is under review. Surely the minister could have indicated, 'I want to undertake a root-and-branch review, but certain programs are absolutely off limits—Roads to Recovery and the black spot program at the absolute bare minimum.' A commissioner for regional Australia sitting on the Infrastructure Australia board would deliver that message to the minister, and she wouldn't find herself in the relatively hot water she now finds herself in. If she doesn't think it's hot right now, wait till she engages with the local government sector over the course of the next short while. Wait until she engages with state road transport ministers. They're angry, and they will be talking to her. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 77 AYES 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. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. 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. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 62 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:07 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (5) and (7) on the sheet revised 24 May 2023, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 22), after paragraph 5(c), insert: (d) to collect, analyse, share and publish cost and other project data on completed infrastructure projects for the purpose of producing reference class forecasts; (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), at the end of section 5A, add: (4) Infrastructure Australia must: (a) make an audit available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the audit to the Minister; and (b) cause a copy of an audit to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after giving the audit to the Minister. (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert: (8A) Without limiting subsection (7), the proposals covered by that subsection include proposals that involve capital expenditure of at least $100 million. (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add: (10) The summary of a proposal evaluated during a quarter must also include: (a) either: (i) if the proposal involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal prepared under section 5CA; or (ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under section 5CA; and (b) a summary of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the proposal. (5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 10), after subsection 5C(5), insert: (5A) An Infrastructure Plan must include relevant reference class forecasts. (6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), after section 5C, insert: 5CA Cost benefit analysis (1) Infrastructure Australia must not include a proposal in an Infrastructure Priority List referred to in paragraph 5(b) unless a cost benefit analysis of the proposal has been prepared in accordance with a method approved under subsection (2). (2) Infrastructure Australia must approve a method for preparing cost benefit analyses of proposals. The method must enable proposals to be compared. (3) Infrastructure Australia must cause a method approved under subsection (2) to be reviewed: (a) no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section; and (b) every 24 months after that first review. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), a review under that subsection must consider whether cost benefit analyses are adequately taking account of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits. (5) The report of the review must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website within 14 days of the report being approved by the Board. (7) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert: 5A Afte r paragraph 6A(2)(d) Insert: (da) the power to collect cost and other project data from infrastructure projects receiving public funding; (8) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 7, insert: 7A Before section 40 Insert: 39E Indexation of amounts (1) The amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) is to be indexed in accordance with the method determined by the Minister by legislative instrument. The method must provide for the amount to be indexed: (a) for the first time on a day in 2028; and (b) at least once every 5 years. (2) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A). (3) Subsection 5B(8A) and subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) are taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day. (9) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 19), before item 8, insert: National Land Transport Act 2014 7B Subsection 16(1) Before "Commonwealth funding", insert "Subject to subsection (1A),". 7C After subsection 16(1) Insert: (1A) If an Investment Project involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more, Commonwealth funding may only be provided if the project has been evaluated by Infrastructure Australia under section 5B of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. 7D After section 92 Insert: 92A Indexation (1) The amount referred to in subsection 16(1A) of this Act is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. (2) Subsection 16(1A) is taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day. (10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 12), after item 21, insert: 21A Subsection 5CA(5) Omit "Board", substitute "Commissioners". These amendments are simple improvements to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. They do two things. Firstly, they create a requirement that Infrastructure Australia publishes the infrastructure audits which it undertakes from time to time. It has surprised me to learn that no such requirement currently exists—that it is possible that Infrastructure Australia could take a strategic audit of the nation's infrastructure and not actually have to make that audit publicly available. Some would say that scenario is unlikely, and fair enough, but the standards of transparency in infrastructure investment are so parlous that I believe the parliament should legislate to require publication— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. There is far too much noise in the chamber. Ms SPENDER 286042 not just of these audits but of much more of the material which is used by government to consider infrastructure investments. The second thing this set of amendments does is to require Infrastructure Australia to collect project cost data once the projects are complete. It astonishes me that this is not already commonplace and that there are no established mechanisms by which we can learn the lessons from past projects to better inform our future decisions. There are already kinds of post-completion reports prepared by state governments, but these are not public, and, I understand, these reports are generally inadequate for any kind of learning. This should change, and my amendments would lay the foundations for this to begin. As I said, these changes are simple improvements to the bill which could have a large and positive impact on the value that Australians receive from the enormous amounts of money invested in infrastructure projects. The S 53517 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to, and I give the call to the minister. 10:09 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Again, I do recognise very much the spirit in which the member for Wentworth is engaging and has engaged in this debate, and that it's really about making sure that there is greater transparency in what is a really substantial investment by the Commonwealth. That being said, we're not supporting the amendments. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. If people are going to stay for the debate, they'll need to resume their seats. Simply standing around and talking while a minister or any member is talking is disorderly. The minister has the call. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR We won't be supporting the broad range of amendments today; I know you have talked to one in particular. There are a couple of things that I would like to say about that. The Commonwealth state and territory governments already analyse the costs of materials and labour required to build infrastructure projects, and this analysis informs project cost estimates. So, consistent with the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, the government expects IA to take a much more active role in the post-completion stage of projects. It hasn't done that to date, so the fact that we have put that in the bill is a really significant change to the way in which Infrastructure Australia operates now, including the collecting of data. The government is considering ways of making more data regarding infrastructure investments public, but that is not a matter for the IA Act; that is a matter we're discussing in the context of the next national partnership agreements. One of the things we have certainly learnt from the review that we're undertaking at the moment is that the timeliness of data that we receive from states and territories about where projects are up to needs to be improved substantially, and the way in which we report on where projects are is pretty significant. In terms of the publishing, whilst there is no requirement, they do publish the priority list, and I would imagine that would continue. What I am concerned about is that really what we're trying to do here is make sure that Infrastructure Australia remains an adviser to government for government decision-making processes, so not all of that information will be able to be made publicly available. Certainly we'll endeavour to make sure we make as much available as we can, but when it is a decision for government, and it's a cabinet decision, these are not the sorts of things we're intending to support, so we won't be supporting those amendments today. 10:12 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Thank you, Minister, for your comments. I guess my concern is that the government has repeatedly noted that there are enormous cost blowouts in infrastructure. We are not talking nickel-and-dime things; we are talking about billions of dollars. The Inland Rail infrastructure was costed originally at $8 billion, and the government has made a significant deal about the fact that it now is estimated to cost over $30 billion. Given the enormous growth in cost blowouts, I don't understand the government saying that its project cost estimates, the work that it's trying to do, couldn't be improved with reference classes and just basically looking at how much we pay for something compared to how much we originally costed it. Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has said that the best possible way for us to estimate the cost of infrastructure and big projects going forward is to use that history as information to drive these costings. I don't understand why the government is refusing to ensure that the costs that we have already paid are not put into the system so that we can learn from our past mistakes and make sure that we do not continue to waste government money with cost blowouts. As the government is well aware, we are in a budget constrained environment, a high-inflation environment, and this government has come to parliament saying that they will do things better and they will spend our money wisely. All I am trying to do with these amendments is make sure that the government is actually going to spend their money wisely and make sure that the government is actually ensuring that the costings are accurate and the information is responded to. To your point on the second point—that there is information that the government wants to hold; that these are decisions of government and this is information that the government wishes to keep private—this is hundreds of billions of dollars of the Australian public's infrastructure. The Australian public has paid for this, and we believe that it is absolutely appropriate to ensure that the Australian public gets the audit of the infrastructure that the Australian public owns and has paid for. I would like to ask the minister, through the chair, if the government would be willing to support any of my amendments if the questions were put separately. 10:14 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat The answer to that is no, partly because you've only just circulated them now, so there are some I haven't seen before, so my inclination is that I'm not going to make a decision about something that's a bit more complex than that. If you want to talk to us about what happens in the Senate, then, obviously, we will talk to you about that. What I would say is that a lot of the data you are talking about is actually the role of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. That is their role. It is not the role of Infrastructure Australia, which is partly why we're not supporting the amendments today. 10:15 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I thank the minister for their comments. The point of my question would be: if the department is doing such a great job of collecting this information, why don't we have it and why are we consistently having problems and cost blowouts with our infrastructure spending? If we had one database across the country of all these costings and were using that effectively, we could reduce this cost blowouts, and that is absolutely critical if we're going to have effective infrastructure spending. These are my significant concerns on this. I go back to Inland Rail, which was costed at $8 billion. It's now $30 billion. The CopperString project, which originated at $1.5 billion, is now at $5 billion, and the Queensland government has never released a business case demonstrating whether it provides value for money or not. These are questions of transparency, questions of integrity and questions of spending accountability. The community is expecting higher standards of government. The government has promised to do politics differently, and that is why I'm seeking these reasonable amendments to this bill. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hawke, A. G. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 15 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:26 Ms 286042 Wentworth SPENDER () (): by leave—I move amendments (3), (4), (6) and (8) to (10) on sheet revised on 24 May 2023: (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert: (8A) Without limiting subsection (7), the proposals covered by that subsection include proposals that involve capital expenditure of at least $100 million. (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add: (10) The summary of a proposal evaluated during a quarter must also include: (a) either: (i) if the proposal involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal prepared under section 5CA; or (ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under section 5CA; and (b) a summary of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the proposal. (6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), after section 5C, insert: 5CA Cost benefit analysis (1) Infrastructure Australia must not include a proposal in an Infrastructure Priority List referred to in paragraph 5(b) unless a cost benefit analysis of the proposal has been prepared in accordance with a method approved under subsection (2). (2) Infrastructure Australia must approve a method for preparing cost benefit analyses of proposals. The method must enable proposals to be compared. (3) Infrastructure Australia must cause a method approved under subsection (2) to be reviewed: (a) no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section; and (b) every 24 months after that first review. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), a review under that subsection must consider whether cost benefit analyses are adequately taking account of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits. (5) The report of the review must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website within 14 days of the report being approved by the Board. (8) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 7, insert: 7A Before section 40 Insert: 39E Indexation of amounts (1) The amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) is to be indexed in accordance with the method determined by the Minister by legislative instrument. The method must provide for the amount to be indexed: (a) for the first time on a day in 2028; and (b) at least once every 5 years. (2) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A). (3) Subsection 5B(8A) and subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) are taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day. (9) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 19), before item 8, insert: National Land Transport Act 2014 7B Subsection 16(1) Before "Commonwealth funding", insert "Subject to subsection (1A),". 7C After subsection 16(1) Insert: (1A) If an Investment Project involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more, Commonwealth funding may only be provided if the project has been evaluated by Infrastructure Australia under section 5B of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. 7D After section 92 Insert: 92A Indexation (1) The amount referred to in subsection 16(1A) of this Act is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. (2) Subsection 16(1A) is taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day. (10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 12), after item 21, insert: 21A Subsection 5CA(5) Omit "Board", substitute "Commissioners". These amendments replicate an amendment moved by the Prime Minister as the shadow minister for infrastructure in 2014. My thinking and my goals are the same as the Prime Minister's thinking and goals were at that time. The goal is to ensure that the government only invests in infrastructure projects that create benefits that are greater than the costs. To achieve this these amendments require that Infrastructure Australia cannot include projects on the infrastructure priority list unless they have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis and that analysis has returned a positive benefit. To ensure these analyses are undertaken in a reliable and consistent way without the selection of favourable variables the amendments require Infrastructure Australia to publish a standard methodology which must be used by proponents. The amendments then create the requirement that the Commonwealth not provide public funding to major projects which are not on the priority list. In line with the Prime Minister's amendment back in 2014, a major project is defined as one worth more than $100 million. You would think this would be an uncontroversial amendment as it's one that simply requires that public money be used prudently and one that was previously proposed by the Prime Minister himself, but the fact that almost a decade later it has not been legislated and that there is opposition by the Prime Minister and his government, as I understand it, suggests it is controversial. It is only controversial because it takes away the power of government to make investment decisions which are positive politically but negative economically. I am not confident that the past actions of Commonwealth governments warrant them having unilateral power to determine what should be funded, what should be a priority and whether the public has the right to see whether the project stacks up. I commend these amendments to the House. 10:28 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat We won't be supporting these amendments. The Independent Review of Infrastructure Australia recommended that IA's role in project evaluation relate to proposals with Commonwealth investment of $250 million or where projects are recognised as nationally significant. The monetary threshold also aligns with the Albanese government's focus on investing in projects that are truly nationally significant, not smaller projects in marginal electorates. It's for this reason that we're unable to support the proposal of the $100 million threshold. In relation to the undertaking around cost-benefit analysis, in accordance with the independent review, Infrastructure Australia will have the function of evaluating or endorsing evaluations undertaken by states and territories. The bill does not need to explicitly say 'cost-benefit analysis' because it is inherent that an assessment of a project would include an assessment of the benefits and the costs of the project. 10:29 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I thank the minister for her response. I would like to ask the minister two questions for clarification. The first is on the $250 million threshold. Is the minister saying that the government would support these amendments if the $250 million threshold were changed from the $100 million threshold? And the second piece is this. I note from the minister's comments that she notes that Infrastructure Australia will have the opportunity to create cost-benefit analyses. Now, I support that, but my question is: 'Shouldn't they be obliged to?' because, again, this is public money; it's absolutely critical that we have effective cost-benefit analysis of public money. I'd like to quote the Prime Minister's speech from 2014 when he raised this amendment and he said: Labor will seek to amend this bill to make it clear that infrastructure project selection starts with a measurement of cost benefit prior to any decision to fund. This is consistent with Labor's approach to the Building Australia Fund, where projects are required to be prior assessed by Infrastructure Australia. Labor will achieve this by making the $100 million about the capital value of the project rather than how much funding has been earmarked to it. This amendment will also ensure that projects nominated by the minister for evaluation are also assessed by Infrastructure Australia. Labor will also move to amend the Land Transport Infrastructure Act to make Infrastructure Australia assessment a pre-requisite for funding projects over $100 million in value. Finally, we will move amendments to require a standard method for cost-benefit analysis and to strengthen transparency. The government, if it is fair dinkum, should support these amendments. These are the words of the Prime Minister. This is my question back to the minister: is the government fair dinkum? And, if the government is fair dinkum about the need for strengthening transparency, then why don't they support this? I also want to quote the Prime Minister's own comments to me when I raised some of the questions relating to this bill in the House a couple of weeks ago, and the Prime Minister said: The legislation that is before parliament, moved by the infrastructure minister, will make sure that there's transparency and will make sure that there's proper analysis. That's because there's a finite level of resources, and that is why we should make sure that productivity drives that agenda going forward. That is what my government is committed to, and that's what we will get on with the business of doing. I ask the minister, respectfully: would the $250 million make a difference? As to the fact that Infrastructure will do this: I want a commitment within the legislation; why is that not possible? If the government has changed its mind or the Prime Minister has changed his mind in terms of what is needed, why have they changed their mind on what is important for transparency and accountability and making sure we get value for public money? 10:32 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I will just say a couple of things. Again, I think the member is being a bit broad in her interpretation of what the Prime Minister previously said, as that amendment is not exactly the same, and I think is being cute about that, to be honest. The second thing is that Infrastructure Australia will not be undertaking cost-benefit analysis, but they will undertake an analysis of the cost-benefit analyses that have been done by states and territories and project proponents. They will not actually initiate a cost-benefit analysis themselves, because currently they are bogged down with assessing multiple project analyses that have been done and what we want them to be able to do is to have a consistent analysis, a consistent framework for the country—because there isn't one; it's very variable across projects and across states and territories. We also want to free them up to be able to lift the level of the way in which cost-benefit analysis is done in this country—and that is their role; that is what we're trying to get them to do—rather than undertaking cost-benefit analysis on every single project themselves. So they will be evaluating whether the work on a project that has been done actually meets the quality of a cost-benefit analysis and then whether it is worthy of or available for Commonwealth investment. That is their role. You are changing the role and changing the bill in what you're actually asking to be done, so we won't be supporting that. 10:33 Ms SPE 286042 Wentworth NDER () (): I'd like to just make a note to the House that the minister just described it as 'cute' that I had put this amendment forward. We took the Prime Minister's own amendment to the drafters and said: 'Can you please replicate that in the Infrastructure Australia bill, given that, obviously, the act has changed over time since he made that piece.' That is exactly how it was done, and I'm happy to share the emails and the correspondence on that to prove that this is what I'm intending to do: exactly what the Prime Minister asked to do in the first place. In terms of the point that you raised about cost-benefit analysis and having consistency: I support having consistency in cost-benefit analysis, but what I'm asking for is that it is published, that it is available and that we do not fund things in this country, nor make any public commitments to funding, without effective cost-benefit analysis beforehand. 10:34 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin In the private sector no project worth $100 million would get through without a clear cost-benefit analysis showing that it makes sense. The same standards should be expected of taxpayers' money and how it is spent. Whether that cost-benefit analysis is done directly by Infrastructure Australia or by the states using a similar methodology is of less concern than the fact that there should be analysis that shows that it stacks up before money is allocated. I understand that with government projects often it is not just about economic benefit; you need to take into account environmental and social factors as well. There are methodologies to incorporate these, and economic benefits, into cost-benefit analysis, and this is actually addressed in the amendment. Australians don't want to see their money wasted. The amendments put by the member for Wentworth today are focused on ensuring that Australians can have some confidence that the money that is being spent on these huge projects is being spent well and on the right priorities. There will never be enough money to go around, and requiring open, transparent cost-benefit analysis with a common methodology will mean we are actually allocating money to the best projects, the ones that make the most sense for the country. I call on the government to hold itself to the standard that it was requesting the opposition to hold itself to in the previous parliament. Come through with the transparency that will actually rebuild trust in the ability of government to deliver projects. 10:36 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I concur with the member for Curtin and the member for Wentworth. The new government promised to lead differently, bringing integrity back into the House. Therefore, from my perspective, to not accept the member for Wentworth's amendment to be more transparent and to show what you're spending—I think the public would require that of any government in terms of big projects. I'm sure Tasmanian MPs and senators have been vocal about spending on the new Hobart stadium and are crying out for housing infrastructure projects. I call on the government to lead the way in changing the way that we make policies in the House and not to do the same thing that you accused the opposition of doing when in government. I really urge the government to consider the crossbench amendments in order to improve Infrastructure Australia, because infrastructure is really important for the country and for communities like Fowler, where we've had no investment in infrastructure at all. We have such a large population and migrant settlement there. With the 1.5 million people that we are going to bring to Australia, how are we going to proceed with the infrastructure planning of our country? I urge the government to really think outside of the square and really be genuine in terms of how they want to address and fix the problems with Infrastructure Australia. 10:38 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise today as the member for a community which is absolutely held to ransom at the moment by large infrastructure projects. I also rise today as the member for a community which is frequently ridiculed for having been the beneficiary of pork-barrelling under the last government—dare I mention the famous North Sydney Olympic Pool that keeps coming back to haunt both me and my community. What is true of us as a federal government and what I believe the federal government has the capacity to do is three simple things. Lead. Show the way forward for our country. Lead our states in what we want to believe as a nation is possible going forward. Coordinate, where that's possible. As the minister herself has said, try to set higher standards. Bring the states to the table on what is expected of them when it comes to agreeing and moving forward on large infrastructure projects. Finally, where appropriate, provide stimulus if it is warranted, whether that is human capital or financial stimulus. In the case of North Sydney, we have a number of major infrastructure projects that are currently proceeding, many without clear business cases. While I take the federal minister's point that it is not the federal government's role to mandate infrastructure at the state level, I do think the federal government has a really important role to play to ensure that, overall, our nation is developing positively and is doing so in a way which is consistent with what voters want to see. Australians are tired of having projects pushed through for political expediency. I would join with the member for Wentworth, the member for Fowler and the member for Curtin in really encouraging this government to be courageous and lead, which is the first thing we have the capacity to do. This is an opportunity to provide that power to Infrastructure Australia. I commend these amendments to the House. 10:40 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I appreciate that a number of members have just spoken, but I have a couple of additional questions to the minister. What is the government's policy if public investments don't stack up? Should they be prohibited? The second question I have is that there is an infrastructure pipeline with more than $100 billion of projects under development. Could the minister explain how much of this should be allocated to projects that don't stack up? Finally, how do we make sure that the government doesn't use pork barrelling, doesn't approve and support infrastructure and billions of dollars worth of the community's money to support projects that do not stack up? The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 64 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. 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. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:51 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert: 5DA Functions — annual statements (1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following: (a) an annual statement to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment; (b) an annual statement on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives. (2) Infrastructure Australia must: (a) make each annual statement available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the statement to the Minister; and (b) cause a copy of each annual statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the statement to the Minister. (2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert: 5A Paragraph 6B(a) After "consumer,", insert "community,". (3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 14), after item 6, insert: 6A Subparagraph 39B(b)(i) After "consumer", insert ", community". (4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 13), after subitem (5), insert: (5A) Section 5DA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of this item. I rise today to move my amendments to Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. I think it is one of my predecessors who actually said it best. Ted Mack, the only other independent to ever hold the seat of North Sydney, said: … government should be totally open to public scrutiny and elected representatives should enable people to not only participate in all decisions that affected them, but to ultimately find ways to have people make decisions for themselves. … the very basis of democracy is that a decision taken by the public as a whole would be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group … My first amendment, then, is straightforward on the face of it. It's just the insertion of one simple but vital word, and that word is 'community'. A community is a group of people who are similar in some way, who have something in common. In the context of my electorate of North Sydney, one of the things my community has in common is a deep concern for the quality of our environment, with clean air, shade for tree canopy and habitat for wildlife—all things which are currently being significantly impacted. There are currently three major infrastructure projects directly impacting my community for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade of the Warringah Freeway, the development of the Western Harbour Tunnel and planning around the Beaches Link. There are a multitude of smaller infrastructure projects, like sport and recreation facilities and bike ramps, that also lead to significant impact. As it stands, the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies or organisations, but not with community. In this way, this bill continues Infrastructure Australia's focus on economic and productivity gains for infrastructure, but it does not fully account for the social and community needs of our collective society, nor does it allow or require the organisation to look at the overall impact of any and all infrastructure projects or measures such as quality of life or the right of all to a safe and healthy environment. While the act does reference consumers, I do not believe that reference is adequate, as a consumer is a person who purchases goods or services for personal use; individuals with individual motivations and needs. Stronger outcomes will be reached if groups of people—that is, communities—whether brought together by geography or interest, have an equal say. Ultimately, through the development of infrastructure it is communities that are squeezed from all directions while the consumer will benefit frequently. If a body such as Infrastructure Australia is not mandated to look at the entire picture, who is? In this context, my amendment dramatically increases the role of communities like my community of North Sydney in the development of and decision-making around infrastructure projects. The amendment would strengthen the community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, audits existing infrastructure, compiles lists of priorities and develops plans, as well as when it is developing corporate plans and providing advice to governments and investments. My second amendment relates to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice. It would legislate recommendation 4 of the 2020 review, which called for two new annual statements to be tabled in parliament in the interests of transparency and accountability. All members in this place, as well as the media and voters, should be able to review the reports on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds. It's disappointing that the government has not accepted this recommendation from the review. The government's response to this recommendation has been to hide behind a shield of cabinet deliberations, but I find this argument uncompelling. There is nothing to lose in allowing others to see what informed conversations are taking place, for ultimately, it is only this sort of transparency that will enable Australians to see exactly what information and whose agenda is driving which decisions. The direction the cabinet goes will remain the cabinet's decision, but the decision should be able to be scrutinised in full light. For the Labor government to shy away from this level of transparency is to make it no less likely to pork-barrel than the last government, and surely Australians have made it clear that this has got to stop. Ultimately, both amendments, while simple, would enhance and improve the engagement of our communities in the planning of infrastructure, and I believe the government should support them. Thank you. 10:56 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today to speak in support of the member for North Sydney's amendments. I support the amendment which would require Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities in performing its functions. This amendment is inspired by my predecessor, the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who in 2017 introduced a private member's bill to strengthen Infrastructure Australia's social and community benefit considerations, because in Indi we want to make sure that if major infrastructure is being built in our region it will serve the community in the right way, and clearly the people of North Sydney think so too. The infrastructure that Cathy McGowan spoke of back in 2017 is still relevant in our communities today—telecommunications, road and rail. The Inland Rail program is a massive national infrastructure project, with a well-documented massive cost blowout. It's connecting a route from Melbourne to Brisbane, going straight through my electorate and redesigning the rail precincts in the towns of Euroa, Wangaratta, Benalla and Glenrowan. I have worked hard to advocate for these communities to have a say in the design of the program—communities such as Euroa, who have fought for years for their voices to be heard in decisions that will dramatically impact their town. So distressed were the communities along this rail link that they had to form an action group. They worked collectively and productively and in good faith, and finally ARTC listened to them. So effective were they in the end that communities from Queensland and New South Wales made contact with my office to get help as well, because they had not been consulted. The NBN is another national infrastructure project that is vital for regional communities. The NBN promised long-awaited crucial connectivity in regional towns, but it has fallen so well short of this promise. My office still hears constantly from communities like those in the Strathbogie shire, where NBN users face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts. Requiring Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities when it advises government on the merit and priority of infrastructure projects could prevent these massive community frustrations into the future. It would help deliver well-designed projects that actually benefit communities. In Indi, one significant road infrastructure project has been so poorly designed that it is now on the chopping block. In 2019 the former government announced $168 million to fix the unsafe McKoy Street intersection on the Hume Freeway in Wodonga. The former Prime Minister flew in and promised money. He promised to fix the road. Four years on, not one sod has been turned, not even to start the project—not one. And this week, during Senate estimates, the department revealed that another $190 million, on top of the $168 million, is required to deliver the upgrade. This is another massive cost blow out. It means the project is, effectively, dead in the water. Why has this happened? Why was the promise broken? Because the former government announced the decision without any community consultation, without any planning—God knows, without any costings! Not even a business case. The former government clearly had no idea what it would take to make the roads safe and no commitment, to the communities of Wodonga, to see it through. This is what happens when you treat infrastructure as a tool to win votes. This is not how government should make important infrastructure commitments. It is not how government should spend taxpayer dollars. Now the current government are threatening to kill off completely that project in Wodonga. Again, the community is left with their hands in the air. It's a disgrace that we're now in this position, and it is a broken promise to our community. Thousands of people drive through this very unsafe intersection every day. They deserve better than this. They deserve to be consulted. People must be at the centre of everything we do. This is why the member for North Sydney's amendments are so important. Infrastructure Australia should not only consider economics and productivity when it makes investment decisions; social benefits are just as important. Community benefit is important. Trust in government is important. If Infrastructure Australia consults with communities, this is one way to prevent what happened with the McKoy Street intersection in my electorate falling over, and it will prevent it from ever happening again. 11:01 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for North Sydney and the member for Indi for that and for circulating the amendments prior so that we could consider them properly, so we could look at them and engage with my office about that as well. We're not supporting them, for a couple of reasons. I absolutely recognise, when you are building large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly when state governments and local councils are planning, there often are really difficult decisions being made. Often the issues that you've raised—and the member for North Sydney, particularly, raised with the projects in her electorate—are actually state government decisions around design planning. I've certainly undertaken as part of the national partnership agreements, which expire in 2024, that when you and I have had a conversation we will look at the issues around the sorts of things we would expect state governments to do when they're in the planning process, and what consultation they'll have. So whilst I don't support the amendments that you've put forward, in relation to community, I recognise these projects do cause challenges, as that happens. In relation to the annual statements, I know the member doesn't accept this position but what I have been trying to do is—at the moment, to be blunt, Infrastructure Australia's advice is completely ignored. It's not part of the budget process. There's no process for it to advise ERC about requests from state governments. It's not part of the process at all. So I am trying to integrate it into the process. That means there does have to be some level of cabinet decision-making. I know people are desperate to have every piece of information that is available to government, but there are some things that we have to decide. That is the role we were elected for. It is what executive government does. We make decisions about things. Through freedom of information and all of the other processes, I request some of that. But if I'm able to actively make a decision about a project, it does need to be considered by cabinet. That means there are a multitude of views that will be discussed there and talked about, and Infrastructure Australia's advice is one of those. That's why we're not supporting it. I know you think that's me trying to not be transparent about it, but what I'm trying to do is say the reason I'm doing this in the first place is that that body is completely ignored and shut out of the process, and I want to bring it into the process. Bringing it into the process means that it is bringing it into cabinet deliberations. 11:04 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I thank the minister for her response. I want to come back to what we've heard our Prime Minister say, in this chamber, in the last month or so. The Prime Minister clearly articulated the principles when he told the House: The legislation that is before parliament, moved by the infrastructure minister, will make sure that there's transparency and will make sure that there's proper analysis. That's because there's a finite level of resources, and that is why we should make sure that productivity drives that agenda going forward. That is what my government is committed to, and that's what we will get on with … I would respectfully offer back to the minister that the legislation goes so far now as to identify that Infrastructure Australia is required to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies and organisations. Why not add community to that list? What is it about community that makes it the exception rather than the inclusion? I am yet to feel that there's been a compelling reason given for why community continues to be sidelined, particularly when community, as we all know at the moment, is contributing a significant—if not the most significant—portion of revenue to the government when it comes to the money that we are actually spending. To the second point, Minister, you make your point now that the reason Infrastructure Australia's advice can't be tabled is because if that level of transparency were to be brought into this process it would mean that the government would stop seeking the advice. Can I just stop there for a minute and just say how ridiculous that is. Sincerely, the best way to bring light to this is to mandate that Infrastructure's advice is tabled in parliament, where all Australians can see it. Then, I would suggest, what that actually does for the government is to then give you greater power to go back to others across the infrastructure environment to say, from a non-political perspective, 'We have independent advice here that is based on feedback from government, commercial, industrial, community, consumer, academic and professional bodies and organisations, and for this reason this advice can be valued above all others that may be offered with political merit.' It's not that I believe that you personally don't want to do this, Minister; it's really not. But I fear that what we have at the moment is a situation where your government has been granted this opportunity to lead our nation, off the back of a significant backlash against how we saw the last government behave, and, rather than reassure Australians that you are going to do it differently, that you are going to live this ambition that our Prime Minister has stated time and time again—politics done differently—all you've actually done is shift from one side of the chamber to the other, and the only group in this House that is actually interested in doing politics differently is sitting here on the crossbench. 11:07 Ms SP 286042 Wentworth ENDER () (): I rise to support the member for North Sydney's speech and amendments. I want to raise a question relating to this about transparency. The minister has said the government wants to be able to make cabinet-in-confidence decisions, but I am concerned that it is at the cost of transparency in this House. For example, in Senate estimates yesterday, there was a question to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts asking for information on projects that have been paused for review versus election commitments that would be delivered without scrutiny. The senator asked the department of infrastructure for a breakdown of election commitments by electorate and was informed that the new government has informed the department they cannot release information on a per-electorate basis. The issue for me and many people is that the government came to government saying that they would do politics differently—they would stop the pork-barrelling, stop the sports rorts and stop the car park rorts. This information should be provided on an electorate basis so that, in the House and across the community, we can assess: is this done for political reasons or is it not? We need to increase the transparency in this House, and that applies to whoever is in government, not just when the coalition is in government but absolutely when the Labor Party is in government too. 11:09 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I'm going to respond briefly to that point because you verballed the department there, so I'm going to clarify that. I have specifically said that my office and I will never use the practice of the previous government, where everything came up to their office electorate by electorate. I don't want my office to see projects by electorate. We should be determining those on the basis of a projects merit. We will release information on a local government area-by-area basis. That is what the department was reflecting. To stop the practice of where everything was done by electorate, I have deliberately asked my department not to provide me with information on an electorate-by-electorate basis, and that was what they were reflecting. So I don't want it to be seen that we're trying to hide information. I'm actually deliberately not asking for it by electorate for the reasons you've raised. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that amendments (1) to (4) moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [11:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

50 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. King, C. F. Landry, M. L. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 16 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. (Teller) Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:18 Ms LE 295676 Fowler by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (7) together as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 3), after "growth", insert ", with particular regard for migration and refugee settlement policy". (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 4), after "social", insert ", cultural". (7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (line 4), after "women", insert ", and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds,". Overall, my amendments seek to ensure that the government think about the plan for infrastructure in communities where there are large influxes of migrants and refugees, such as in electorates like Fowler. We have had over 10,000 refugees settle in our city in recent years with no infrastructure planning in place to deal with the growth of the community. Amendments (1) and (2) refer to the auditing responsibilities of Infrastructure Australia to ensure that the decisions they make will have particular regard to migrant and refugee settlement policies. I don't understand why communities like ours, who have had to shoulder the challenges of settling refugees and migrants, miss out on resources that would enable these newly arrived migrants or refugees to one day be able to stand on their own two feet and contribute back to this society. This amendment may be specific, but migrant and refugee policy ultimately affects Australians currently living here. We are about to bring in 1.5 million people, and therefore I would say that infrastructure is critical to sustaining the influx and the settlement of migrants. My electorate of Fowler has been a settlement city. More than 70 per cent of our population have parents born overseas or people speaking a language other than English. We are a settlement electorate, and we're proud of that. As a former refugee myself, I know that people like me have contributed so much to the rich cultural tapestry of Fowler, but our area is buckling from the pressure of having to accommodate more people with very little infrastructure support from successive governments. We are now facing a housing crisis and an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, three times the national average. With a second airport being built out in Western Sydney, major infrastructure such as rail projects must be designed so that we can connect major cities like Sydney, Parramatta, Liverpool and Fairfield to the Badgerys Creek airport. Amendment (7) refers to the particular clause in which Infrastructure Australia allows for affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women in their commission and advisory board. I really urge the government to also consider this point with relation to the appointment of people of culturally and linguistically diverse lived experience who have experience of infrastructure. In my previous life in the corporate sector, I have seen so many boards that do not reflect the rich diversity of our modern Australia. I hope that this will welcome the diversity of lived experiences in assessing infrastructure fairly so that all communities will ultimately benefit. After all, it's the wealth of diverse knowledge that will ultimately benefit everyone, from the highest levels of government to the communities across Western Sydney and in the regions. I ask the government to really consider my amendments above and to take action to ensure we do what's best for our diverse migrant and refugee communities. 11:22 Ms CATHERI 00AMR Ballarat NE KING (—) (): Again, the government won't be supporting the amendments. I do appreciate the spirit in which they have been raised by the member for Fowler, particularly in relation to amendment (1), which is reflective of the problems we have around settlement policy and around our urban centres at the moment. The intention behind the amendment is absolutely understood and appreciated. Having regard to population movement, particularly in relation to migration patterns, is a very important consideration when determining the adequacy, capacity and condition of nationally significant infrastructure. The existing wording of the bill clearly states that Infrastructure Australia must take into account population growth, so we believe that that adequately covers the intent of the amendment. In relation to amendment (2), again, the intention behind the amendments is understood and very much appreciated, but the existing weighting of the bill, we think, already covers the broad breadth of what you are seeking to achieve in terms of cultural diversity. In terms of amendment (7), as well, we are committed to increasing cultural diversity. The way the phrasing around affirmative action is at the moment is consistent with government policy about what we are trying to do around boards. But of course there is a broader piece of work that we are doing around multicultural policy and multicultural strategy overall, which is led by Minister Giles. I think when you see some of that work you will see much greater improvements in the way in which we include people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in a range of projects. 11:24 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise in support of the amendment moved by the minister—the member for Fowler! One day hopefully minister! There's a really subtle but important point that is being lost within this debate. Earlier today we saw the opposition move an amendment to try and ensure there would be someone who had significant regional and rural experience appointed to work with this board. We now have a member who is standing and asking respectfully that there be a requirement that somebody from a culturally and linguistically diverse background also be considered for appointment to this board. I've heard the minister now respond that she's confident that the contents of the legislation are such that they will bring about this diversity. What I would like to reflect back to the government of the day is that one of my understandings is that you are most proud of the fact that over 50 per cent of those who now sit in parliament for you are women. What I would like to point out to your party is that that, in large part, was brought about because of the quotas you set for yourselves and the commitment you made to ensure that that diversity was mandated in the way that your party structure moved forward. To go from that position to now adopting the opposite, which is: 'She'll be right. We don't need quotas or directions, because merit will get the right people there,' is to actually step away from what you have led so well on in the case of female representation. Respectfully, I would ask the minister to reconsider the amendment that is being offered by the member for Fowler. I think she is quite rightly arguing now for the next frontier of true representation for diverse communities when it comes to how legislation is developed. 11:26 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support the amendments that have been put forward by the member for Fowler. I think they are very important amendments. I think they are worthy of support not only from the crossbench; I'd like to see the opposition in here supporting them. These amendments go to key issues affecting regional Australia, and giving regional, rural and remote Australia a stronger voice when these vital decisions and recommendations are made. The reality is that there is still a great divide in this country between the cities and the bush, regional Australia. That divide exists in so many different ways. It's a divide of opportunity. It's a divide of services. It's a divide in health outcomes. It's a divide in education. It's also a divide in infrastructure. I really commend the member for Fowler for putting this amendment forward and making sure that Infrastructure Australia reflects the great diversity of our country, but also making sure that there is that rural and regional voice at the table. I think it's vitally important. I would encourage all members of this House to get behind these amendments and support the member for Fowler. 11:28 Dr SCAMP 299623 Mackellar S () (): I, too, would like to support the member for Fowler's amendments. We're having a big debate at the moment about voice and about people being heard. What we've had here this morning is asking for people's communities' voices to be heard. We've heard that for rural and regional Australia. We've heard it from the member for North Sydney, for communities to be heard. Now we're hearing it from the member for Fowler, for multicultural communities to be heard. This is essentially about our communities having a voice and having a say in these nationally important decisions. What is happening here is that we are asking for there to be greater transparency and greater inclusion of these different communities in our own society. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the amendments (1), (2) and (7) moved by the member for Fowler be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [11:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

42 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Neumann, S. K. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. 16 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:36 Ms LE 295676 Fowler by leave—I move amendments (3) to (6), (8) and (9) together: (3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert: 5A After section 6 Insert: 6AA Obligations of Minister — funding commitments (1) If: (a) the Commonwealth Government makes a commitment in relation to the funding of a nationally significant infrastructure project; and (b) Infrastructure Australia has not evaluated a proposal for the project; the Minister must, at the same time as the commitment mentioned in paragraph (a) is made, make publicly available a written statement of reasons for the funding of the project. (2) The statement of reasons must: (a) be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website; and (b) be tabled in each House of the Parliament, within 7 sitting days of that House, after the commitment mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is made. (4) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 10), before item 6, insert: 5B Before section 6A Insert: 6AB Obligation to respond to key advice etc. (1) The Commonwealth Government must formally, and publicly, respond to Infrastructure Australia's key advice, findings and recommendations within 12 months after the advice is given, or the findings or recommendations are made. (2) If the Commonwealth Government is unable to respond within the 12-month period mentioned in subsection (1), Infrastructure Australia may, on application by the Minister within that 12-month period, extend that 12-month period by no more than 6 months. (5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 9), after subitem (4), insert: Minister's obligations (4A) Section 6AA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to commitments made on or after the commencement of this item. (6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (before line 10), before subitem (5), insert: Obligation to respond (4B) Section 6AB of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to advice given, and findings and recommendations made, on or after the commencement of this item. (8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 10), after section 11, insert: 11A Disclosure of interests (1) A Commissioner must publicly disclose the following: (a) all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Commissioner has or may acquire and that conflict or could potentially conflict with the proper performance of the Commissioner's functions; (b) whether the Commissioner is, or has been, a member of, or affiliated with, a political party or an entity that has a connection with a political party (such as a lobby group or trade union); (c) whether the Commissioner is, or has been, an officer or employee of a local government body. (2) A disclosure for the purposes of subsection (1) must: (a) be made publicly available; and (b) be accessible on Infrastructure Australia's website. (9) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 20), after item 35, insert: 35A Before section 40 Insert: 39E Advisory Council (1) If an Advisory Council is established to assist or provide advice to Infrastructure Australia or the Commissioners, the Minister must ensure that: (a) each member appointed to the Advisory Council has appropriate and relevant qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience; and (b) at least one member of the Advisory Council has expertise in infrastructure planning for the following: (i) culturally diverse and low socio-economic communities; (ii) rural, regional and remote communities; and (c) the selection of each member of the Advisory Council is the result of a process that is merit-based. (2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not prevent the appointer of members of the Advisory Council: (a) taking affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women, and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, to positions; or (b) taking into consideration appropriate representation among States, Territories and local government areas in relation to appointments to positions. (3) Details of the members of the Advisory Council must be made publicly available on Infrastructure Australia's website. I believe my amendments are small but measured to ensure that we bring accountability, transparency and integrity back into Infrastructure Australia. We have heard this morning from the members for Wentworth, Curtin and North Sydney about the need for transparency and accountability when it comes to government allocating funding to those areas and communities most in need, in terms of infrastructure spending—not just in marginal seats and, as the member for North Sydney said, not to pork barrel into a seat that the government of the day would like to retain. Amendment (3) ensures that there is a reporting mechanism for the minister to announce a major funding commitment to a project that is not listed as a priority on the Infrastructure Australia website. As I stated during the 2019 federal campaign, only one of the coalition's 71 transport promises valued at $100 million or more had a business case approved by Infrastructure Australia. For Labor it was two out of 61 projects, according to the Grattan Institute. The minister's written response must be publicly available and tabled in parliament to ensure complete transparency. Similarly, under amendment (4), the government must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's key advice and findings within 12 months. Initially, it was recommended that this should be a six-month period by an independent review into Infrastructure Australia; however, after discussions with the minister's office, I understand that this may be a burden, given the huge number of findings and recommendations they must receive. So I ask you to consider conducting this response within a 12-month period. It's worth noting that this independent review into Infrastructure Australia was led by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak. They have had substantial experience in Infrastructure Western Australia and in the department of infrastructure. Amendment (8) will compel any commissioners or advisory council members to publicly disclose whether they were or are part of a major political party or affiliated with a political party, such as if they were part of the executive of certain lobby groups or trade unions. While this doesn't stop people with vested interests from being on the commission or advisory council, it gives the public the opportunity to know who is making certain infrastructure decisions. We owe our constituents that much. Amendment (9) seeks to legislate some aspects of the advisory council. Given they will be advising on massive infrastructure funding projects worth over $250 million, we want to ensure that there is integrity within these appointments, and they must have the relevant expertise for such funding decisions, particularly if it impacts so many communities across Australia who are in desperate need of new roads and public transport links. We all pay taxes, we all need roads and we all need public transport. We must focus on the priority areas and communities that are in dire need first. 11:39 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I will be very brief here; I notice the time is ticking on a bit for everyone. Can I just say that a number of the amendments you have raised go to similar points that others have made, so I won't recanvass those. In terms of the processes for disclosure of interests of members, there are already processes and legislation in place that govern the conduct and disclosure of accountable authorities, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. Additionally, of course, there is a process underway at the moment through the finance minister in which Lynelle Briggs is looking at the appointment to boards and conflict-of-interest issues. We would allow that process to play out. If any changes were to be made, they would be made across the breadth of government entities, not just this particular one, which is why we're not supporting it today. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [11:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 48 AYES Aly, A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. King, C. F. Landry, M. L. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 16 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:54 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (line 30) to page 13 (line 1), omit paragraph 8(3)(b), substitute: (b) the appointment process set out in section 10A has been complied with. (2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 2), after section 10, insert: 10A Appointment process (1) This section applies to the following appointments: (a) the appointment of a person to be the Chief Commissioner or a Commissioner under section 8; (b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chief Commissioner or a Commissioner under section 10 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more. (2) An appointment must not be made unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates. (3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (4) In this section: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. The government has stated that its intention in the infrastructure amendment bill is to: … make Infrastructure Australia (IA) a stronger, more focused expert adviser to the Australian Government. Part of this includes the establishment of a new governance structure. My amendments today seek to ensure that there is greater independence and transparency, and therefore integrity, around the appointments of this new governance structure. This year I introduced a private member's bill to improve governance in the process of recruiting for major Commonwealth public appointments. This bill is called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023 and seeks to end the culture of 'jobs for mates' that had become so pervasive in the most important Commonwealth public appointments. Across the country, including in my electorate of Mackellar, building greater integrity into our political system is and still will be one of the most important issues for our electorates. My private member's bill, if it was implemented, would establish a comprehensive framework to ensure that all major public Commonwealth appointments are made independently and transparently, and that appointees are of the highest quality and expertise. My amendment today, therefore, aims to improve the independence and transparency of the appointment process of the three commissioners that are to replace the Infrastructure Australia board. Let me be clear: the independence of this selection process and the expertise of a candidate or a nominee are quite separate. Selections requiring the quality of the candidates with the highest credentials are absolutely vital. But the quality or merit of a candidate is a very different thing to the independence of the selection process. We all know about the long history of politically motivated decisions when it comes to infrastructure—the pork barrelling. I was pleased to hear from the minister for infrastructure today that the government is determined to make sure that projects are decided on their merits and to stop the practice where decisions are made on an electorate-by-electorate basis. But let me provide an example where maybe this trust has been undermined—a personal example from my electorate. There's a road in my electorate, the Wakehurst Parkway, and $75 million for improvements to that road was taken out from the October budget. It is a road that Infrastructure NSW has agreed should be of the highest priority. It is congested, dangerous and floods six to seven times a year. Not only that; it is the major artery to our major hospital, and, being a peninsula, there are not many other ways to get there—so when it floods it prevents people from getting lifesaving services at the hospital. I was told in meetings with the infrastructure minister that the government would no longer be funding state road projects. However, I was quite alarmed at that, as, two months prior to this, there was $100 million announced in the electorate just north of me, the electorate of Robertson. There was $100 million granted for upgrades to, you guessed it, a state road. We need to be able to trust the decisions that are being made. Yes, there might have been a process behind that but I don't know what that process was and the people in my electorate don't know what that process was. We need greater independence and greater transparency around these decisions, and it comes right down to how the appointment process is done when we appoint these major commissioners to Infrastructure Australia. In this amendment I am seeking to ensure that the appointments process of the three commissioners to Infrastructure Australia that will replace the board is far more transparent and independent and at arm's length from the minister. Currently, the appointments are made at the minister's discretion. I am calling for an independent selection panel. This independent selection panel would shortlist the candidates with the right expertise, and the minister would be able to choose from that shortlist and would still have an element of discretion left to them in being able to choose the final appointment from that shortlist. Polling done by The Australia Institute in February this year showed that when it comes to appointments to government bodies over two-thirds of Australians believe that only candidates who have been shortlisted by an independent selection panel— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Your time has concluded, but I'd also remind you to always make your remarks directly relevant to the specific amendment before the House. I give the call to the honourable member for Mackellar. 12:00 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar As I turn to the current bill under debate, if this bill passes then one of Infrastructure Australia's functions will be to identify nationally significant infrastructure needs and identify any gaps. Its priority lists would focus on nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals. With the amount of infrastructure expenditure at issue here for the role the government sees Infrastructure Australia playing, it is critical that the people tasked with executing that role and overseeing that expenditure are appointed during an independent recruitment process. Three commissioners are going to replace the Infrastructure Australia board if this bill becomes law. Those commissioners are going to be responsible for ensuring the performance of Infrastructure Australia's functions. Australians are entitled to transparency and independence in appointments to those positions, which my amendments to this bill would ensure. I'm trying to ensure that there is not a jobs-for-mates culture in the new Infrastructure Australia. We know it was a jobs-for-mates culture which caused the Attorney-General to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal last year. We need greater trust in our institutions. When it comes down to it, we need to be able to trust the independence of those really important Commonwealth public appointments. The Infrastructure Australia commissioners will be making major nation-building decisions worth billions of dollars. Australians need to be able to trust that they are making decisions in the best interests of Australians, and these amendments will ensure that process is done independently, and we move away from the pork-barrelling and politically motivated decisions of the past. Thank you. 12:01 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thank you very much to the member for Mackellar. I recognise, through your private members' bill, that this is an issue you feel very strongly about. That being said, again I won't be supporting these amendments. Under the bill I can't appoint someone as a commissioner for Infrastructure Australia unless I am satisfied that that person has the appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and experience, and that they have gone through a publicly-advertised merit-based selection process, which has included, in boards I have appointed people to previously, a panel. In fact, it's normally through the Public Service Commissioner that the panel is done, so to some extent it's already happening. That is the process we've embedded in this bill in relation to the commissioners. As you know, we've let you know more publicly that Lynelle Briggs is undertaking a look at the way in which board appointments are done more broadly. We're not going to pre-empt that process because that process would apply across the board to all ministers and all portfolios, not just to specific areas. 12:03 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar With regard to the inquiry into the integrity of board appointments that's happening, in this case, for Infrastructure Australia, it is actually the commissioners, not the board, that are being looked at. I understand that, yes, that inquiry is ongoing, but, in this case, it is actually commissioners that are being appointed and so not relevant to that inquiry. 12:03 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support the amendments brought forward by the member for Mackellar. As you peruse the amendments, they seem very reasonable. They certainly do make an important contribution towards the independence and transparency in the appointment of commissioners. I think they are worthy of the support of all members of this House, and I will be supporting them. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [12:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 57 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Vamvakinou, M. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 16 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 32 12:12 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. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 32

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 32 12:13 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth This is a simple proposal. It is modest. The Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community asked for the Voice. It is in their Uluru Statement from the Heart, and they overwhelmingly support it today, as do many people in Wentworth. Wentworth people know that this is a question for the Australian people, not for politicians. So many in my community are doing what they do best when they want change—they are organising. We already have over 250 people signed up to volunteer to engage our community on this referendum, people who recognise this generous invitation and realise it's up to all of us to make this happen, to help inform the community, to have respectable conversations and, ultimately, to deliver a successful referendum. I would particularly like to thank Jonathan Potts, Margot and Rod Cunich, Susie Scott, Sigrid Kirk, Gene Ross, Mehera San Roque, Nicole Abadee, Ann Sloan, Robyn Edwards, Sally Snow, Michele Ferguson, Jack Frisch, Annette Guerry, Peter McEvoy, Kath Naish, Ellen Finlay, Lyndell Droga, Miranda Smith and others for being the vanguard on this. I'll finish with an extract from a speech that Rachel Perkins, the celebrated film-maker, made recently at our Wentworth for the Voice launch. Rachel told us: 'This referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. If we win, this will have been an extraordinary moment of unity. It will not only lift Indigenous people but will be recognition of non-Indigenous Australians, who can say: "We have stood by First People. We have acknowledged their rightful place in this country."' It is time to say yes. I support this bill. 12:15 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby The electorate of Boothby, which I am honoured to represent here today, is on Kaurna Yerta, the unceded lands of the Kaurna people. I pay my respects to Kaurna people, on whose lands I live, and also to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri, on whose lands we meet today, and to all First Nations people present. Later this year, all Australians will be presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move forward reconciliation with our Australian First Nations people. It's an opportunity to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution and to do it in the way that they have asked us to, a way that will enable the Australian government to hear directly from First Nations people when we are making laws that affect them. First Nations people called for a voice to parliament through the Uluru dialogues, an extensive nationwide consultation process that took place formally over 2015 to 2017 and drew on the voices of First Nations people over decades of activism, and finally the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The referendum will be the opportunity for the Australian people to say: 'Yes, we're hear you. We understand and we back you.' I've spoken before in this place about my background working in public health. A core principle of public health is that we are all experts in our own lives. Lived experience should be valued, listened to and respected, and this is the fundamental principle behind the Voice—nothing about me without me. The Voice will enable, in a permanent way, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide input into how taxpayer dollars are best utilised to have the outcomes that will make a difference for their communities and their individuals. We know this is necessary because the gap between Indigenous Australian and non-Indigenous Australians in terms of life expectancy, health, educational outcomes, child mortality—so many areas—is not narrowing nearly fast enough. For decades we have tried and we have failed to reduce the gap in outcomes when it comes to life expectancy, chronic disease, educational attainment, incarceration, and literacy and numeracy, so it is time to try something different. It is time to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to tell parliament and the executive government what it is that they need. The idea of the Voice to Parliament is being put to the Australian people, and so it is right and appropriate that various and sometimes conflicting arguments are articulated, discussed and debated. However, I'm saddened by some of the misinformation that is being put up as argument by those opposite. I'd like to take some time to address some of the most common critics of arguments against the Voice. I've heard those opposite claim that they do not support the proposal because they want to see practical change on the ground for First Nations communities, as if it is a binary choice that these two things don't co-exist together or can't co-exist together. I'd point out to those opposite: you had nine years to make a difference, and the Closing the Gap targets would say you did not achieve that. Only four targets are on track and some targets are going backwards. That's a lot of effort, a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer money that was put towards some very valid goals, but it was done without input from First Nations communities and from First Nations individuals about what they wanted and about what would work with them. Of course it didn't work. Perhaps if you'd first consulted with First Nations people as to what actions should have been taken you would not have waited so much time and taxpayer money on efforts that didn't help and on efforts that in some instances made things significantly worse. We are all in favour of practical and urgent action on the ground, but we are in favour of ensuring that these practical actions work and that they're done in partnership with First Nations people and with their inputs into decision-making. When I talk to my community in Boothby about what this means, the sorts of things that I hear back from them are the terrible things that have been done in our name that have cost taxpayer money but, more importantly, have cost Aboriginal lives, opportunities and communities. I'm thinking about things like the removal of children. In Boothby we have Colebrook Home, which was a place that existed from the 1940s through to the 1980s, where Aboriginal children from across South Australia, including Lowitja O'Donoghue, were taken from their families and communities and brought up in Blackwood. The house is no longer there; now it is Colebrook Blackwood Reconciliation Park, thanks to the efforts of the local Blackwood Reconciliation Group, who recognised the damage that was done on this site and the pain that this particular site has. If you happen to be in Boothby, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I would love to take you up there to have a look at the statues, the remembrance and the information that is there that talks to the damage that was done to Aboriginal people on that site. We've heard that this process has been rushed, as if the last referendum committee was the only thing that had been done—and leaving aside, of course, generations and decades of Aboriginal activism asking for their own voice and asking for recognition. Coming back a little more recently: in 2010 the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians was established following bipartisan commitment to recognition in the 2007 election. The expert panel reported back in 2012. In 2015 the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, about steps towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, was set up. The Uluru statement itself emerged from a series of regional dialogues held across Australia. It began when the government established the Referendum Council to oversee a First Nations-led deliberative process. Through late 2016 and the first half of 2017, more than 1,200 Indigenous leaders across Australia took part in 13 First Nations regional dialogues. This process culminated in the First Nations National Constitutional Convention held at Uluru in May 2017. It is from this process that the Uluru Statement from the Heart came to be. This was then examined by committees under the previous government. In 2018 the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition handed down its final report and recommended a co-design process to develop models and options for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. That co-design process started in 2019, and the report was released in 2021. The outcome of these committees recommended that a voice enshrined in the Constitution is the only way forward. A 270-page document detailed what a model might look like. For those opposite to throw out all of this hard work done by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders across so much time and to say: 'You have to start again. Not good enough. Thanks for all your work. We're going to ignore it,' is unbelievably insulting. An enormous amount of time, work, goodwill and consideration has gone into this proposal, and to call it rushed is a nonsense. Those opposite also claim that there is an unacceptable legal risk in making this proposed change to the Constitution. Bret Walker SC, who appears in the High Court more than pretty much any other barrister in Australia, disagrees. He said that the idea that the voice would be: … somehow jamming the courts from here to kingdom come as a result of this enactment, is really too silly for words. The Voice is very clearly an advisory body. It would provide the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into decision-making for government, so that we, the government, when we're making laws and policies that affect the lives and communities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, can make informed decisions. Surely more information is a good thing. There is nothing in the wording that requires that the advice be sought, nor that it be followed or adhered to. Hence, it would be difficult to make an argument in court that these things should have or had to have happened. The Solicitor-General's advice makes clear that the Voice as proposed here is not merely compatible with Australia's existing system of representative and responsible government but an enhancement of that system. Further, I have heard those opposite say that this would be divisive—that we would be introducing race into the Constitution. As if it isn't already there! Section 25 of the Constitution already allows for states to disenfranchise races. Section 51 of the Constitution, the part that was amended in the 1967 referendum, allows the federal government to make laws based on race. The only laws that we make based on race are those that are specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and for that reason it seems entirely appropriate that they have the opportunity to provide us with information so that we can make appropriate decisions. That is what the Voice is about. The Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum completed its inquiry on 12 May 2023. It made a single recommendation: that this bill be passed without amendment. That is exactly what this parliament should do. It's time. It's past time. Once this bill is passed, Australians will be asked a simple question. They will be asked to approve an amendment to the Constitution with the following words: 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? I encourage all Australians to find out the information that they need. A leaflet will come out that will give them the information for both the 'yes' vote and the 'no' vote. That is where you need to read your information. Please do not follow the misinformation and the scare tactics that we have seen. I have to say, if the 'no' vote is so strong, I wonder why they have to resort to scare tactics. I encourage all Australians to vote yes. You have nothing to lose. We have everything to gain. More importantly, our First Nations communities, our First Nations individuals, have absolutely everything to gain, because it is beyond time that we address the issues that affect them, issues in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, childhood education, employment, housing, health—all of the things that we as Australians hold dear to our hearts as part of our quality of life. We need those things to also be here for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and individuals so we can walk together on the road to building a better future for us all. 12:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Later this year, we will be asked to vote in a referendum to make a significant, binding and permanent change to our Constitution. Everyone voting has the same say. No-one's view is more important than anyone else's. Celebrities and politicians just get one vote, like everybody else. It is important that our discussions are conducted in good faith and with mutual respect. This referendum is not a decision for companies or unions or sporting codes or any other group. These groups have no standing under our Constitution, but, as Australians, you do. Such groups can represent whatever views they like. They're entitled to do that. It's a free country, and we celebrate that. However, while keenly interested in the NRL's opinion on hip-drop tackles and the six-again rule, I don't think I'll be referring to them for constitutional advice in making my decisions on this matter. So I offer these few thoughts and observations as one Australian to another—one who has the privilege to make such contributions as a member of this place—recognising that my views may not fully accord with others in this place or elsewhere, but to make clear my views and the reasons for them, especially to my constituents of Cook. The government is seeking to establish a new, permanent constitutional body called the Voice, through which exclusive consultation rights will be granted to Indigenous Australians, not afforded to any other group of Australians. While not sharing the same powers, the new body will be established alongside other significant constitutional bodies—namely, our parliament, our executive government and our courts. Once established, the Voice cannot be removed by the parliament, as proved necessary when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission became dysfunctional and was rightly and successfully abolished by this parliament. As a constitutional body, the Voice will also have constitutional powers that have not been tested before and can never be constrained. This is a big deal. It constitutes a major change to our Constitution, with far-reaching implications, many of which are not yet known and, importantly, will not be known at the time Australians are asked to vote. The government's proposal for a constitutional Voice is fundamentally different to the many successful remedial initiatives in the past that have sought to affirm recognition, rightly, of Indigenous Australians and address the many injustices and inequalities faced by Indigenous Australians. In 1967, the Holt Liberal government initiated an important and successful referendum to change our Constitution to honour the principles of Indigenous recognition and national unity. The Holt referendum gave long-overdue recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as citizens of our nation and ensured they were counted in our official census. Up until this time, they had been treated as lesser Australians under the Constitution. This was wrong, and it needed to be corrected. The successful referendum remediated a deficiency in our Constitution that was causing unequal treatment of fellow Australians. It was an important and necessary change that enjoyed widespread community and bipartisan support. The 1967 Holt Liberal Government referendum brought Australians together. In 1992, the High Court handed down its famous Mabo decision on native title. This corrected the long-held historical application in Australia of the principle of terra nullius, which had denied native title rights to Indigenous Australians. In 1993, the Keating Labor government passed the Native Title Act to create a framework for the management of native title. This act was then amended by the Howard Liberal government in 1998 to address issues arising from the Wik decision of the High Court on these matters. These actions of the High Court and the parliament were remedial. They addressed defects in our understanding and the application of our laws and rectified the denial of rights to Indigenous people. It demonstrated the effectiveness of our existing Constitution at work. In 2008, the Rudd Labor government initiated the national apology to Indigenous Australians and established the Closing the Gap program. I was pleased to stand in support of the apology in our national parliament as one of my very first acts as the member for Cook in this place. The apology recognised the injustices experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and subsequently committed tens of billions of dollars in programs, on a bipartisan basis, to address Indigenous disadvantage. I was pleased to serve in and, as Prime Minister, lead a government that honoured and built upon this work. In March of 2020, as Prime Minister, I entered into the first ever Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap. For the first time, all Australian governments, federal, state and local, entered into a genuine partnership with the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations to work together to deliver essential services to Indigenous Australians on the ground to close the gap, with all of us taking responsibility. This was backed up by our implementation plan, which committed an additional $1 billion for specific new measures in Indigenous health, education, justice and employment. We also took practical action on reconciliation, committing $316.5 million to build the new Ngurra Cultural Precinct in the Parliamentary Triangle here in Canberra, which will include a national resting place to care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains. This will rectify a longstanding omission and represent an important addition and contribution to the physical and cultural institutions of our national capital. We also delivered $378.6 million for the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme for survivors in the Northern Territory and the ACT, including the Jervis Bay territory. We also progressed our plans for a legislated voice to parliament, commissioning Professors Marcia Langton and Tom Calma to prepare a detailed report on the establishment of local, state and national voices. In January 2021 as Prime Minister I initiated a simple but important change to our national anthem that recognised an important truth about our country. No longer would we sing about being young and free. Rather, as Australians we would now sing that we are one and free. This meant we understood and celebrated Australia as an ancient land that was home to the oldest living culture on our planet. Importantly, it also acknowledged that as Australians we were one and all equal under our Constitution. All of these remedial actions were designed to address Indigenous disadvantage and amplify the voice of Indigenous Australians within our democracy while observing the important constitutional principle that no one group should ever have any greater rights than any other in our country. The government's proposed changes to our Constitution will change this, permanently creating different rights for one group of Australians over others based solely on race. That is the opposite of what has previously occurred, especially in relation to the 1967 referendum where our Constitution was changed to give Indigenous Australians the same rights as all other Australians. What is proposed here is not the same thing. The impact of the Voice on the operations of executive government and the parliament are also not known, presenting significant and unknown risks that cannot be easily remedied, if at all. It is ill-defined, creating significant constitutional risk. Ultimately the High Court will be left to decipher the unknown and decide what this all means, long after Australians have cast their vote with no further say. This will inevitably lead to confusion and uncertainty over everything from our national defence to the operations of Centrelink, which all fall within the ambit of the Voice. There are no limits. Once our Constitution is permanently changed, the scope and role of the Voice will appropriately be open to interpretation by the High Court, who will then also be able to overrule both our elected parliament and our elected executive government in the future in relation to the role and conduct of the Voice. The Leader of the Opposition has noted that the government has refused to define these issues or follow the past practice of convening a constitutional convention to ensure that they are better understood and that any unintentional consequences can be remedied before Australians are asked to vote. The government also refuses to consider any changes to its proposal that would genuinely minimise these risks. This not only reflects a failure of process but imposes the government model on the Australian people rather than listening, responding and uniting all Australians. Finally, there are two additional important points to note about the government's proposal. Firstly, it is not necessary to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution to deliver constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians that enjoys broad support. It is wrong to conflate the issues of the Voice with constitutional recognition and treat them as inseparable. They are entirely separable. Furthermore, seeking to achieve constitutional recognition by the government's method creates numerous and needless risks. Constitutional recognition enjoys bipartisan support and can be achieved through minor amendments to our Constitution that do not compromise the efficient conduct of government and the parliament or needlessly divide Australians. As Prime Minister I was supportive of constitutional recognition and wished to achieve this in a way that would bring Australians together. The Labor Party made it clear from the outset that it was the Voice or nothing, leaving no room for compromise. I chose not to divide the country over the issue, especially as it would have had no material impact on the welfare of Indigenous peoples, which was my principal concern and that of all Australians. Secondly, there is no impediment to establishing a body such as the Voice under national legislation through our parliament. We do not need to change the Constitution to achieve this and therefore can avoid realising the risks that come with such a significant and permanent change to our Constitution. Such a process would enable any such body to be properly defined and road-tested through the parliament. This was my government's policy. Our priority was to first see such bodies created at a local and regional level, to help provide direct input from local Indigenous communities into local and regional programs to close the gap and improve the lives of Indigenous people on the ground, where it mattered most. Once established, such local and regional bodies would also make the creation of a nationally legislated voice more possible and would be more truly representative of local Indigenous communities. Ours was not a top-down approach from Canberra. This referendum is not a vote about whether Australians wish to support and do everything they can to recognise and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. We all agree on this, and we can all say yes to this, but that is not the question the government is proposing. It is true that governments of all political persuasions have failed Indigenous Australians over multiple generations. However, it is also true that much progress has been made based on a shared and deep commitment that transcends political boundaries. In my time in this parliament, there have been strong, positive bipartisan steps taken to try and solve extremely complex and often intractable problems. Indigenous Australians need the programs we invest in to be more effective, and we all remain committed to this goal. Permanently changing the Constitution in the way the government proposes will, sadly, not change the desperate circumstances being experienced in so many Indigenous communities across Australia. I understand that that is the hope of the proposal, and hope is a good thing, but hope disappointed will be crushing to the soul, and such disappointment can be reasonably foreseen upon proceeding with the government's proposal. In my experience, we will make better progress on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians by focusing on what we can agree to get done on the ground, rather than gambling with our Constitution. For these reasons, I consider that the government's proposal to permanently change the Constitution, while positively motivated, is poorly constructed. It presents serious and unnecessary risks both known and unknown to the operations of the executive government and our parliament, upon which all Australians depend. Such deficiencies cannot be overcome or mitigated by the good intentions and sentiment of their creation. It also fundamentally breaks one of our nation's most important principles: that as Australians we are all equal and none of us are any more Australian than any other. As Australians, we are one and free. I believe we need to keep it that way and therefore cannot support the government's proposal at this referendum. That said, I remain committed to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and to all Australians being treated equally under our Constitution, and I look forward to the day when such a proposal is brought forward in a way that unites rather than divides our country. That proposal will have my enthusiastic support. 12:42 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari There are critical moments in political careers in which one gets the opportunity to be part of something bigger, to take a stand and work towards a brighter future. The Voice to Parliament represents such a chance for all of us in this place and in Australia, a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I want to pay tribute to the leadership of our Prime Minister for advancing the cause of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It would have been easy to put this in the too-hard basket, just like the member for Cook did for many years. It would have been politically understandable for him to take a back seat, yet he has shown a remarkable degree of courage. As he so eloquently puts it, if not now, when? I want to pay tribute to our Minister for Indigenous Australians, my friend the member for Barton, Linda Burney. Our mob are not easy taskmasters. They demand a lot from their representatives. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has charted this government a path that has put Indigenous affairs at the centre of government policy, and she has done it with grace and strength. Thank you. I think of Senator Jana Stewart; my colleague the member for Robertson, Gordon Reid; and other First Nations people, but I in particular think about Senator Dodson and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. We all know we're not elected, paid and given privileged positions to make easy decisions. We're expected to confront real issues with character and conviction. I want to acknowledge those opposite who have shown character and conviction. To all my Labor colleagues: you have all shown that this side of parliament has what it takes to bring our nation together, to heal deep wounds and to take courageous steps forward. I know it's not easy to stand up to do better. I know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will acknowledge and appreciate the sense of integrity you all bring to your jobs. I also want to recognise the work of the former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt. I have huge respect for our former Indigenous Australians minister. Regardless of our political colours I always enjoyed working with Ken. He is a person who cares deeply for our people. To have him join the yes campaign is a big moment, and I recognise his continual advocacy to try and make things better for First Nations people across the country. This is not a political campaign in the normal sense, nor should it be; this is an extension of a long history of advocacy from First Nations leaders stretching back to at least the early years of the century before the one we are in now. I want to spend a few moments reflecting on the struggle of how we have come to this moment—a struggle I hope the Australian people will appreciate for all its hard-fought nature and dogged perseverance. For over 60,000 years our First Nations people have inhabited this land. First Nations people cared for country, undertook trade, formed complex social structures and developed unique spiritual and cultural practices. We are the first inhabitants of this great continent and have been intricately connected to its land and waters for countless generations. In 1770 Captain Cook navigated the east coast of Australia. He and his crew observed Aboriginal people occupying parts of the coastline during the course of their journey. Cook had instructions on behalf of the King which told him: You are also— and this is really important— with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors. Australia was never uninhabited, and the British did not have the consent of the natives to set up colonies here. Notwithstanding that, towards the end of his trip up the east coast Cook climbed a hill on a small island a few miles north-west of the coast of Cape York. He performed a simple ceremony in which he claimed the whole of eastern Australia for the Crown. There was no plan at the time to set up a future settlement; the main point of this exercise was to make a claim as against other European nations—in particular the French. When the British came back to Australia in 1788 for the purposes of setting up a penal colony, it was different. This time Governor Phillip's instruction didn't mention getting the consent of the natives, and he was told to claim all territory westward to align right down the middle of what became South Australia and the Northern Territory. Unlike Cook in 1770, the British in 1788 didn't have a look and then leave; they stayed. What the British did in Australia was different from what they did in other parts of the world when establishing their colonies. The international law of the day and the recognised practice of the British themselves required engagement with Indigenous people occupying the land the British wanted to colonise. Terra nullius was the toxic pretence utilised to ignore their own rules and justify this massive land grab. The moral bankruptcy of the terra nullius pretext was demonstrated repeatedly throughout Australia over the next 150 years, as Aboriginal resistance was crushed with lethal force. That was something which wasn't supposed to be necessary with an uninhabited continent. The solution to this problem was to substantially outsource the dirty work required to clear people from the country. I am from the Northern Territory, so I'm particularly interested in what happened in the north. In the early 1990s I was working in the Indigenous health sector. In Hidden histories by Deborah Bird Rose, a Native American anthropologist who dedicated much of her life working with the people of the Katherine west region, there are oral histories she recorded which confirmed massacres happened within living memory in and around the VRD region and beyond—some of the best cattle country in the Territory. The things Debbie Rose wrote about were not far away and long-ago things. They were raw and front of mind for the old men in the communities I worked with when setting up Katherine West Health Board. Henry Reynolds, in his novel Truth-telling, wrote about the impact of colonisation. He certainly looked at the: … generation of colonial leaders who shepherded their people into the new federal government on the first day of the new century the blood on their hands notwithstanding. Because that is the truth of it: this Constitution, this birth certificate which we now seek to amend in such a modest way, was predicated on allowing the participating colonies to complete the project of cancelling out Aboriginal people, which they'd already embarked upon. Giving our people a real voice now is the least that this country can do to make good the wrong that has existed at the heart of our founding document. William Cooper, and I heard his name mentioned before; Dexter Daniels; Vincent Lingiari; Eddie Mabo; Charlie Perkins; Pat Dodson; the late Mr Yunupingu; Faith Thomas; Truganini; Shirley Smith; Gladys Elphick; Eleanor Harding; Essie Coffey; Faith Bandler; Dr Lowitja McDonald O'Donoghue; and Joyce Clarke: all of them, at critical junctures in our history, fought tirelessly for justice. There have been some gains over the years, and many dispiriting losses. The Voice to Parliament must and should be viewed in the context of the efforts of these 20th century champions. They spoke truth to power, and the realisation of that truth is beginning to dawn on many Australians. At the end of the day, they are all saying the same thing: listen to us for who we are, the only ones who can properly speak for our country and our issues. When I was putting down all these names, I realised Senator Dodson is probably the only one on that list of men who have fought over many years who is still with us. I so much hope that he will see this happen in his lifetime. I am thinking of you, Senator Dodson, and your lifetime of advocacy in fighting for our people. Senator McCarthy and I have often said to each other that we are here for a reason, and this is it. Pearl Gibbs—I often think about Pearl Gibbs, and I've read a lot about what she did—was the Aboriginal woman who planted the seed for the 1967 referendum. The Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) Bill recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first people of Australia. The Indigenous losers from the colonial enterprise do not get any restoration or reparation from the Voice in relation to what they lost. They just get an opportunity to be heard. What a small price for Australia to pay for us to be recognised in our region, and in the community of nations generally, as a country which is coming to terms with its past. The words of the new section are simple but powerful. They will allow for the establishment of an enduring institution which would make representations to parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will provide a mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to advocate and advise on policy that affects them. I am Tiwi on my mother's side and Anmatyerr on my father's. As with other First Nation people, both the Tiwi and the Anmatyerr people have their own language and their traditional country. These things go back long before colonisation. I've been speaking to many people in the Lingiari community about the Voice. The Voice is a convenient word for saying 'let the right people talk'. If you ask community people, 'Do you support the Voice?' some of them might say: 'What do you mean? What's that word?' If you ask the same person, 'Should your people be allowed to talk to government about any government policies or laws that affect you and your country?' they will say: 'Are you stupid? Of course!' If you tell them the story of the Australian Constitution, that no Northern Territory countrymen—in fact, no First Nations people from anywhere in Australia—were consulted and that deliberate decisions were made to further marginalise them, they would be appalled. People in my Lingiari communities want to achieve better outcomes when it comes to health, education and employment. People are aware of the problems with domestic violence and substance abuse and that there is a need to fix those too, but the starting point for everything is respect. People aren't asking to be heard because they are from any particular race. The racial characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are a complete red herring. In the Northern Territory, particular groups of Aboriginal people are asking to be heard because, since time immemorial, they've had obligations to, and responsibilities for, a particular part of this continent, and their culture and traditions are bound up with living at that place. It is disgraceful that people use that as a means to create doubt and division in the hearts and minds of people. I get that there are Australians who have already made up their minds and will vote no. No other Australian has the same obligations and responsibilities. If something is going to happen that will affect Tiwi Islands and the people living there, they want to be able to speak about it to government, not just as Australians but as Tiwi. No matter where you go, on whichever group's country, the sentiment will be the same. People do not feel that they've been listened to for who they are, and the current political system does not have the bandwidth to properly register the nuance and context of that grievance. This referendum is a major step towards fixing that for this country. I commend this bill to the House. 12:57 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Later this year Australians will head to the polls and be asked to vote to change our Constitution. Their vote will carry as much weight as mine. As MPs and as people, we in this House will each have one vote, just like every other Australian. That is why the Liberal Party is supporting this bill, to allow Australians to have their say. To start, it is important to note that the Liberal Party supports the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and legislated local and regional voices to ensure Indigenous communities, like ours in Healesville, have their voice heard. This process should have been an opportunity to unite all Australians in recognising Indigenous Australians in our Constitution and delivering tangible outcomes for local Indigenous communities. However, the Prime Minister has refused to engage with the Liberal Party in good faith. He has sought to politicise this process for his own political agenda. As members of parliament, we all bring our lived experiences to this place, and they shape who we are and what we believe. I've spent my life living in Casey and have been very fortunate to have a strong connection to our local Indigenous community, especially through my time growing up in Yarra Glen and playing cricket with the Healesville Cricket Club. My connection to Indigenous Australia was strengthened when Rachel and I were married, and I was lucky enough to gain an Indigenous brother-in-law, Brendan; and an uncle, Jason, who's Indigenous. I've been very fortunate to have different Indigenous people in my life. The key lesson that I have learnt through this experience is that there is not one homogenous Indigenous community but rather communities made up of individuals—yes, with a shared culture, but with individual experiences, beliefs, passions and challenges. That leads me to one of the fundamental concerns I have with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. How will these individual and community voices be heard? Without knowing the details of local issues and circumstances, there is a genuine risk that well-intended improvements are misdirected and even damaging for communities, something none of us want to see. The township of Healesville in my electorate of Casey sits on the lands of the Wurundjeri people, who have inhabited the region for thousands of years. Their deep connection to the land, their culture and their traditions are an integral part of Healesville's history. This history would not be ours to know without the words of William Barak. Barak was born near what we now call Wonga Park. He witnessed the many changes brought about by European colonisation and became a strong advocate for Indigenous rights and heritage. His advocacy led to the establishment of the Coranderrk Aboriginal reserve in 1863. The reserve, just outside Healesville near Badger Creek, became a haven for Indigenous people. It became a self-sufficient community where Indigenous Australians cultivated the land, raised livestock and led a regimented life defined by work, religion and education. Coranderrk became Victoria's best-known Aboriginal reserve, until its closure in 1924. To this day, Healesville continues to honour its Indigenous heritage and history. The legacy of William Barak lives on in my community through organisations such as Oonah health and community services, who play a crucial role in promoting cultural awareness and support for the local Indigenous population. Now, throughout this national discussion on the Voice, my primary concern has been to make sure I've engaged with my local community, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. From my engagement with our local Indigenous groups and leaders, there is no doubt that there are differing opinions on the Voice and there are many concerns. In February, I invited the former shadow minister for Indigenous Australians to Casey. We had previously discussed the Voice and the unique needs of the Indigenous community in Casey. He came out to Healesville and we met with some of our Indigenous leaders. We also met with the Yarra Ranges Indigenous Advisory Committee, visited Oonah health and Worawa college, a fantastic Indigenous college in Healesville directed by Dr Lois Peeler, AM. To further enhance this engagement, I've engaged with a group called democracyCo to hold a joint community forum this Sunday, 28 May, because it is important for me to hear the views of my local constituents. Participants were carefully selected to reflect the demographics of my electorate, and on Sunday they will hear from Indigenous leaders on both the 'yes' case and the 'no' case. I look forward to updating the House next week with the results from this forum. I also recently had the opportunity to speak to a well-known Indigenous elder in my community. I've got to know this man over many years, but particularly at the many welcomes to country that he holds in our community and for our community. He was strident in his opposition to the Voice. He and his community have not been engaged or consulted with in any way throughout this process. They hear about the Voice only through the media. Now, this is promoted as something that will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, yet some Indigenous elders in my community have been left in the dark as to what the Voice entails for them. This man is frustrated and worried that his community will not have its voice heard through this Voice to Parliament model. This is an example of why the detail on the local and regional voices is so important. It would alleviate the fear and frustration that some local Indigenous communities feel. But even more concerning was his request that his name not be used during this speech, due to his concerns over repercussions for honestly speaking out about how he feels and how his community feels. It's deeply concerning that he holds these fears, and, as we continue this debate, beyond this House to the public, I urge all Australians to engage respectfully in this conversation and respect the views of all Australians. Throughout my consultations with my community, two primary concerns have arisen that the government have not addressed. The first, as I've talked about, is how the local Indigenous voices in my community of Casey will be heard. The second relates to the legal risks associated with the proposed amendments. I will not speak in detail on the legal risks associated with the constitutional amendment, as greater legal minds than mine have discussed these in detail. I would note, however—with disappointment—the missed opportunity by the government to engage in the committee review process in good faith and make amendments to the wordings of the legislation, to remove or at least reduce the legal concerns many people have. I want to focus the remaining time I have on the local and regional voices that have not been addressed by the government today. The reality is that the challenges the Indigenous community in Casey face are different from those in inner-city Melbourne, Gippsland, Shepparton, Far North Queensland, Central Australia or anywhere else in Australia. That is why the detail of how local and regional voices interacting with the national Voice is so important and should be known before the referendum. I wrote to the Minister for Indigenous Australians on 3 May 2023 seeking more information and clarity about my concerns, following her confirmation that regional voices are part of the government's plan. Reasonably, I requested a response by today, 24 May. I asked the following four questions of the minister: Could you please provide more detail on how these regional voices will operate? Will there be a regional voice for my Indigenous community, here, in Casey? Were any Wurundjeri people involved in the Uluru Statement from the heart? Are there any Wurundjeri people on either the referendum engagement group or the referendum working group? These questions are all important to me, to the residents of Casey and—most importantly—to the Indigenous community in Casey who have been asking these questions. I'm yet to receive a response from the minister. And I still hold the concern that the Indigenous voices of my community have not been heard through the formation of the proposed Voice model and will not be heard in the national Voice. I want my local Indigenous voices to be heard so we can deliver better outcomes for our community. There is a real risk they will not be heard as part of this national Voice—resulting in even worse outcomes in my community. I know that if the framework is established correctly not only will my community's voice be heard but all Indigenous communities' voices, at the grassroots level, will be heard. The needs and concerns of the Indigenous population in my community are not the same as the needs or concerns of Indigenous Australians in remote Australia. They're unique issues, and they deserve to be heard. I am disappointed that the government has not engaged in good faith with the Liberal Party, by refusing to answer the 15 questions the Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister. I'm even more disappointed that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has not been willing or able to answer the four questions on how the voices of my community, the Wurundjeri people, have been and will be heard. Any alteration to our Constitution should unite Australians, not divide us. Those opposite have repeatedly refused to answer basic questions on the operation of the proposed model for a voice to parliament, resulting in many Australians not being able to support the Voice as it stands today. I'm so grateful that I have had the opportunity to know so many Indigenous Australians through my life and in so many different ways, and their voices are important to me, as are the voices of all Australians and, importantly, my constituents in Casey. They should be heard, not in a symbolic way but in a meaningful way, to deliver tangible outcomes that will close the gap. As it stands today, it is not clear how this National Voice will close the gap for Indigenous Australians in Casey and across the nation. 13:11 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Our nation is facing many challenges, economic headwinds, environmental hardship and devastation, as well as health challenges. But we have a moment, while we are dealing with these challenges, to raise our gaze to matters that are greater than all of us. From the heart of our nation, Uluru is calling. It is beckoning us. This journey towards constitutional recognition of our First Nations people, some say, began 24 years ago. It was a Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, who first floated the notion of constitutional recognition in the 1999 referendum. That may not have succeeded, but it set in train a process that has spanned 24 years—a steady tempo of reform and changes and engagement unprecedented for any referendum that has come to the Australian people. The pinnacle was actually the delivery and creation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This brought together over 1,200 First Nations people from all across this country, these disparate nations. They reached consensus. It was hard going, but sleeves were rolled up and the work was done. Hard discussions were had, truth-telling was made, and the Uluru statement was finally delivered and signed by 250 delegates. I'm honoured to have one of those delegates, the member for Lingiari, sitting next to me. The Uluru statement is a gracious offer. It is a hand that has been extended out to Australians, and we have a moment now to grasp that hand and run with it. The Voice referendum is about two things: consultation and recognition. The recognition is to say that we see and acknowledge on the birth certificate of our nation 65,000 years of continuous history and culture. This is long overdue. It absolutely removes this fiction of terra nullius. With respect to consultation, it's all about listening. It's about accepting that what we have done for the last 200-plus years has simply not worked. In the last 30 years alone we have had at least seven national bodies devoted to improving and advancing Indigenous health, wellbeing and welfare. They have been formed, dissolved, reformed and dissolved again. And what has it resulted in? It has resulted in statistics that are a national disgrace. Closing the Gap—it doesn't seem to be closing. In fact, on the most recent report released last year, there were several indicators which have gone backwards. We can keep doing the same thing over and over again, but don't expect a different result. It's best that we stop this top-down, paternalistic view of governance and actually listen to our First Nations people. The Uluru statement is a blueprint for a better way. It tells us what they want. And what they're asking for is simply a seat at the table so that we, as legislators in this parliament and in future parliaments, make better, informed decisions with their needs and their lived experience in mind. And that lived experience is incredibly important. Our First Nations people, at 3.8 per cent of our population, are an extreme minority. You can go your whole life and not even meet anyone with First Nations heritage. What does that mean? It means we have no contact with them in our workplaces, our sporting teams or our schools. So how are we to actually understand their lived experience and what intergenerational trauma means? I've heard a lot of rhetoric about, 'We shouldn't give a group special privilege in the Constitution,' and that other minorities will somehow be clamouring to have the same privileges. I'm a minority. I'm a migrant. I came to Australia as a child. But what I didn't experience in Australia was being removed from my mother. What I didn't experience in Australia was the butchering of my people. And I certainly didn't have my property and my land removed from me; in fact, quite the opposite. This country opened its arms and carried me and my family forward. But those same privileges—in fact, rights—have been denied our First Nations people for too long. Why? Because they carry such trauma that is passed like a bad gene from one generation to another to another, and it cascades and balloons, and it crushes and crumbles people to the ground. So while they are struggling to just make ends meet and survive day to day it is now up to us to turn around and reach back and help them come up. And we do that by listening to what they want. The actual constitutional question is very modest: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. You'll be asked to approve this, and you have to write yes or no. You may have doubts when you are at the ballot box. My advice to you is to cast the doubts aside and vote yes, because this is simply the right thing to do. We can't keep doing what we're doing and expect a different result. What will the change to our Constitution mean? It will mean waking up to a completely different country—a country that can look back at its past, acknowledge it and be unshackled by it. It means that we can come together in a different sense of maturity and go forward. Noel Pearson, an Aboriginal thought leader, describes this change to our Constitution as something that will adorn it. To me, that speaks of a shining jewel in our Constitution. This has been confirmed by the Solicitor-General, who believes this change to our Constitution will in fact enhance it. Those were his words—that it will enhance it. It's perhaps best to listen to Aunty Pat Anderson: The Voice is about getting grassroots Voices amplified and feeding into Canberra, representing the views and Voices of their communities. The really important message from the dialogues was that there is no Voice that exists now that represents who we are and what we want. What a state of affairs in 2023 that our First Nations people, with such stature and knowledge and wisdom and culture and history, do not feel they can actually feed any of those gifts into this House, this parliament. It speaks to a language of deficit that we've all become accustomed to with respect to our First Peoples. That's all we ever hear. And you know why we hear that? Because that's what the media wants us to hear. Bad news sells. I'm tired of it, and frankly I don't want to hear any more about First Peoples through the filter of the media; I want to hear directly from them. Having a voice to parliament means the whole of this country, the Australian people, will hear directly from them, and we will turn around this language of deficit to one of positivity, abundance and surplus. That's the future I want—a future of surplus for our First Nations people, where there is just so much love and culture and gift giving that it will bring up the rest of this country. Higgins holds a special place in the journey to this referendum because it was a former Higgins resident, Sir Robert Menzies, who actually agreed to the 1967 referendum. That was finally delivered by my predecessor, a Liberal Prime Minister and former member for Higgins, Harold Holt, in 1967, with the highest vote in the history of all our referendums, of 90.7 per cent. It was an absolute landslide. Why? Because back then the Australian people were appalled at the living conditions of our First Nations people. They were appalled that they were not counted, that they were not seen, that they were invisible. We have an opportunity now to turn all of this around and take forward those ideals that have actually had bipartisan support until now. This is an opportunity for Australia to come together, to reconcile its past with its present in order to go forward together, stronger into the future. It was Martin Luther King who said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. The Uluru statement is an appeal to our better angels. Those angels responded in 1967. They will respond again in 2023. 13:21 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson As I rise today to speak against the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I want to remind the House how successful our Constitution and democracy have been since the Constitution came into effect in 1901. Our Constitution has given us laws, liberties, protections and privileges that give us the Australian way of life and that are the envy of the world. I and the other 150 members of the parliament represent 151 electorates across Australia. Each member has approximately 110,000 constituents. We also have 76 elected senators, 12 representing each state and territory. We are chosen by people through a democratic vote as the persons who best represent all of our electorates. As we all know, our constituency across Australia comes from many different walks of life, whether that be with regard to race, career, religion, culture or gender, and our job is to represent all of our constituents without fear or favour. Later this year, Prime Minister Albanese, wanting to make his moment in history, will be asking the Australian people to make a choice through a referendum—to vote on the government's proposed changes to the Australian Constitution. This is a major change and should not be taken lightly. In Australia, since 1901, there have been 44 referendums and only eight have been successful. In the past, part of the process prior to the referendum has been a convention, where bodies come together to nut out the proposal and examine the pros and cons. For this referendum there has been no constitutional convention. Instead, there was a 4½-day committee process. The Nationals have expressed concerns about this committee process in examining and considering this bill. The limited time afforded to consideration of this bill has been inadequate and is extremely disappointing. Thankfully, it is the Australian people who get the final say as to whether we change or preserve our constitution. But it worries me that, when I have asked the views of my electorate, the hard reality is most people don't know what voting yes will mean for Australians. This is because the Prime Minister wants us to vote yes on a vibe, without detail or explanation. The Prime Minister is treating Australians like mushrooms. You wouldn't apply for a job without knowing what that job entails. You wouldn't marry your lifelong partner without speaking to them, getting to know them or understanding who they are. You wouldn't buy a house without knowing the price or carrying out an inspection first. So why are we being asked to make a decision on a question that comes with no information, no detail and little understanding? After 12 months in government, we've seen the Albanese Labor government's inability to plan. We've seen more broken promises than you can poke a stick at. We've seen rushed and poorly thought through policy changes. We've seen a disregard for what industry and small business need. We have seen a real disdain towards the regions and rural Australia. This Labor government seems to miss the mark when it comes to knowing what people really need. Labor have created a cost-of-living crisis, and now they are trying to divide the nation on the basis of race. When the 47th Parliament of Australia first came together on 26 July 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised, under his reign, an inclusive term, a united term and a transparent term. But this is one of many broken promises we've seen over the past 12 months. We're now seeing it again with this proposed amendment to enshrine the Canberra voice in our Constitution. Where is the inclusivity? This Voice is already causing divide, and we are only just starting to talk about it. Where is the transparency? The detail? What is the Prime Minister trying to hide? Adding another layer of Canberra bureaucracy is not going to fix the issues that our First Nations Indigenous communities are facing. Throwing money and more Canberra public servants at an issue will fix nothing. History has proven this. The 1973 Aboriginal Consultative Committee was the first advisory body for First Nations people, and the delegates were voted in by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Even then the body was dissolved after it attempted to gain powers it was not originally afforded. Then, in 1985, the National Aboriginal Conference was disbanded by the Labor Hawke government after it became obsessed with factional fighting rather than supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. After that was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was dissolved after a report concluded it had not connected with First Nations people, being too Canberra focused. Its successor, the Indigenous Council, was disbanded for very similar reasons. And now, established in 2019, we have the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA, who receive $4.3 billion per year of taxpayers' money to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NIAA also provides advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia's Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians, and to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation. After all this, all of these pre-existing groups and bodies, here we are yet again, faced with making a decision which, ultimately, is just another layer of thick red tape and won't close the gap for Indigenous Australians. As history has shown, another taxpayer funded Canberra bureaucracy will do nothing to help practically improve the welfare of Indigenous communities, especially for women and children in regional, rural and remote areas. In simple terms, our nation needs a better bureaucracy, not a new one. The Nationals are a party solely dedicated to rural, remote and regional Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Forde Electorate: Community Radio 43 13:30 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As many of us in this place would know, community radio is an essential part of our communities and of providing services to various communities right across Australia, focusing on delivering local content that we don't get from the big national broadcasters. Community radio stations traditionally are not-for-profit organisations that rely very often on the hard work of volunteers to make the station function, and 101 FM in Logan is no different. It is a tremendous local community radio station that provides local news, sport, weather forecasts and other relevant items of news right across the city of Logan. This community radio station helps relay this local information to people in a clear and informative manner. Radio Logan, as it was initially, was established back in 1984 when a need was seen by Logan City councillor Tom O'Neill. Today, 101 FM provides a range of services right across the city of Logan and is a tremendous community asset. Recently it held a trivia night, with over 250 supporters coming along and supporting a great local community radio station. Congratulations to 101 FM and thank you for the wonderful work you do in our community. Kyrou, Hon Justice Emilios, AO 44 13:31 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise to congratulate Hon. Justice Emilios Kyrou AO on his appointment as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and as President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I'm particularly proud of Justice Kyrou's appointment because he is a shining example of a migrant success story. In his role as judge of appeals in the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court of Victoria since 2014, Justice Kyrou has written several judgements dealing with administrative law matters. Previously, from 2008 to 2014, Justice Kyrou was a trial judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, where he was one of the judges in charge of the Supreme Court's judicial review and appeals list. Growing up in Broadmeadows, he went to Dallas North Primary School in my electorate and, like most migrants, he experienced the difficulties often associated with the migrant experience. He has gone on to be a great success story, has never forgotten where he has come from and is a wonderful role model. He is a proud son of Broadmeadows, and I know that his family is proud of him, as most certainly the broader Greek Australian community is. He will make an excellent contribution and will without doubt bring dignity, excellence and a work ethic critical to the important reforms needed to deliver to Australians a trusted federal administrative review body [Greek language not transcribed]. Community Pharmacies 44 13:33 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I've been speaking with local pharmacists in my electorate of Hume who are deeply concerned about the Albanese government's new 60-day dispensing policy. We on this side of this place, of course, strongly support affordable and convenient access to medicines for all Australians. This is a real imperative. In government we committed to lowering the cost of medicines and approved more than 2,900 new or amended listings on the PBS at an overall investment of around $16.5 billion. However, there have been some serious concerns raised around this change, including that it could force the cost of other items to increase, so that Australians end up paying more for pharmacy. I've been listening to community pharmacists in Goulburn, Boorowa, Thirlmere, Camden and Crookwell, and they're all telling me the same thing. They're concerned that this could result in medication supply issues and threaten the future of local community pharmacies. The truth is that our local community pharmacies do a great deal right now that they do not charge for. Whether it's in aged care or cross-subsidising Webster packs, there are a range of services that they provide. The risk we face is that we are going to lose those services that are absolutely integral to our communities. Community pharmacies play an integral role in country towns right across my electorate and our regional towns and communities. We must defend them and ensure they are strong into the future. Papakosmas, Mr John 44 13:34 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I rise today to recognise a friend, John Papakosmas, who we lost in early April. John was born in 1931 in Greece. As the eldest son of seven children, John had to stop his education after primary school to help his family. This commitment to helping others would be a characteristic that defined John throughout his life. Through his teens, John worked as a shepherd, sold timber and made charcoal before being called for military service in 1950. In 1957 John immigrated to Australia, and two years later he arrived at Port Kembla train station in the middle of the night, having been told there might be work available at the steelworks. He wandered up the main street of Cringila, meeting a man called Peter whom he had met on the boat from Greece and who took him in and found him his first job in Wollongong. In 1965 he made the best decision of his life by marrying his dear wife, Niki, a union which produced two children, Chris and Angelo, and eventually three grandchildren: John, Daniel and William. John was committed to two things: family and community. His days were spent in his shop working to provide for his family and in meetings of his beloved Labor Party and various organisations and labour groups. John was a life member of the Australian Labor Party, and in 2018 he received a Premier's award for 50 years service as a justice of the peace. John will be deeply missed by our community, and I extend my most sincere condolences to his family on behalf of the people of the Illawarra. Fowler Electorate: Liverpool Civic Place 44 13:36 Ms LE 295676 Fowler It was great to be part of the topping out ceremony at the Liverpool Civic Place on Wednesday, 17 May, with Mayor Ned Mannoun of Liverpool council and with the council's partner, Built, an Australian construction company. This development will include a state-of-the-art library, an arts and culture centre, a childcare facility and more than 35,000 square metres of commercial office space that I believe will be a great attraction for organisations and businesses as well as government agencies, who I know want to create jobs in Western Sydney, to make Liverpool city their home. Standing at the top of the development and looking out across the city of Liverpool was just amazing. Throughout this project, the council aims to give a civic identity to the area in activating the southern part of Liverpool city centre and capitalising on the site's location, creating a generous public space for the community to use. The ceremony was mixed with local cultural performance and speeches, providing an insight on the long history of the site and its progress. Liverpool is now preparing to gain the title of Sydney's third CBD, and such projects within Fowler will contribute to enhancing and building out on Sydney's south-west region as the economic engine of the nation. I want to congratulate Liverpool City Council for having this vision and companies like Built for being partners in helping transform our region. Parliamentary Friends of Australian Children's Storytelling 45 13:37 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Tonight in the Great Hall, the member for Leichhardt and I will be launching the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Children's Storytelling. It's going to be a fantastic night, and I invite all honourable members to come along and to help us launch this important group. It is true that storytelling is best done when it reflects the lives and the culture that Australian children themselves have. It is our creatives, whether that be in screen, theatre or literature, who are so important in keeping alive Australian culture through our kids. Those creatives excite and entertain but, really importantly, educate. So we owe a great debt to creative Australians who are not only passing on Australian culture but allowing Aussie kids to see themselves reflected. Stories that are for, with, by and about Australian children will mean that they will go forward not just with overseas influences through storytelling but, importantly, with Australian ones at the forefront. We know that more Aussie stories will mean that our kids have a better cultural understanding, and it's great for jobs. Curtin Electorate: Volunteers 45 13:39 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I'm constantly in awe of the passion, energy and expertise of volunteers in my electorate. My office is currently working with community volunteers to create a Curtin pathway to net zero plan. More than 50 people have come forward to join one or more of our five working groups addressing the main sources of emissions in Curtin. We're lucky to have a diverse range of skills on these working groups, with engineers, policymakers, community organisers and many more collaborating to do two things. Each group is writing part of the Curtin net zero plan, laying out what households can do and our policy asks at a federal, state and local level. Each is also working on a community project to encourage local action in Curtin. The transport group will monitor air quality at school drop-off to encourage local behaviour change and support for better active transport policy. The energy and building groups are developing a practical one-stop shop website to help households electrify their appliances and retrofit for energy efficiency. The greening group is organising native verge makeovers on a few verges along green corridor roots in Curtin. And the waste group is building community engagement in Plastic Free July and will take on a weekly plastic challenge to build support for new plastics policies. Tapping into community wisdom to drive both grassroots and national policy change on environment and climate change is just one way we're doing politics differently in Curtin. Swan Electorate: Muslim Women's Support Centre 45 13:40 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan It's in the DNA of Labor governments to build better, fairer futures for all Australians. It's there in our legacy—Medicare, superannuation, the NDIS, paid parental leave and the abolishment of the White Australia policy. These achievements aren't abstract concepts. Politics is personal. Good government policy has the power to transform lives for the better. I know this from my own family story, and I know that it's happening in my electorate of Swan. I recently visited the Muslim Women's Support Centre in Bentley. They assist about 200 women each year who are experiencing family or domestic violence. The volunteers there pour their blood, sweat, tears and passion into helping other Muslim women. I witnessed their dedication and their compassion firsthand. They recognise that the home should be a sanctuary and not a place of danger, that relationships should be based on mutual love and respect and never on abuse and violence. They know that it can take time for people experiencing family and domestic violence to be ready to leave. They know that there are many barriers to leaving. This is why this government knows that people experiencing domestic violence shouldn't have to choose between their safety and their wages. Labor is making a difference. Bonner Volunteer Awards, Kambouris, Mr George 45 13:42 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Volunteers are the lifeblood of our community, and that's why each year I run the Bonner Volunteer Awards to shine a light on their incredible impact on our community. I must say this year's winners were truly inspiring. Congratulations to Marie Byrnes, Jayden Welch, Sean Harrison, Brisbane Bayside Repair Cafe, Graham Moore, the Redeemer Lutheran College Helping Hands Volunteers and Mr George Kambouris. Whilst I don't have time to go into depth about each winner and their immeasurable contribution to our community, I would like to share the story of Mr George Kambouris. George was the winner of the overall Bonner Volunteer Award. Tragically, George passed away on 1 May this year. George was born with spina bifida and dedicated his life to two things: striving for excellence in any endeavour he pursued and providing support to others in the community through various means. He initiated the Living on Wheels program to assist and mentor young individuals confined to wheelchairs, enabling them to actively participate in sports at the Carindale PCYC. Instead of using his disability as a reason not to achieve, he used it as an incentive to excel and show others how they too could achieve their goals. To further honour George's legacy, I would like to announce that next year's awards will include the George Kambouris Bonner Volunteer Award. Thank you, George. May you rest in peace. Holt Electorate: Volunteer Grants 46 13:44 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Last week was National Volunteer Week. Volunteers across Australia play a significant role in our society. I use this occasion to announce the successful recipients of the Holt volunteer grants and thank all the volunteers in my electorate of Holt for the amazing work that they do. Congratulations to: 1st Devon Meadows Scout Group, AusLanka TV, Bakhtar Community Organisation, Carlise Park Vikings Cricket Club, Casey Netball Association, Casey United Soccer Club, Clyde Football Club, Cook4CALD, Cranbourne Bowls Club, Cranbourne Football Netball Club, Cranbourne Italian Senior Citizens Club, German Tech OBA, Hampton Park Cricket Club, Hampton Park United Sparrows, Hampton Park Uniting Church, Knox City Mavericks, Malayalee Association of Victoria, Melbourne Association of Tamil Students, Melbourne Sixers Sports Club, Multicultural Youth Support Service, Narre South Saints Football Netball Club, Narre Warren CFA—who are the second busiest in Victoria—Pickleball Victoria, South Eastern Radio Association, Southern Rangers Cricket Club, St John Ambulance Australia, Tooradin Cricket Club, Tooradin-Dalmore Junior Football Club, Vipassana Wat Sereychum, VTA Tamil School Narre Warren Campus, and Warriors 4 Wildlife. Thank you, once again, for the amazing work you do. I look forward to helping these organisations in every possible way I can. St George and Sutherland Community College 46 13:45 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about St George and Sutherland Community College at Jannali in my electorate of Hughes. This college is a community based not-for-profit organisation that delivers nationally recognised qualifications in business and community services to both domestic and international students. I was recently taken through the college by CEO Bernadette Mills and met with students, staff and teachers, all passionate about the work they each undertake at the college. St George and Sutherland Community College provides disability services through work opportunities through their Trove shop. It provides international education and training in community services, mental health, childhood education and aged care. It is a leading provider of vocational education and training in southern Sydney. Through its Work Skills program it delivers accredited courses in the community service and business sectors. Its leisure sector provides over 250 courses for fun and to simply expand hobbies. The college is also a leading provider of English language and literacy tuition for the workplace and everyday life. Particularly, the college has former school students, victims of the COVID pandemic, who did not ever return to the classroom. The college is therefore providing an invaluable social service to these students, to ensure they are not lost forever from the education system. I commend the excellent work of St George and Sutherland Community College. Albanese Government 46 13:47 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge the one-year anniversary of the Albanese Labor government. It has been a huge year for the federal government and we are delivering on our policy commitments, from record investments in Medicare to fee-free TAFE, the National Anti-Corruption Commission and re-establishing and repairing Australia's international reputation. This federal government has hit the ground running and we are not slowing down. On the Central Coast, the government's investments in health care are helping thousands of people access cheaper medicines, and from July cheaper child care will help thousands more afford early childhood and education services. The federal government is committed to building a better future, and across the nation you can see our work making a real difference. We have now had 12 months of a strong, united, mature government in Canberra. And hasn't that been great! No longer are we seeing blatant pork barrelling, scandal after scandal or mismanagement from federal government departments. With the Albanese Labor government Australians have a government of purpose, forging a clear path for a brighter future. I want to thank Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and every minister and assistant minister for their competent leadership over the past several months. I look forward to continuing to be part of a dynamic and progressive Albanese Labor government. Children Having an Illness Living in Sunraysia 47 13:48 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to talk about a wonderful volunteer organisation in my electorate of Mallee called CHAILIS. It stands for Children Having an Illness Living in Sunraysia. Although it was officially established in early 2015, it was borne out of the incredible work over many years of its chairman, Mr John Burfitt. John is a man who would give you the shirt off his back. CHAILIS supports families of sick children as they undergo treatment, with 100 per cent of funds raised going to families. CHAILIS came to the rescue this week of two-year-old Octavia, who is not thriving due to her desperate need for a tonsillectomy, which, due to her underdevelopment and being in a regional seat, cannot be achieved. Her surgeon urged her parents to secure her operation through a private hospital in Melbourne because the public health system is so overwhelmed and underperforming. I asked CHAILIS if they could rescue this little girl and pay the $6,000 necessary, and they are doing so. Volunteer organisations like CHAILIS save lives when the Victorian health system is failing. My friend and colleague Jade Benham, the member for Mildura, questioned the Victorian health minister regarding Octavia last week, and could not get a straight answer. In closing, I wish to acknowledge CHAILIS again for their great work— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Chisholm. Chisholm Electorate: Migration 47 13:50 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm One of the greatest honours of being an elected representative is attending citizenship ceremonies and welcoming people to our community and celebrating the contributions of migrants. I love doing so in my incredibly multicultural electorate of Chisholm. I attend ceremonies at Monash and Whitehorse councils, and, on occasion, I see other members there, including those opposite. I find it hard to understand how those opposite, when they attend citizenship ceremonies, can look new citizens in the eye and shake their hands, and then come into this place and make false, divisive and outrageous statements demonising migrants. I find it difficult to understand how it is possible to wax lyrical about migrants while being part of an opposition that blames migrants for stealing homes and jobs in our communities. I'm frankly sick of this divisive behaviour and feel a duty to call it out, especially because, when those opposite were last in government, their appalling comments about migrant communities led to people in my electorate feeling unsafe and attributing violent attacks they experienced to the dangerous rhetoric constantly spouted from those opposite. I will always stand up for my community, in my electorate, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and in this chamber. And I urge those opposite to do the same. Dawson Electorate: Tourism 47 13:51 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I want to shine a light on three towns in my electorate of Dawson nominated in the QTIC Queensland tourism awards for 2023. First up is my wonderful home town of Bowen. People come from near and far to visit our glorious beaches, fish our plentiful waters and enjoy the relaxed and laid-back lifestyle. Townsville, a bit further north and a tad warmer, has also been nominated as a finalist. Townsville is the unofficial capital of the north. It has World-Heritage-listed national parks and is home to the mighty North Queensland Cowboys. Carn the Cows! And Airlie Beach, the magnificent tourism town of the Whitsundays, which boasts 74 beautiful islands and is the heart of the Great Barrier Reef, has also been nominated. Airlie has a feel like no other small town. With its cruisy vibe during sun-filled days and the buzz of night-life, it wins over everybody who visits. Nominations for awards like this are rare. I must mention the hard work of several groups who contribute to this: the staff of both the Whitsunday and Townsville councils; our volunteers at tourism information centres; and our world-class tourism operators. These groups all ensure a great experience for visitors to our region. Good luck, Bowen, Townsville and Airlie Beach. You've got my vote. Budget: Health Care 47 13:53 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby From the Medibank of Gough Whitlam through to the Medicare reforms of Bob Hawke, Labor has understood that affordable, accessible health care is important to Australians and to our quality of life. So I am thrilled with the recent budget announcements from the Minister for Health and Aged Care to make health care more affordable. Access to bulk-billing doctors is raised with me constantly in Boothby. So the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive for most common consultations, for children under 16, pensioners and those on concession cards, will benefit some 74,047 people in Boothby. Funding for a new long-consult item will also benefit those with complex health needs. Boothby residents have collectively saved over $600,000 so far this year on over 55,000 scripts from the $12.50 cut in January, and now the introduction of 60-day prescriptions will benefit 44,381 people in Boothby. That's up to $180 saved per medication per year, or $43.80 for concession card holders. Comparable countries have had long prescriptions for decades, and it's improved medication compliance as well as cutting costs. It will also free GPs up from prescription renewal consults, so they can see other patients. So we all benefit. These initiatives are great for patients and great for health outcomes, because the health budget is about the health of Australians. Dwight, Mr Andrew Luke 48 13:54 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Sometimes you get a message on your device that makes time stand still, and for me that happened recently, when Andrew Luke Dwight passed away at 45 years of age on Anzac Day after a 20-month battle with brain cancer. We were good friends at Ringwood Secondary College. He was the firstborn son to Graeme and Pauline, brother to Adam and Amy, brother-in-law to Jude and uncle to Kaelem, Chay and Yvere. He would be so proud of them and of all of you in how you honoured him at his funeral and have done so every day since. I knew him as quietly confident, thoughtfully spoken and kind. He was a person far more interested in deep conversation, expansive thinking and active listening. He cared about others—how they felt and what they had to say. Andrew was a supremely gifted musician and an articulate speaker. In his own words, he described himself as a 'wide-eyed wanderer'. He enjoyed all aspects of life, from the little things like savouring good coffee to staring in wonder at distant galaxies. He worked and studied overseas, and I recall in high school he had aspirations to be a doctor. He didn't get there, because he withdrew from his medicine degree to care for his dad, who had brain cancer. At the end of his life, he was someone who passed it forward, and to all of those who loved him and cared for him: we will pass that forward. Rest in peace, Andrew. Elizabeth Vale School 48 13:56 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise today to talk about leadership. Much like a ship without a captain, a school without a principal can be left to flounder. Last week in my electorate I had the good fortune of visiting the Elizabeth Vale School and I got to meet a truly exceptional person in the principal, Julie Murphy. This principal is a shining light in my electorate. She is extremely proud and tough, and she has a really hard task. Her school, more than 80 per cent of which is made up of non-English-speaking students, is delivering a quality education and affording these children a great opportunity for a better future. I talked about being proud. When you walk through the gates of this school, there are two massive kangaroos with Indigenous paintings on them. They're the protecters of this school. They help Julie to look over her children and make sure that they have a safe place to learn. On top of that, there's a fantastic mural which has a person with their arms spread like an eagle, just keeping a watch over the flock. This is an exceptional school delivering exceptional outcomes for some of the most disadvantaged people in my electorate. I couldn't think of a better person to be at the head of that school, looking after these children. Kalgoorlie School of the Air 48 13:57 Mr 198084 O'Connor RICK WILSON () (): Every year, thousands of school students visit Australian Parliament House to learn about our parliamentary system and witness the parliament in operation during sitting periods. Today, we welcome to the House a particularly special and unique group of students from the Kalgoorlie School of the Air, which reaches out to students across two of the biggest electorates in Australia, Durack and O'Connor. The member for Durack and I give a joint shout-out to Billy Wood from Rawlinna station—Billy turns 10 today—Tanner Prosser of Weebo station near Leinster, Doug Vernon of Mount Jackson station in the Yilgarn shire, Rachel Mahony of Moorarie station, and Jane and Alex Forrester of Yarlarweelor station. And a big thank you to teachers Mr Parsons and Ms Loveland and to mum Jane Forrester, who are here today, and to the school community for making this visit possible. The Kalgoorlie School of the Air was established in 1962, using radio infrastructure provided by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Of course, the technology is a lot more advanced today, and students receive daily online lessons and work through individually designed programs. In addition, teachers visit their students at home several times a year and kids get together for sporting camps, school muster and trips like this Canberra trip. I hope you've enjoyed your day in parliament, including the role-play we joined you for earlier. Enjoy question time and the rest of your trip. The SPEAKER 53517 A very warm welcome to the kids from Kalgoorlie School of the Air. Citizenship 49 13:59 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Our party is proud and I know the 6,000 Kiwis living in Hasluck are happy that the Albanese government has improved our ties with our New Zealand cousins by giving them a direct path to citizenship. So it was deeply disappointing to hear the words uttered by the member for Riverina on Monday. Apart from trying to link millions of innocent Kiwis with criminal gangs and somehow suggesting that New Zealanders aren't highly skilled in the same way as Australians, he was so churlish as to state that the purpose of the policy—and these are his words—was to 'put more people on welfare', people who will 'never contribute to Australian society'. I'm ashamed and I am so sorry that such foolish words were said in this parliament. I want every New Zealander, living here and over there, to know that we value them and we see them as part of our family. What will happen now? Will the member seek leave to make a personal explanation? Will the National Party distance itself from these rank statements? Will the opposition leader assure the parliament and the country that these deplorable dog whistles do not represent the coalition's attitudes? What will the member for Riverina do the next time he is at a citizenship ceremony: will he remember to apologise to each and every New Zealander who has chosen to join the Australian family or will he continue to treat good people who have been living and working here as second-class citizens? (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. SHADOW MINISTRY 49 SHADOW MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 49 14:01 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer on indulgence—Due to the Leader of the Opposition having been in Sydney this morning to meet with Prime Minister Modi, I will be representing the Leader of the Opposition for part of question time. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 49 14:01 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. On election day last year the Prime Minister promised in newspapers around the country that, if elected, he would cut power bills by $275 every year. Prime Minister, power prices are rising rapidly for millions of households and small businesses right now. Can the Prime Minister provide a single example of any family or business who has seen the promised $275 reduction in their power bill? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Of course the budget papers show that, under the Energy Price Relief Plan we've put in place, retail electricity price increases in 2023-24 are now expected to be around 25 percentage points smaller and retail gas price increases around 16 percentage points smaller than expected prior to the government's interventions. We partnered with state and territory governments to deliver up to $3 billion of electricity price relief for over five million households and over one million small businesses. Those opposite voted against this plan. They voted against this price relief. The companies involved have all said—to quote Origin Energy's statement to the Stock Exchange—'forward wholesale electricity prices have reduced, and this is expected to have a positive impact on consumer tariffs'. That's what they had to say. Of course those opposite, who apparently are unaware of the Russian illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The point of order is on relevance. It was a very specific question—the promised $275 cut to power bills, not what he desperately tried to do later to cover up the fact that he didn't deliver on his promise. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about election day promises to cut power bills and about power prices that are rising. The Prime Minister is talking about the cost of energy and prices, so, for the clarity of the House, he is being relevant to the question. I give him the call to continue and to be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 To quote the Chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, Clare Savage: … forward base futures prices for electricity initially stabilised during the early part of 2023, and … remain well below levels observed in 2022. The fact is that what we put in place has been effective, but they voted against it. They voted against price caps when it came to gas and coal energy being generated by New South Wales and Victoria, and they voted against $3 billion of energy price relief. They voted against it. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're for higher prices. We're for being prepared to have government intervention in order to make a difference. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Banks! There's far too much noise coming from my left, from the front bench. It's been happening all week. If it continues, people won't be warned; they'll just be removed. In question time, I have to hear the questions in silence and also the answers in silence. You've had a pretty good go this week. If it continues, people will just automatically leave. I hope everyone's clear on that. Medicare 50 14:06 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will changes to Medicare announced in the budget make it easier for Australians to see a doctor? Why is this investment needed? 14:06 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend the member for Gilmore. She's such a fierce advocate for better health care in her beautiful community on the South Coast of New South Wales, which we all know has been through so much over the last 3½ years. She knows that, after nine years of cuts and neglect to Medicare by those opposite, it's never been harder to see a doctor than it is right now and it's never been more expensive. She's seen bulk-billing rates come down. She's seen gap fees rise in her community, as they have in all of our communities, which of course has been no accident, after nine long years of government by a Liberal Party that has such a long history of opposition to Medicare in general and to bulk-billing in particular. We remember John Howard describing bulk-billing as an absolute rort. We remember the Leader of the Opposition, in his first budget, trying to abolish bulk-billing altogether and make every single Australian pay a GP tax every time they visited a doctor. We remember that, when we were able to block that infamous GP tax in the other place, he started a six-year-long freeze to Medicare rebates that ripped billions of dollars out of general practice. Well, we have a different approach on this side. We want to strengthen Medicare, not strangle it. Instead of freezing Medicare rebates, our budget two weeks ago delivered the biggest increase to indexation in more than 30 years, since Paul Keating was the Prime Minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting for the remainder of this question. Mr BUTLER HWK It is a bigger increase to Medicare rebates across the board than was delivered in seven long years under those opposite—a period of seven years that encompassed the entire time the Leader of the Opposition was health minister, the entire time the deputy Liberal leader was health minister and the first four years of Greg Hunt's time as health minister. We have done more in one year than was done in those seven long years. Labor regards bulk-billing as the beating heart of Medicare. That's why the centrepiece of our $6 billion Strengthening Medicare package was a $3½ billion initiative to triple the bulk-billing incentive, something the College of General Practitioners described as a game changer for general practice. It is a game changer for millions of mums and dads who want the confidence that they can take their sick kid to a bulk-bill doctor, it is a game changer for millions of pensioners, and it will be a game changer for the member for Gilmore's constituents on the South Coast of New South Wales, 90,000 of whom are eligible for the increased bulk-billing incentive. It will be a game changer for towns like Nowra, where the total fee paid to a GP for a standard bulk-billed consult will go up by 50 per cent, from $50 to $75. That's all part of Labor's plan to strengthen Medicare. Wages 50 14:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. In this House yesterday, the Prime Minister said, 'Wages are increasing under this government.' But, Prime Minister, page 6 of the government's own Budget Paper No. 1 shows real wages will fall by 2.25 per cent this financial year. Are the Treasurer's budget papers wrong, or did the Prime Minister mislead the House? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Holt is warned. Order, members on my left and right. The member for McEwen is warned. Time is not to interject before any minister speaks. 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm delighted to get a question from the opposition about wages because there are two different positions. Those on that side of the chamber had low wages as a key feature of their economic architecture. They consciously wanted low wages. We on this side have said very clearly that we want to lift wages. We understand that wages are a part of people's living standards. That's why I'll be very interested in what their response is to our aged-care position and the $11.3 billion that is in the budget to lift the wages of aged-care workers—250,000 of them. Mr ALBANESE R36 You can't be serious. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is talking about wages— Mr ALBANESE R36 I can't be more relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 and who is getting an increase in wages. I'm going to ask him to pause, but out of respect for the deputy leader, I will take her point of order. He could not be more relevant while he's talking about wages increases, which you specifically asked about. Ms Ley 00AMN Respectfully, Speaker, this is on relevance. The Prime Minister is not addressing whether the budget papers misled the House or whether the Prime Minister misled the House. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the Prime Minister to continue and ask that he not be interrupted in his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm being totally relevant. No wonder they're concerned about the $11.3 billion package we put in place to assist the wages of people in aged care. What we've said very clearly is that aged-care workers deserve more than our thanks; they deserve a wage increase. That's what they deserve. During the election campaign, I well recall, I kept that lucky $1 coin in my pocket. I kept it in my pocket during the debates. It's in the drawer. Here it is! It's in the drawer. During the campaign I thanked the minister for infrastructure for once again being helpful, because during the campaign I held up this $1 coin— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will his seat for a moment. The Prime Minister will pause as well. Member for Deakin, it is not appropriate to come to the dispatch box and say for someone to sit down. If you want to make a point of order, the Prime Minister can pause, and under the standing orders you're entitled to raise a point of order. I'll hear your point of order. Mr Sukkar 242515 Mr Speaker, it was a point of order, and when someone stands for a point of order, it's customary that the minister sits. The SPEAKER 53517 It's also customary to wait until you're called before you do that. Continue on with your point of order. Mr Sukkar 242515 Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst the Prime Minister is holding up a prop, he should tell the Australian people that that dollar is worth less now than— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Members on my right and left will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is warned. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I refer to your previous rulings about points of order which are deliberately designed to disrupt that are clearly not points of order. I also refer to the warnings you have been giving to that particular member over the last few days. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, as you deliberate on this matter, I do remind you of the long-established prohibition on the use of props. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to ask the Prime Minister to put the dollar coin away and continue with his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 They find the dollar coin offensive? You know what I find offensive? The fact that they though a $1-an-hour increase for people on the minimum wage would wreck the economy. That's what I find offensive. And that's why during the election campaign I held up that $1—because that said it all about the difference between Labor and the coalition. Those opposite will always stand up for those who don't need government to make a difference. They're always there to say, 'Let the market rip. Don't worry about helping people who need help.' We on this side make no apologies for standing up for those people who are on the minimum wage, and I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you should have stayed outside for a bit longer, because it wasn't going well. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House is silent, I'll hear from the member for Lingiari. Budget 52 14:16 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, how has the Albanese Labor government begun the task of getting the budget back on track in its first 12 months, and how will it continue to strengthen the nation's finances for the benefit of all Australians? 14:16 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Lingiari for her question, and also for the characteristically wise contribution she made to the debate earlier on today. A hallmark of the first year of the Albanese government has been responsible economic management, working through our challenges in a considered and methodical way, and a key achievement over the first two budgets of the government has been putting the nation's finances on a more sustainable footing. Our strategy has had three parts in both budgets: spending restraint, savings and modest but meaningful tax reform. Some examples of this are that, over two budgets, we banked 87 per cent of the upward revision to revenue, compared to the 40 per cent banked by those opposite and the 30 per cent banked by the Howard and Costello government. Real spending growth in the budget averaged just 0.6 per cent on average over the forward estimates. We found $40 billion of savings and reprioritisations over two budgets, compared to precisely zero dollars in the March 2022 budget handed down by those opposite. The net spend in our budget this time around was half as big as the last budget handed down by those opposite. What this responsible, methodical approach means is that we are forecasting a small surplus this year, which would be the first in 15 years and which represents a dramatic turnaround from the $78 billion deficit that was being forecast by those opposite. We have more than halved the cumulative deficits over the forward estimates, and we are reducing the forecast debt by around $300 billion over the decade. This means that we avoid about $83 billion in interest costs alone. None of this would be possible if we had taken the approach of those opposite. If we had spent like they did and banked like they did, we would have seen a deficit of around $40 billion this year instead of a small surplus. Now, we know the job isn't finished. We know that there's more to do. It will take more than two budgets, it will take more than one parliamentary term, to clean up the mess that we inherited—that was left to us by those opposite. And we know that a stronger budget isn't an end in itself. We weren't flogging 'Back in black' mugs on budget night like those opposite, because we know it's a foundation—a foundation for the support that we want to give people who need it, a foundation for our investments in the future growth of our economy, and it's a buffer against international uncertainty as well. This is not the time for the rorts and waste and mismanagement and incompetence which characterised 'the wasted decade'. It's a time for responsible, methodical economic management which has put the budget on a stronger footing for the future, and that's what we're providing. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Vietnamese Canberra Fellowships Program, Strohmayer, His Excellency Mr Wolfgang 52 14:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I am very pleased to inform the House that we have present in the gallery today a delegation from the Vietnamese Canberra Fellowships Program, led Dr Nguyen Hung Son. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all, and to His Excellency Mr Wolfgang Strohmayer, the Ambassador of Austria, who is also with us today. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Rural And Regional Health Services 52 14:19 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Our rural health workforce is so thin that both our hospitals and aged-care services have no choice but to pay exorbitant agency and accommodation fees to employ and house doctors and nurses. Albury-Wodonga Health spent $2.1 million last year on accommodation for locum workers, money that could be spent on patient care. How do you know that your budget measures will make a difference to the rural health workforce crisis? 14:20 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for her question. There's quite a wealth of experience and understanding of health issues on the crossbench, none more so than the member for Indi's long experience in public health, and I value her advice and feedback. As she knows as well as anyone in this space, the deep workforce shortages that are being experienced right across the health and aged-care systems are most acute in rural and regional Australia. They are there in the cities, but they were there earlier, and they are more acute in rural and regional Australia, as I think everyone in this parliament understands to some degree. We are determined to strengthen Medicare and work with state and territory colleagues, as the aged-care minister is doing, for a hospital system and for an aged-care workforce for all Australians, including those Australians who live outside of our major cities. I want to pay tribute to the work that the assistant minister for rural health, the member for Dobell, is doing on this. That work for us started in the October budget. We've never pretended that these issues would be fixed overnight, but we were determined to start work on them as quickly as we possibly could. We put in place additional workforce incentives for doctors—for example, additional skills in emergency medicine, in mental health, in obstetrics. They started in our first budget last October. I thought they would have been supported by those opposite, who are heckling. We also put in place additional incentives for nurse practitioners, which I'll come back to because they are such a great potential source of expert clinical work, particularly in rural Australia. We expanded rural training, as the member knows, including an expansion of the John Flynn program. We reinstated the, frankly, inexplicable decision made by the former government to get rid of the bulk-billing loading for telehealth psychiatry at a time when rural and regional Australia were benefiting from the benefits of technology. We're expanding the single-employer model from one pilot project under the former government to 21. I only yesterday wrote to state and territory ministers for an additional 10 sites across Australia. And as I said in response to the member for Gilmore's question, the bulk-billing incentives will be higher outside the major cities than they are in the major cities, which is why I think you saw the response from the Rural Doctors Association to our budget, which said: This Budget has gone a long way to fixing the under-investment in rural health and primary care over the past decade. But I agree with the member for Indi; this is not getting to happen overnight. The national cabinet is seized of this issue. The national cabinet asked the very eminent public servant, Robyn Kruk, to undertake a comprehensive review of the recruitment and registration of overseas trained doctors and health professionals, which, as the member knows, are more important in rural communities than they are elsewhere. As health ministers, we're working now on the implementation of that interim report. International Relations: Australia and India 53 14:23 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese government strengthening Australia's relationship with India, and what were some of the outcomes of his meeting with Prime Minister Modi this morning? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. Indeed, it is a good thing that last night I announced the Centre for Australia-India Relations will be based in Parramatta. We also, together with Prime Minister Modi, unveiled a plaque for the 'Little India' Gateway, which will be there in Harris Park. It will be one of the first 'Little Indias', Prime Minister Modi told me, anywhere in the world. It's a great celebration of our multiculturalism and a great celebration of who we are as a nation. It's a nation where we welcome people from around the world, but we encourage them, as well as to be loyal to Australia, to remember their heritage. This morning I had a very warm and constructive meeting with Prime Minister Modi. It is the sixth meeting we've had since I became PM. As Prime Minister Modi said, 'In the language of cricket, our ties have entered the T20 mode.' We keep meeting very regularly indeed! Today we agreed to take the Australia India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership to a new level in the next decade. We signed the terms of reference for an Australia-India green hydrogen task force, which will be so important for renewables. We also witnessed the signing of the Australia-India Migration and Mobility Partnership Arrangement. This is about promoting the exchange of students, graduates, researchers and businesspeople and also expanding our people-to-people ties and enhancing cooperation in preventing the evil scourge of people smuggling. I was pleased to announce the establishment of a fifth Australian diplomatic presence in India—a consulate general in Bengaluru—as well as to welcome India's plans for a consul general in Brisbane. These processes are all so important in building relations with the country that now has the world's largest population: some 1.4 billion. Over two-thirds of those 1.4 billion people are under the age of 35. Having one of the world's youngest populations will drive economic growth going forward, so that India will be the third-largest economy in the world. In our region, that presents a real opportunity for us to benefit in a mutual way from this relationship. I thank Prime Minister Modi very much for his visit. It has been well received by the diaspora here as well. Many members here were present at the rather extraordinary event that took place in Homebush last night. 14:27 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I join with the Prime Minister in thanking Prime Minister Modi and his delegation for visiting Australia and for paying honour to the relationship. The relationship with India, when we were in government, was quite extraordinary and productive. I want to acknowledge the work of former Prime Minister Morrison and many on the front bench, including Dan Tehan, who was intimately involved in trade negotiations and created the opportunities which, to the government's credit, they've continued in relation to a number of these announcements. I was late to question time because I'd been meeting with Prime Minister Modi in Sydney this morning. In a way I wish the meeting had gone on a little longer; I would have avoided a bit more of question time. It was a very cordial and engaging discussion. The wide-ranging topics that we traversed gave an indication of the bipartisan support in the relationship. Prime Minister Modi acknowledged that. Of course, as the Prime Minister points out, it followed on from quite an extraordinary event last night. There were lots of people in attendance from both sides of politics. I said to the Prime Minister this morning that every politician there last night was jealous of the fact that he was able to get 20,000 people chanting his surname in unison on the other side of the world. Dr Chalmers 37998 You don't get that? Mr DUTTON 00AKI Mainly at Labor Party functions, yes. I thought it was an extraordinary event, and I really acknowledge the work of the Indian community in hosting Prime Minister Modi. We have an amazing diaspora community—people who have contributed in many, many ways to our national life. They are an integral part of Australia not only in the present day but in the future as well. Grocery Prices 54 14:28 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. UBS research says the increasing rate of food inflation is a surprise, with grocery inflation likely to remain elevated. The Treasurer says that inflation is moderating. What is the Prime Minister's message to Australian families who are paying more at the checkout? Why are Australians paying more for the food they put on the table? 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. I regret that the Treasurer is once again left out of the process. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply exposed the coalition's catastrophising about inflation and interest rates for what it was: another concocted scare campaign. Not only has the opposition backed most of the budget measures; they failed to come up with a single save. Of course, they didn't have costings for the policies that they announced. I'll tell you how you take pressure off inflation: you take pressure off inflation by turning what was a coalition predicted $78 billion deficit into a projected $4.2 billion surplus. That's how you take pressure off inflation, by making difficult decisions, by banking most of the revenue gains which had been there, and by making sure that you hand down a responsible budget. That's what we did. When we announced alternative policies, such as our childcare plan, we actually got them costed beforehand. We didn't have a circumstance whereby, for the one thing that was announced by the opposition leader, there were no costings whatsoever. There were, of course, no savings whatsoever, a bit like their 2022 budget. No savings whatsoever. Telecommunications 54 14:31 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing through the Quad partnership to support cable connectivity and network resilience in the Indo-Pacific? 14:31 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Moreton for his question. First, of course, I acknowledge the momentous visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi this week and the significance of the Australia-India relationship to the broader Indo-Pacific. Both our countries appreciate the transformational power of ICT and the importance of cooperation in this area to support economic growth and development. The Albanese government is delivering a package of measures to respond to regional priorities and to support our shared interests. Recently, Quad leaders reaffirmed their shared commitment to an open, stable and prosperous region. Leaders announced a package that delivers on the Quad's practical agenda and responds to the region's needs, including an outcome on undersea communications cables. Undersea cables are key to global growth. To give the House a sense of that: they actually carry a greater value of trade, through financial transactions and information, than the value of goods carried at sea. By virtue of their importance, they are also a source of strategic vulnerability. Ninety-five per cent of international data traffic in the Indo-Pacific is actually carried by undersea cable networks, so they are vital to enabling connectivity. To that end, our Prime Minister, with his counterparts, announced a new Quad partnership for cable connectivity and resilience last week. This will improve access to trusted and secure cable systems and establish better internet connectivity and resilience across the Indo-Pacific. The partnership will strengthen cable systems, drawing on the world-class expertise of Quad countries in manufacturing, delivering and maintaining that cable infrastructure. It will deepen connections between our people; support our development program investments in areas like health and education; and enhance cooperation across labour mobility, maritime security, policing, natural disaster responses, media, sport and telecommunications. This effort has been expertly led by our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence and Minister for International Development and the Pacific. The Quad is also stepping up efforts to strengthen supply chain resilience and improve the region's digital connectivity through access to critical and emerging technologies, including 5G networks. The transformative power of technology, including digital public infrastructure, to support sustainable development in the Indo-Pacific and deliver economic and social benefits cannot be understated, and to this end I acknowledge the respective roles of the Minister for Home affairs and the Minister for Industry and Science in these important areas. As is evident, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to support this work and to ensure that countries in our region can access high-quality and reliable communications which drive economic and social development. Asylum Seekers 55 14:34 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Prime Minister. How many people-smuggling boats has the government dealt with over the last 12 months? 14:35 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I refer the member to the level of transparency that his government had when they were in office. Defence Procurement 55 14:35 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why has the Albanese Labor government rescoped the infantry fighting vehicle program following the Defence Strategic Review? What's been the response, and how does this differ from the actions of former governments? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Forrest will cease interjecting. 14:35 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service in the Australian Army. The government has rescoped the procurement of the next generation of infantry fighting vehicles from 450 down to 129 vehicles. Mr Wallace 265967 Rescoped? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Mr MARLES HWQ This is being done in line with a recommendation of the Defence Strategic Review, and the process for managing the manufacture of those vehicles will now be handled by the Minister for Defence Industry. This is obviously a difficult decision, and there are many who disagree with it, including, apparently, those opposite. But no-one is suggesting that Australia's principal threat is an invasion of the continent. What we need is a nimble and mobile Army. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert will cease interjecting. Mr MARLES HWQ And it needs to be potent, so we need a number of those fighting vehicles, but we need to have the capacity to transport them. If we don't, we risk having hundreds of those vehicles stranded in Australia, and, if we're not about to be invaded, what is the point of that? They are the strategic reasons behind the hard decision that we have made, and that stands in stark contrast to the way defence policy was handled over most of the last decade, because the former government didn't do strategy and the former government was incapable of making a hard decision. When they spent money, they were completely out of control— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is on a warning. Mr MARLES HWQ which is why we saw 28 different programs running a combined 97 years over time. When there was a capability problem, the way they did business was through the bizarre mechanism of making announcements with nothing behind them, meaning there wasn't a dollar behind one-quarter of what Defence needed to purchase. The only pressure those opposite responded to was political pressure, which is why we saw the unedifying spectacle of Australia's future submarine capability being tossed around the former government's party room in the empty chair challenge of Prime Minister Abbott. It's why they were in and out of a subs deal with Japan and in and out of a deal with France. It was only ever about the politics, which is why it is wholly unsurprising that the former government sank to the depths of trying to use the Defence Force to raise money for the Liberal Party. Our government's only interest is the national interest, and we will continue to engage in strategic analysis and to make the hard decisions required to build the Defence Force that we need to keep Australians safe. Victoria: Infrastructure 56 14:38 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer to the minister's response last year in question time: The money for the Shepparton bypass remains in the budget, and we are fully committed to that project. Does the minister stand by her statement, or will the Shepparton bypass fall victim to her infrastructure review? 14:39 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thank you very much to the member for the question. I know he is a strong advocate for this project. Can I say to the member that every single dollar of the $120 billion 10-year pipeline remains in the budget. It was in the budget two weeks ago, and it remains in the budget, and it will remain in the budget going forward—every single dollar. The mess we have been left with and the problems— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will pause. I can't hear a word the minister is saying. The next person who interjects will leave the chamber. The minister is going to be heard in silence for the remainder of her answer. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR The member points to a project that actually illustrates the problem that we have been left with. After 10 years, frankly, of mismanagement of this pipeline, putting political priorities above deliverability, making announcements when they didn't know how much a project was going to cost and didn't have a funding partner, doing it without working with state governments to see whether these projects could be delivered, we are now left with a pipeline full of over 800 projects, many of which simply cannot be delivered. So we are cleaning up the mess that those opposite left— Mr Wallace 265967 What about Labor's election promises? Just own up to it, Catherine. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher can leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Fisher then left the chamber. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR to make sure that we can actually deliver projects. Rather than just keep promising them and promising them, we actually want to build them. Member For Fadden 56 14:41 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What questions remain unanswered arising from the Watt review into contracts and procurements? 14:41 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Members of the House will recall that late last year, and again this year, there have been disturbing reports in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald about the undeclared and very active relationship between de facto Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 and the outgoing member for Fadden. Following these articles, the heads of my agencies initiated an inquiry. The inquiry by Dr Watt identified 19 contracts worth $374 million requiring further examination. He explained that the review only had the ability to look at one side of the contracts, that of the public officials but not that of the vendors, former ministers, MPs or their officers. Subsequently the member for Bruce has chaired the JCPAA and is looking at these most concerning matters. A common thread across the undisclosed conflicts of interest, valuable government contracts and Synergy 360 and special access is the outgoing member for Fadden. He has tendered his resignation, but crucial questions remain unanswered. What role did the member for Fadden play in coaching commercial interests seeking special access to Commonwealth contracts? Did the member for Fadden supply the same insider knowledge of government to any of his other 100,000 constituents? Did the member for Fadden ever directly or indirectly seek to or receive a financial benefit from Synergy 360? Is there still a potential benefit owed to him? What is the member for Fadden's previous and current interest in the Australian Property Trust? Is he the beneficiary of any other trust or structures controlled by individuals linked to Synergy 360? What agreement did the member for Fadden and his fundraiser John Margerison have in relation to profits derived from Synergy 360? There is a further report in today's Age and Sydney Morning Herald that notes it's not just the government who feel there are questions to be answered. Eminent legal professionals believe these matters need to be looked into by an investigative body with the power to compel evidence and witnesses. Justice Anthony Whealy KC, Stephen Charles KC, Clancy Moore, Chief Executive Officer of Transparency International Australia, and Geoffrey Watson SC all agree that the actions and issues around this warrant further investigation. I note in closing that the member for Fadden has unusually said that he won't come to parliament to deliver a valedictory speech because he considers it a vanity project—not even a thankyou to his electors. I do not believe that these actions are the way that 98 per cent of the people in this House conduct themselves, but I do believe that the member for Fadden owes the people and his coalition colleagues, all of those opposite, an explanation as to what he did and why he did it. Housing 57 14:44 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Treasurer. Your budget spends a staggering $313 billion on Labor's stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy, giving politicians and billionaires $9,000 a year, but has nothing for 5½ million renters who don't get Commonwealth rent assistance. In the middle of a rental crisis, why is Labor spending $313 billion on tax cuts for politicians and billionaires but can't find $1.6 billion a year to fund the Greens' plan for a rent freeze? 14:44 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I say respectfully to the Leader of the Greens— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Spence is warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 that if he cared about social and affordable housing, he'd vote for it. And if he cared about the pressure that people are under in the housing market, he would put his money where his mouth is in the Senate and support the Housing Australia Future Fund. But as members on this side of the House are aware, that's not the only part of what is a broad and ambitious policy agenda that we have when it comes to housing, and I pay tribute to the housing minister and all of her colleagues for the substantial amount of attention and investment that housing gets in our budget. I was proud to announce from this dispatch box a little over two weeks ago that there would be new tax breaks, for example, for build-to-rent properties so that we can build somewhere between 150,000 to 250,000 new homes over the next 10 years according to the industry. The big issue in the rental market, as I do believe the Leader of the Greens understands, is supply. We don't have enough homes. We need to build more homes. That's what the Housing Australia Future Fund is all about. That's what the Housing Accord is all about. That's what the tax breaks for build to rent are all about. That's what lifting the NHFIC cap for community-housing providers is all about. At the same time, the budget provided for the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance for three decades. We have a housing agenda which is broad and ambitious. We want to see it pass the parliament. The Greens have an opportunity to vote for social and affordable housing in the Senate. The time has come for an end to the ambit claims and the political games that have been played in the Senate when it comes to social and affordable housing. There are people who are counting on this place to pass the necessary legislation to build tens of thousands of new homes, including for women and kids fleeing violence. We want to see those homes built. We need the assistance and the support of the Senate in order to make that possible. Energy 57 14:46 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How has the Albanese Labor government acted to shield Australians from the worst of the global energy crisis, and what will this mean for energy bills? What approaches has the government rejected? 14:47 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for her question and recognise her leadership as a strong regional voice in this parliament, ensuring that our regions benefit from the clean energy revolution underway. The honourable member asked about what we have done to shield Australians from rising energy prices. As she will recall, in December this government intervened, and we intervened again in budget. The figures showed that in our home state of New South Wales energy prices were projected to rise by 40 per cent. For those who've received the rebates, they've fallen by five per cent. In Queensland, energy prices were projected to rise by 43 per cent. They've fallen by 10 per cent. South Australia is another example. They were projected to rise by 51 per cent, and they've fallen by five per cent for those who received the rebate. That's the result of this government's intervention. Of course, this was opposed by those opposite. The shadow Treasurer has tried to say that they were for it, but the Leader of the Opposition, to give him credit, has cleared that up. He was at the APPEA conference last week. He was railing against the government's intervention, he was railing against our policies, and he promised to repeal them. He promised to repeal the gas and coal cap, repeal the code of conduct, repeal safeguards. I'm not sure about PRRT, but he was dead against it. He was promising to repeal it all. He told us he was inspired by Reagan. He was channelling his inner Reagan. I'm not sure which Reagan. I suspect it might be Nancy. Remember, 'Just say no,' she said. Nancy Regan was, 'Just say no,' and he's inspired by Nancy Reagan's approach. But I give credit where it's due—we're always fair—the Leader of the Opposition has been outlining a bit of policy. We saw a bit of policy in his budget reply—a little bit. He doubled down on the member for Fairfax's plan for nuclear energy for Australia. He backed it in. It wasn't so much Reaganomics as 'Duttonomics'. Ronald Reagan— Honourable members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS They had no costings! I'm happy to provide them. I'm just assisting those opposite—who haven't provided any costings—because they've got a thought bubble about nuclear energy. This is Duttonomics. The answer to higher power prices now, his idea, is to introduce the most expensive form of energy and the slowest form of energy. Ronald Reagan had trickle-down economics. The Leader of the Opposition's got scribble-down policies. Gambling Advertising 58 14:50 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Prime Minister. In my household, as in many other Australian households, footy time is family time. But this time is being encroached upon by the corrosive influence of sports-betting advertising during the broadcasting of games. As announced in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech, a coalition government would move to ban sports-betting advertising during the broadcasting of games. Will the Prime Minister work with the opposition to get this initiative implemented now? 14:51 M R36 Grayndler r ALBANESE (—) (): I thank the member for his question. No-one likes their footy more than me, although I didn't enjoy last Friday night, it must be said—to the member for Parramatta! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Spence will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Spence then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 We on this side of the House do want to protect people from gambling harm, and that's why we've already made real progress. In April, Ministers Rishworth and Rowland announced that we will be having a ban on credit cards for online wagering, something that was never done by those opposite—never done by those opposite. We're introducing BetStop in the third quarter of this year so people can exclude themselves from online gambling—again, something never done by those opposite. We are concerned about gambling ads. I find them, frankly, annoying, as do, I think, most people who are trying to watch the footy. But they want— Th 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 If only they were in government sometime in the last decade! If only they'd had the opportunity to do something, to act! What we have done is establish a House of Reps inquiry not just— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey is warned! Mr ALBANESE R36 into ads on TV but also taking into account social media and branding—not just live TV. A comprehensive inquiry is underway, something that the Leader of the Opposition apparently is not aware of. We've also held the first meeting of state and territory ministers responsible for gambling harm reduction since 2017. They didn't even have a discussion about any of these issues—not in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 or 2022. Nothing! The coalition had nine years to act to ban ads during sport, but they didn't. The only reason there are any restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is actions that Labor has taken. We will await the inquiry that looks at a comprehensive response, because that is what is appropriate. Early Childhood Education 58 14:53 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How will the Albanese Labor government's reforms to affordable early childhood education make a difference for Australian families, build a stronger economy and lay the foundations for a better future for Australian children? 14:54 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Lyons for his question. Actually, it was quite fantastic to be in the member for Lyons's electorate recently, in Sorell, and visit the Bridgewater Connected Beginnings site, talking to community members there about the importance of the early years in a child's life and about our changes to make early learning more affordable for families in Australia. These are changes that are laying the foundations for a better future, in the great Labor tradition of social and economic reform—reforms like Medicare, like superannuation, like paid parental leave—and building on the Labor legacy that brought in the National Quality Framework for early childhood education and care. Our changes are good for children and good for families, and they are reforms that are good for the economy. They will boost productivity, boost women's workforce participation and give parents more choice. From 1 July, over one million Australian families—1.2 million, in fact—will benefit from more affordable early childhood education and care. We know the cost of early learning has often put it out of reach for many families. This is responsible cost-of-living relief that will make a real difference to family households right across the country. We're making these changes because we believe that every child, no matter who they are, no matter where they live, no matter who their parents are, should be able to benefit from access to good-quality early learning. We know that, in the first five years of a child's life, a child's brain develops more and faster than at any other time in their life. You can see it when you go to one of these early learning centres and you sit with the beautiful children there. We want to make sure—and we're doing that; we're making sure that every child can learn, can grow and can thrive. We're looking comprehensively at how our early childhood sector operates, commissioning the Productivity Commission and the ACCC to undertake reviews. Both these reviews are consulting widely with sector organisations—including organisations like GrainGrowers Australia, who I met with yesterday over breakfast to discuss the unique needs of rural and regional families. They told me about the importance of accessibility and flexibility in early childhood education and care. Australia now has a government that has made early learning a priority and is working to deal with the issues that have been ignored for way too long. We're proud of what we have achieved in this first year, but there is much more work to do and we're getting on with the job. Energy 59 14:57 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Gas extraction from the Beetaloo basin will detonate a 1.4 billion tonne carbon bomb. The Northern Territory Chief Minister and our federal climate minister admitted last week that the jurisdictions outside the Territory will have to help offset those emissions. Can you please inform the House which jurisdictions will be lifting that load, and exactly how will they be doing it? Mr Burke DYW The question is to the wrong minister, so I'm just wanting to—do we want to get the correct minister up? There's an answer to be given but the question's been asked of the wrong minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is entitled to address the issue and then may refer the remainder of the question to another minister who is responsible under the standing orders. 14:58 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thanks very much for the question. That actually is a question to Minister Bowen, and I will ask Minister Bowen to answer the question. Mr Dutton 00AKI Exhausted your knowledge! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition, that comment is not appropriate. I'm going to just move on and ask the minister to continue with the answer. 14:58 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for the question, and I thank the minister for infrastructure for quite rightly referring it to me. In this government we have one minister for energy who is responsible for these matters! In relation to the honourable member's question: our safeguard reforms, which I acknowledge the honourable member supported, make it clear that scope 1 emissions from any shale gas extraction must be net zero; that's reflected in the safeguard rules I brought down. In addition, in relation to Beetaloo, this government is 100 per cent committed to recommendation 9.8 of the Pepper review; I indicated that as late as last week on Darwin radio, which I think is what the honourable member is indicating. We remain committed to that recommendation. I would've thought that's a very sensible thing to do because it was an important recommendation. I have indicated that that has cross-jurisdictional implications because there are substantial emissions involved. To properly ensure that that obligation is met, it is appropriate for the climate and energy ministers council to consider the cross-border ramifications as to where the gas is sent, where it is emitted and how it should be offset, and I've referred to the ministerial council for further consideration. Cybersecurity 59 14:59 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Cyber Security. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to clean up the mess left by the former government in cybersecurity? 15:00 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I want to thank my good friend the member for Fraser for his question and thank him for his very commendable representation of his local community. Cybersecurity is something that affects every one of our constituents. It is also one of the most important national security challenges that faces our government. So it was a great pity for us to arrive in government a year ago to find that cybersecurity was in an absolute mess. We had voluntary cyber obligations which barely anyone was meeting. We had a response for cross-government which was completely uncoordinated. We had no meaningful cyber incident response function within the Australian government—absolutely unbelievable. And it's not surprising, because under the former government we didn't even have a minister for cybersecurity. So, it's not surprising that we ended up where we are. Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 The opposition are a bit sensitive about this, because they're probably aware that the opposition leader was ostensibly responsible for this during his time as home affairs minister. And I can share with the parliament that he did not once during his tenure as home affairs minister mention the word 'ransomware' in the Australian parliament—not a single time—when he was the minister, and this was at a time when this problem was costing the Australian economy a billion dollars a year. Our Prime Minister has changed all that, and this has led to a very large volume of action on behalf of us as a government. We're taking a very different, highly active approach. In this first year, that has included setting up Hack the Hackers, a 100-strong task force of Australian Federal Police and Australian Signals Directorate operators who are hacking back at the criminals who are seeking to harm Australians. The SPEAKER 53517 I just ask the minister to pause, and I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance: we had committed $9.9 billion to the ASD. It's— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That is an abuse of the standing orders. We're going to return to the question. I give the minister the call. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I was asked about cybersecurity, and I'm talking about cybersecurity and the dismal failures of the former government on this issue. In the past year Australia has taken on global leadership of the counter-ransomware initiative. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Ms O'NEIL 140590 We are building global cooperation to fight the cybercriminals who are attacking not just us but also many other countries with whom we share close relationships. Our government has declared 82 systems of national significance. We've delivered $20 million to make sure those critical assets are protected through the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre. We have imposed tough new rules for cybersecurity across 11 major sectors in the economy and, for the first time, we are bringing coordination to the work of government. We're developing, in close collaboration, a cybersecurity strategy that is going to be really important to making sure we meet our desire to be the most cybersafe country in the world by 2030. Tomorrow we will begin a program of national cyber exercises which will bring together all the actors in the economy to help protect our country. Cybersecurity is national security. We arrived in government to fix the mess, and we're doing it, but there's a lot more work to be done. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B I ask that the minister table the document from which she read word for word in that answer. The SPEAKER 53517 Look, we continue to do this each time, but was the minister reading from confidential documents? Ms O'Neil 140590 I was. The SPEAKER 53517 As is the longstanding practice— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Member for Boothby! AUKUS 60 15:04 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm how Australia will safely dispose of nuclear waste from the new AUKUS submarines? 15:04 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question, and it is a very important question. As we have made clear, in the announcement of the optimal pathway by which Australia will acquire a nuclear-powered submarine capability that we made in March, part of that pathway is: to be accountable for the full nuclear cycle, including the disposal of the reactor at the end of its life. And the safe disposal of that has been an important commitment that we've made to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as part of making clear that Australia will meet its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Now, we have made clear in our announcement that we will embark on a process by which we will determine how the place and means of disposal will be chosen. We have time to do that because, obviously, the first reactor that we would face needing to dispose of is not needing to be done for decades. But it is important that we get this process in place, and we will do so in the time frame that we've already articulated. Schools 61 15:05 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to make our schools better and fairer? 15:06 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the sensational member for Newcastle for her question. I announced a few weeks ago that 10 schools in her electorate would get funding from round 1 of the Schools Upgrade Fund, amongst 1,300 schools right across the country that will get funding for everything from iPads and laptops to air-conditioners to outdoor learning areas. And that's just the start. There's more to come. I can advise members that round 2 will open later this year. There's also funding in the budget to help to encourage more young people to become teachers and to keep the fantastic teachers that we've got. That includes university scholarships worth up to $40,000, to encourage our best and brightest young people to leap out of school and want to be a teacher rather than a banker, or a lawyer, or—God forbid!—a politician. Applications for those open later this year as well. We've also got to do a better job of preparing teaching students to become teachers. Ask most teachers and they'll tell you they never really felt prepared when they left university; that prac wasn't up to scratch; that the practical experience they got when they were a student wasn't really enough; and that university didn't give them everything they needed to teach children to read or write or to manage a disruptive classroom. Fixing that is important. I think I've told the House before that up to 50 per cent of teachers quit in the first five years. And what's happening at university is a big part of that. So, when education ministers meet in the next few weeks, we'll look at the reforms that we need to make to fix teacher training. We'll also look at two other things that cause problems in our schools. And, if you're a parent of a school-aged child, then I suspect you'll know what I'm talking about: mobile phones and vaping. Mr Joyce e5d No! Mr CLARE HWL They're not at school yet, Barnaby, but they will be soon. If you're focused on your phone, then you're not focused on the teacher, and so you're not learning. Some states have banned phones in schools; others are thinking about it. At the next meeting with education ministers, I'll put on the table a proposal for a consistent national approach to the banning or restriction of mobile phone use by students in our schools. On vaping: ask any parent with a child in high school—the member for McMahon tells me about this all the time—and they'll tell you they're worried about it. Catherine does, as well. Principals will tell you it's a behaviour issue. And it is blindingly obvious that the companies that make these things are targeting school students, with fancy flavours, like bubble gum. They're designed to look USBs and highlighters, so you can hide them in the pencil case. And remember: these things include the sorts of chemicals you'll find in weedkiller or bug spray. That's why parents are worried about it. That's why I want to thank the health minister for his leadership on this: getting rid of the flavours, getting them out of convenience stores—helping to get them out of our schools. So we're focused on the things that teachers and parents and students are worried about, but also the big reforms that we need to make to build a better and a fairer education system. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 On that note, I'd ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 61 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Australian Public Service 61 15:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Yesterday at 1.30 pm at a Services Australia centre at Airport West, a Centrelink team leader was stabbed by an assailant while doing her job. This is a terrible crime committed against a well-respected, well-loved, experienced public servant. This morning I travelled to Melbourne to visit the Airport West service centre. I met many amazing-but-traumatised co-workers who were present yesterday and others who were there today to support their colleagues. I know the House joins me in expressing shock at this incident. We send our thoughts to the staff member who was injured, her family and the staff and customers who witnessed this assault. The officer is receiving the best of care, and we wish her a speedy recovery. My thanks both for the immediate assistance provided by other staff and to the Victorian police, who attended within five minutes. It's a very sad and terrible day for Services Australia, our Commonwealth Public Service and people who work for government at all levels. Public servants do an important and difficult job for people in their local community, many of whom are stressed or vulnerable and have complex problems. But that is no excuse. Customer aggression and antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated ever. No-one who works for our Public Service on the front line should ever be concerned for their personal safety. They all have a right to go home safely. I want to assure the staff at service centres that the Albanese government is taking this matter most seriously. Today we're establishing a review of service centre security, to be led by Graham Ashton AM APM, former chief commissioner of Victoria Police and deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. The terms of reference will examine what we can do to better prevent and deter future incidents. This review will be carried out as a priority. The impact of this terrible incident on staff is obvious; some were too distressed to return to frontline work today. I think it is important—and I briefly mentioned this to the shadow minister—that this parliament expresses its support for all of our public servants and, in particular, the person who was assaulted yesterday. 15:11 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The opposition joins with the government in expressing our very deep concern about this deeply regrettable incident. We express our sympathy for the staff member who was attacked. We express our sympathy and concern for all of that frontline staff member's colleagues. We absolutely endorse the statement that no public servant should face the danger of violence in doing the essential work they are doing to serve our community. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 62 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 25 of 2022-23 62 15:12 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 25 of 2022-23 entitled Governance of the Tiwi Land Council. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Presentation 62 15:12 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. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost Of Living 62 15:12 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: This Government's failure to take real action on reducing inflation and the pressures on Australian families and businesses. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:12 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I want to start with a question to all those watching or listening to this today. Do you feel better off or worse off than a year ago? As I talk to people around Australia, I ask this question wherever I go and I get a very consistent answer. Whether it's in a capital city, our regions, in the suburbs, you name it—over in the west, here in the east—I hear the same thing. 'No,' they say, 'I feel worse off.' The facts on this are stark. An average Australian family with a mortgage is wearing additional costs now, versus a year ago, of $25,000 a year for a typical family. That's higher mortgage payments. That's higher grocery bills. That's higher energy prices—and they are set to get higher under the government's own numbers in their budget. Those costs are set to get higher. The truth is that there is real pain out there, and there is real pain out there because we have higher core inflation than any G7 country in the world, at 6.6 per cent core inflation. The UK is at 6.2 per cent, the US at 5.6, Canada at 4.3, the euro area at 5.7 and so on. Australia is top of the pops, but it's not the top of the pops you want to be, because it represents enormous pain to Australians. Only a couple of weeks ago, I was in Goulburn, where I live, talking to a young couple there. Nicole and Dougie have two kids. They recently bought a home. They're luckier than many Australians because they, being in a regional area, paid a little bit less for their home than the average, but they're still paying $890 a month more than they were a year ago. Finding that is incredibly hard. In fact, in Nicole and Dougie's case, Nicole is looking at the prospect of having to go back to work earlier than she had hoped, which means spending less time with her second child. These are the real decisions that Australians are making right across this great country. We saw in the employment numbers that came out only last week that Australians are having to work harder to make ends meet. They're working more hours in the day and the week than they were, because that is the only way they can pay for the necessities of their lives. You would have thought in that context this government would have brought down a budget that fought inflation first—that treated fighting inflation as the one thing this budget could have done which would have helped every single Australian. It would have united us in saying, 'Thank you for a budget that is going to help every one of us, not divide us between those who are going to benefit from the budget and those who aren't.' Sadly, in this budget we saw long lists of the forgotten Australians who were hurt—the young families like Nicole and Dougie, who have seen no help from this budget, because there is no end to this inflation that is hurting them so much. For small businesses, no end is in sight. They're seeing down-trading of their customers and their costs escalating at the same time, and just trying to hold the show together is a battle every single day. We saw the example of Darren Pilcher on the Sunshine Coast just last week. He was a great example—a terrible example, really—of what small businesses are having to do to survive. In his case, it is just extra hours in the day that he simply doesn't have in his cafe on the beautiful Sunshine Coast. The biggest losers in this budget, though, are those hardworking Australians who want to get ahead. They are the backbone of this country. The people who run the small businesses, the truckies, the tradies, the young families with a mortgage trying to get ahead, and the farmers are all being whacked in this budget with higher inflation and higher taxes. Since the budget, those opposite have been very keen to talk about middle Australia. But I tell you when the Treasurer stood up at the dispatch box there on budget night there wasn't a mention of middle Australia. There was no mention of middle Australia in the budget. It was only in the talking points the day after, when they realised, after interview after interview that night, that they'd forgotten about middle Australia. 'Oh my gosh. Forgotten about middle Australia—how could we have forgotten?' They stuck them in the talking points. There's a reason they took this approach. The Treasurer is not a doctor of economics. Many Australians think he's a doctor of economics. There's a doctor of economics just across on the other side; he's not one of those. He is a doctor of spin. That's all he is. So, when he realised the budget was no good on the economics, he went to the spin, and we saw the true doctor at work—the spin doctor that is the Treasurer. We wish we had a doctor of economics, but he's been consigned to a lowly role. Meanwhile, we get this budget. This budget featured a lot of big stuff. The first big thing it featured was big spending. What we saw in this budget was an extra $185 billion of spin since those opposite came into government. It's simple: you can just go to the table. It's there. This is what the spending is now; compare it with what it was when they came into government—$185 billion. That's their definition of restraint. That's what the Treasurer calls restraint—an extra $185 billion is restraint! We do have an economist here who could tell us what restraint looks like, but it's not $185 billion of extra spending. Worse—and this is in the table of truth that Chris Richardson always talks about that compares the spending and the savings of policy initiatives—he is spending two dollars for every one dollar he is saving. So this is a budget that is not fiscally responsible. Indeed, a whole range of economists and others, on budget night and since, have said exactly that. We heard Rich Insight's director Chris Richardson say: I had thought that the Reserve Bank was done and dusted but this has notably raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat. Betashares' chief economist David Bassanese called the budget 'unambiguously expansionary'. Just now I read an article in which Richard Yetsenga, the chief economist of ANZ, said we should get used to interest rates being high as no easing is coming any time soon. This is what others are saying in response to the budget. It is a budget that is not only big spending but also big taxing, because that's how Labor do it. They spend the money and then they hit you with inflation and taxes. It's not a new formula; it's a very old formula. What are the taxes? Taxes on superannuation, taxes on franking credits, taxes on truckies, taxes on farmers, taxes on everyone earning an income through the low- to middle-income tax offset disappearing and bracket creep, taxes on cigarettes, taxes on gas—you name it. There is nothing the Treasurer can see that he doesn't want to tax, and that's exactly what we saw in this budget. That is why we support a 23.9 per cent limit on the tax-to-GDP ratio. It's a sensible approach that says to Australians: 'You can trust this government is not going to spend all your money and is not going to take more from you. It gives you the incentive to get out there and work hard every day.' That is what Australians want to do to make their families better off and give themselves a chance to get ahead. That's what they want to see. We also saw in this budget not just big spending and big taxing but big government at work. It's a heavy-handed government with industrial relations changes that are going to hamstring businesses to get on and do what they do, which is sell their products and services to Australians and to the world that benefit all of us. We've seen gas regulation driving out investment in this country. We are seeing a carbon tax being put in place. We had a review handed down to make life easier for financial planners to advise Australians on how to make investments, and the Assistant Treasurer has buried it, because they believe in bigger government and they believe that the role of government is to do everything for you, rather than let Australians get on and do what they do best in making their lives better and conditions better for their families. This is a big-spending, big-taxing government focused on a big Australia. It is the wrong answer for Australia. 15:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner We've long known that conservatives love the past, but it's becoming increasingly clear that they're not just fans of steam trains and rotary-dial phones. In fact, they're drawing their inspiration from the 50-year-old Monty Python TV series. It has to be said that the shadow Treasurer is very close to a Monty Python character at times. There's an irony to this man making claims about inflation, given that he has made a specialty of inflating certain claims or, as he might say, 'Well done, Angus.' We all remember that time he made inflated claims about Clover Moore using a dodgy doctored document— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I remind the assistant minister to use correct titles, please. Dr LEIGH BU8 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was just quoting the shadow Treasurer, but I certainly respect your ruling. He is here talking about the cost of living, but he is arguing against the Housing Australia Future Fund. He voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. He voted against energy bill relief. He was at the dispatch box a couple of hours ago arguing against 60-day prescribing, which will bring down the cost of pharmaceuticals for Australians. He is not the Messiah; he's just a very naughty boy. This opposition reminds us of that moment in the Life of Brian when one of the insurgents says: 'Well, apart from the sanitation, medication, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?' To which the answer is, 'Brought peace.' The theme of this MPI is basically: what has the government ever done about cost of living? Well, apart from cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, bulk-billing and energy bill relief, what have we done? Oh, that's right: we've also boosted incomes through single-parent payments, JobSeeker, student assistance, rent assistance and better aged-care wages. There are 11 million Australians who will benefit from the tripling of the bulk-billing incentives and six million Australians who will benefit from a reduction by up to half in the cost of medicines. There are one million Australians who will benefit from increases in payments like JobSeeker, Austudy and youth allowance and many, many more Australians who will benefit from the energy bill relief. In our year in office, we haven't just dealt with cost-of-living issues; we've also created a National Anti-Corruption Commission, set a 43 per cent emissions reduction target, carried out a royal commission into robodebt, saved Trove, fixed the roof of the National Gallery, fixed up our international relationships and brought adult government back to Australia. But, again, what has Labor ever done for Australia? The fact is that those opposite remind me of the Knights Who Say 'Ni!' When it comes to immigration, they're criticising our immigration forecasts, despite the fact that they were projecting more migration—more 'ni'. They criticised the fact that we brought down a surplus, despite the fact they were projecting deficits as far as the eye could see. They've criticised our middle Australia supports, despite the fact that they voted against energy price relief last December. They are the Knights Who Say 'Ni!' You can't help feeling that, when you're in question time, it's a bit like walking into the Monty Python argument sketch. Rather than offering solutions or arguments, they just want to find what Labor is saying and say the opposite. I am reminded of my favourite line in that sketch: 'I came here for a good argument!' 'Ah, no, you didn't, you came here for an argument!' They can't even give us a good argument. They are, in so many parts of the country, infighting among themselves. The Victorian Liberal Party are a bit like the People's Front of Judea, who reveal that the only people they hate more than the Romans are the Judean People's Front. But even the People's Front of Judea weren't flirting with the far right. The Liberals have now lost office in every mainland state and territory. On the mainland, their most senior Liberal leader in office is Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, as Monty Python once said, and nobody expected that, for the first time in a century, a government would win a seat off an opposition in a by-election, and yet that has happened. You'd think this would prompt a bit of soul searching. You'd think it would prompt the Liberal Party of Australia to consider how they might re-engage with middle Australia. But instead they're responding more like the Monty Python Black Knight, who's lost his arm and is saying, ''Tis but a scratch.' They can't realise that they have fundamentally lost the core of what it is to be a small-l liberal party. Robert Menzies wouldn't recognise the party sitting on the opposition benches right now, and indeed that probably explains why his former seat is no longer held by the Liberal Party, why John Howard's former seat is no longer held by the Liberal Party, why Tony Abbott's former seat is no longer held by the Liberal Party and why Josh Frydenberg's former seat is no longer held by the Liberal Party. They've lost touch with middle Australia. They've lost their right arm, and they think it's just a scratch. The fact is that those opposite couldn't even deal with the problem of spam. There's that great Monty Python spam sketch, in which there's spam on everything. A customer is trying to order something without spam, and the response is, 'Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam; that's not got much spam in it.' But it took a Labor government to deal with real spam. It took the Minister for Communications to put in place new rules that blocked 90 million spam texts in the first six months. Deputy Speaker, those opposite remind you of Monty Python's cheese shop sketch, in which a customer walks into the cheese shop and is asking one by one just for a bit of cheese. 'Any Danish Fimboe?' 'No.' 'Czechoslovakian sheep's milk cheese?' 'Venezuelan beaver cheese?' 'Not today, sir.' 'How about cheddar?' 'Oh, I'm afraid we don't get much call for it round these parts, sir.' The cheese shop's inability to come up with cheese is a bit like the Liberal Party of Australia's inability to come up with policy: 'Got any policies? What about a policy in education?' 'Nope, we don't have that.' 'What about a policy on health?' 'Nope, we don't have that.' 'What about a policy on reducing Australian emissions?' 'Nope, we don't have that. We've just got a wacky nuclear policy, although we won't tell Australians where the reactors would be and won't confess what the cost will be.' 'What about a policy on defence?' 'Nope, we don't have one of those.' 'Have you in fact got any policies at all?' 'Oh, well, we don't get a lot of call for policy around here.' While those opposite are languishing in the land of the argument sketch or in the land of the Spanish inquisition, while they're sitting there having esoteric discussions about themselves that are about as relevant to regular Australians as the question of how far a swallow could carry a coconut if it were the right breed of swallow, middle Australia continues to desert the Liberal Party of Australia. Middle Australia has deserted the Liberal Party of Australia in a little less than a year. It has deserted them in South Australia. It has deserted them in New South Wales. It has deserted them at the federal level. The fact is that those opposite can't realise that they're having their discussions between the Popular People's Front of Judea and the Judean Popular People's Front when they should be focusing on what matters to Australia. If they could focus on middle Australia rather than having their own in-house argument sketch, they would be voting for energy price relief and for the Housing Australia Future Fund. They'd be supporting us on our measures such as the safeguard mechanism in order to ensure that Australia gets the benefits of decarbonisation and the renewables revolution. But instead they're caught up on the esoteric discussions of their party room, dragging them further and further off to the right, unable to recognise that Australians may not want a Danish Stilton, may not want a cheddar and may not even want a yak's cheese but would like a policy after all. They would like the Liberal and National parties to actually come up and be clear as to how they intend to be a little bit more than a comedy sketch, a little bit more than Australia's answer to John Cleese and a little bit more than a 50-year-old comedy troupe whose jokes might have been great back then but who are no example of how to run a serious party of government. 15:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Methinks the member for Fenner watches far too much television when, as the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, he should be doing more for those portfolio areas than watching Monty Python. His speech reminds me a little bit of Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time, because that's what he's spent the last 10 minutes doing: wasting everyone's time. Mr Gorman 74519 You'll only waste five minutes. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Hilarious. You should be in a comedy sketch too. In 12 months of Labor in government, cost of living has gone up. In 12 months, unemployment has gone up, interest rates have gone up and power prices have gone up. We have higher core inflation than any G7 country, and, in 12 months, it's gone up as well. Yet Labor comes in here and quotes comedy sketches. It's no laughing matter. People in middle Australia, who were referred to by the member for Fenner, ain't laughing. They are deadly worried. Real wages have gone down. Regional funding has gone down. The government have taken away the regional funding, the infrastructure investment in regional Australia. Regional Australia—I am sure the member for Wannon will agree with me here—carried Australia during COVID, through agriculture and resources—two sectors which were not looked after in the recent budget. In fact, mining has been demonised by this Treasurer. He talks about the things we sell overseas but can't bring himself to say the things are coal and gas and iron ore. He can't bring himself to name those vital industries. And let me tell you, mining workers are worried. They are worried about their jobs. Farmers are worried about the additional taxes which are being imposed upon them by this unfriendly-to-regional-Australia government. Families' budgets are stretched to the limit. The shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume, said, 'Ask your constituents if they are better off now than they were 12 months ago. The resounding answer you get back is, "No, we are not."' Our pharmacists are very concerned. And whilst I appreciate that those on the opposite side believe they have the mandate to do what they want to do, they really need to look at the situation with our country chemists in particular. In many rural, regional and—particularly; especially—remote areas it's the friendly pharmacist who is the only frontline health professional in town. Take away their ability to make money, take away their ability to operate, and you take away the only health professional in town. When they go, who's going to do the compression stocking tests for free? Who's going to do the blood pressure tests for free? Who's going to do all of that work putting in place the blister medicine packs and all the rest that pharmacists do for absolutely nothing—the after-hours care, the deliveries that they do. They are very concerned. Infrastructure projects and programs are all on hold, and that is also causing nervousness right across the country. That is also placing pressure, particularly on our regional communities. The member for Fenner waxed lyrical about how terrible the coalition is. I just might remind him how, in the last five elections, the National Party retained every seat. I might also remind him that the percentage that Labor got of first preference votes was very low. In fact, it was one of the lowest first preference votes since the early 1900s. It wasn't at all a good result, and the quirks of our electoral system—yes, it means Labor is in government—and good luck to them—but good luck also needs good management, and we're not seeing good management at the moment. Real wages have gone down. They spruik a big deal. They talk themselves up. All we've seen this week is the hubris and also the feigned indignation about what we did in the nine years we were in government. Mr McCORMACK 219646 We did do something. I'll tell what you we did do during COVID: we kept people in a job. We kept their business doors open. But more importantly than that, to the member who interjects, the member for Perth, we kept Australians alive. And if there was one thing we did that we should always be remembered for, and acknowledged for, it was actually keeping Australians alive during COVID. 15:38 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser This debate started with a rhetorical question. Well I'm going to start my speech with what I consider to be a real question. It was the real question that I think was posed to the Australian public at the last election and the real question that they're thinking about every day, and that is who do they trust to manage this economy in difficult times, and particularly to manage it in a way that cares the most for the most vulnerable in our community? They answered this question a year ago at the election, and many of the issues that were put at that election centred entirely on how we should deal, as an economy and as a society, with the challenges that we're facing. One example is the minimum wage. The Australian population at the last election voted clearly. They voted for the party that wanted to lift the minimum wage so that the most vulnerable in our community would have their cost-of-living pressures eased, as opposed to those who railed against it. This debate today is about who is best placed to deal with the very profound challenges that our economy and our society are dealing with? Those opposite—either in what they stood for at the last election that was rejected at that election, or in what they have voted against since then, both in the policies that they stood against at the last election and in what they have voted against since—have shown that they are not in a position to claim anything in relation to containing inflation or providing households with assistance. Now, if we look at what this government has done since the election we see a two-pronged approach. The first is to put in place a raft of policies which reduce inflationary pressure, to bring inflation down as quickly as possible. At the heart of that in the last budget was fiscal repair on a level we saw nothing of over the last decade. We've seen 87 per cent of the fiscal uplift the economy has seen over the last 12 months returned to the budget bottom line. That compares to 40 per cent from the previous government over the decade they were in power and 30 per cent under the Howard government. When we look at their actions in government versus what we have done, this government's actions have put much more downward pressure on inflation than anything they did over the last two decades—$40 billion in savings under this government and zero identified by them. What we have done in government versus what they have done in practice over the last 20 years represents a massive difference in downward pressure on inflation. Another source of downward pressure on inflation is the energy price caps that we legislated, and which they voted against. So when the people of Australia ask who is better placed to manage inflationary pressures in our economy, they can directly contrast what we have done with what those opposite have voted against. There is significant downward pressure on inflation running through wholesale energy price markets, which will flow through to the economy as a whole. Those opposite voted against that, yet they come in here every day and have the temerity to ask questions complaining about energy prices. The second prong is what we are doing to help vulnerable households. Again, the contrast could not be greater. At the last election, those opposite ran on a policy saying that an increase in the minimum wage was irresponsible. The then leader of their party, the then Prime Minister, said it was incredibly reckless. He said that we were unprepared to manage the economy, because we were putting forward an increase in the minimum wage that reflected some kind of compensation for cost-of-living increases. The contrast at the last election could not have been greater. He also went on to say that, when governments change, things can change and they can get worse. That was their description of what would happen if there was a modest increase in the minimum wage. Yet they come in here and say not enough is being done for vulnerable households. They railed against increases in the minimum wage at the last election and have voted against every single industrial relations policy that we have brought in here since. Let's look at other key measures that we've put in place to protect vulnerable households, such as five million households getting electricity bill relief. They voted against it. It is an absolutely intellectually hollow and, indeed, hypocritical position that they run. They come in here and note a whole bunch of things that are going on in the economy, but either they ran against those things at the last election, and now come in here and say that our primary vote wasn't enough, even though we won the election, or since then, they have voted against them. As the previous speaker on our side, the member for Fenner, indicated, this government is doing a whole raft of things, and in five minutes I don't have time to list them all. Those opposite come in here complain, but they either stand against those measures or vote against them. 15:43 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I thank the speakers who have come before me. I will single out the two on the other side, and I'm sure that the member for Fraser has to leave. Can I congratulate the member for Fraser for actually sticking to this topic a bit more than the member for Fenner did. The member for Fenner should know better. He had 10 minutes—twice your time—and I think you had twice the substance on this topic that he did. He gave us a full dissertation on his love of Monty Python, another sort of entertainment. That's a bit disappointing, because the member for Fraser and the member for Fenner are accomplished academics and have accomplished postgraduate qualifications in economics. In fact, many might argue that perhaps they, rather than those who have written political PhDs, should be in some of the key economic positions. We have noticed that on the other side there is selective hearing when it comes to experts. There is a tendency to want to listen to experts who only say what they think they want to hear. After the budget, we heard from three experts about how this budget would contribute to inflation—and it is putting more pressure on the RBA to do the heavy lifting. Chris Richardson said he thought that 'the Reserve Bank was done and dusted, but this has notably raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat'. And then S&P Global Ratings disputed the government's forecasts, saying that the 'handouts in today's budget may add to inflationary pressures.' Thirdly and finally, the Chief Economist of BetaShares, David Bassanese, called the budget 'unambiguously expansionary'. When we look at this budget being an inflationary budget, that actually hurts Australians. The member for Fraser talked about the minimum wage. It's a shame he didn't talk about something else, which is real wages. It's real wages that count. They account for inflation and they look at what is important to people, which is purchasing power. It doesn't help you if your wages go up but expenses are rising faster. That's why real wages matter. The member for Fraser knows better and is more than qualified to actually address that, and so is the member for Fenner and anyone on the other side. We should all be talking about real wages because there are two sides to the cost-of-living crisis: what you earn and what you have to spend. We can't just pick the one that's more politically convenient. We have to talk about both. There are some records that Australia has that we shouldn't be proud of, one being the record of core inflation. This is addressing the things that actually matter, rather than just the headline that suits particular talking points. At 6.6 per cent, Australia's core inflation is higher than the UK, the US, Canada and the euro area. We know where inflation is coming from. It's coming from Canberra. We give you the benefit of the doubt as a new government. You are just over one year in, and there's still a tendency to want to look in the rear-view mirror and blame the previous government. I'm a Victorian, and it reminds me of a quote given by then opposition leader Daniel Andrews in 2012. He referred to the then Premier with this: That is where we have got to in this state. What do we get from the Premier? We get excuses and blame. He is always trying to blame someone else. Nothing is this man's fault, and he is accountable for nothing. …   …   … The Premier is very certain in his blaming and his buck-passing. In 2012 the city of Melbourne, where I'm from, the capital of Victoria, was the most livable city on earth. It held that title from 2011 to 2017. Melbourne is now ranked 10th. That's nothing to be proud of. That happened on a Labor government's watch. There are two other rankings that the state of Victoria is top of, and we shouldn't be proud of them. One is that Victoria has the largest debt in this nation. It's so large that it is larger than the combined debts of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. Victoria is paying the highest taxes in Australia. So, instead of leading the livability index, Victoria is leading the debt index. It's leading the tax index. We saw, with the recent state budget, measures and policies that will drive business out of Victoria and drive hard-working families to the wall. You may ask why I'm talking about the Victorian state government. I'm talking about the Victorian state government because I'm aware that sitting over there are an enormous amount of Victorian Labor members. If we want to look at what the next few years might look like—not just the last 12 months, but the next few years, when it's not so disciplined; where more extreme elements within their party say, 'Now it's time to actually dust off the policies we really want to do'—look no further than Victoria, because that is an insight into where we may go in the next few years. 15:48 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite It is a great pleasure to rise for this matter of public importance to talk about what our government is doing to help families and small businesses with cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation. In my electorate and across our nation, I know that many families are under the pump. They're doing it tough. So it is even more important to ensure that our 2023-24 budget is carefully calibrated to manage inflation while helping Australians get ahead. I'm proud that this budget is expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in this coming financial year. On this side of the House we understand that inflation is the defining economic challenge of 2023, as it was in 2022. This is driven in large part by Russia's illegal war on Ukraine, and also in no small part as a consequence of the wasted decade by the previous government, which included more than 20 failed energy policies. The coalition oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities that left Australia with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. Australians understand that we didn't create these problems, but they elected us to take responsibility for addressing them, and we are. This is despite the coalition's ongoing opposition to policies that build our economy, grow jobs and reduce inflation. Now they're standing in the way of our government's Housing Australia Future Fund, which will deliver 30,000 homes for people who need them the most. I urge the coalition to reconsider. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese government that is directly tackling cost-of-living pressures in health, in housing, in energy bill relief and in wages growth. We are increasing payments for JobSeeker, Austudy and youth allowance for more than 1.1 million Australians. Health is fundamental to living a happy, productive life. Labor understands this. That's why we created Medicare, and in this budget we have made a record investment in bulk-billing. We're investing $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive for GP consultations. This will support 11.6 million eligible Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. This is the largest investment in bulk-billing incentives ever, making it easier and cheaper for Australians to see their doctor. We are also making changes to pharmacy dispensing. From 1 September, many patients requiring routine medication will be able to buy two months worth of medication for the price of a single prescription. This means fewer visits to the GP and the pharmacy, saving you time and money. The Albanese government has also introduced the Energy Price Relief Plan. With winter coming, this plan will help to relief energy costs for five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses. It will provide $3 billion of electricity bill relief. Our government is also making it easier for households and small businesses to access energy savings and upgrades, through financing options for households and a new tax break for small and medium-sized businesses. On top of this, we've successfully advocated for wage increases for minimum and award wage workers and we are funding pay rises for aged-care workers, and we're delivering cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. We're delivering Commonwealth supported university places. We've expanded paid parental leave and have a new pensioner work bonus so that older Australians can keep more of what they earn without it affecting their pensions, and we're increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance. We're also providing electricity bill rebates to more than five million households and one million small businesses, in partnership with state and territory governments. In closing, this is a bill that will support Australians. It will help to manage our inflation. It has something in it for all Australian families. It has a focus on women. It supports small business. And, importantly, it has a focus on reducing climate change implications and emissions. I am very proud to support our government's approach to working to reduce cost-of-living pressures whilst we also manage inflation. We will do this, and we will support those who most need it. 15:53 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I have never heard a group of people who are so tone-deaf as those opposite here today. When I and, I'm sure, those on this side of the fence talk to our local businesses in our communities, they're not talking to us—and I am sure they're not talking to those members opposite—about the fact that Australians apparently, if you listen to those opposite, have never had it so good. They've never had it so good, according to this lot over here. Both local businesses and families in my electorate are absolutely screaming blue murder because they are having so much trouble trying to keep ahead of the tax man and keep ahead of just paying the bills, and we know that, for around 880,000 Australian families, their mortgage rates will go from a fixed rate of around two per cent to north of around six per cent over the next 12 months. On an average Australian mortgage, that equates to $20,000 a year after tax. But apparently, according to those on the other side, the government, Australians have never had it so good and everything is so rosy. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, let me tell you this: Australians are doing it tough, and the people on the Sunshine Coast are no different. One of the major industries on the Sunshine Coast is the building and construction industry. It is one of the largest employers in the country. It's an industry that I have worked in in various forms for over 30 years. The building industry across this country is built on subcontractors. Not content with making life more difficult with high inflation, those opposite want to amend and change the way subcontractors are dealt with at law. I can tell you one thing: right now, there are builders and subbies working on building sites right across this country, and, yes, occasionally they do have the radio tuned to parliament. Mr Rae 300122 Do they tell you that, do they? Mr WALLACE 265967 It's very true. I know because I used to do it. These men and women who are out there working on building sites are very, very fearful about the changes in legislation that the government have in store for them. Ladies and gentlemen listening along on building sites, at home, those of you who are driving trucks right now, this government is coming after your independence. You know you are independent contractors; you know you're independent subbies. This government wants you to be regarded as an employee. Why? Because this government wants to control you as a payback for their union paymasters. It is as simple as that. This will have significant impacts on business people. Read the question for the MPI. What is this government doing for local businesses and homeowners? They are making their lives a misery. Rents have gone up, mortgages have gone up, food's gone up, fuel's gone up, and now they're coming after you from a regulatory perspective. We've seen this book, we've read this book before, and we know how it ends. This goes back to the seventies and eighties, back when I was a chippy—it's true! Mr Tehan 210911 A good one, too! Mr WALLACE 265967 A good one, too, yes. It was a long time ago. This government is so driven by ideology, driven out of Trades Hall. They are coming after you and independent contractors around this country, whether you're an engineer, a subcontract carpenter or a subcontract plumber. The building industry around this country relies upon your hard work. Those members opposite know it, and that's why they're getting so upset. There is more to be said on this very issue. On this side of the House, we will stand for you and your independence for as long as God puts breath in our lungs. 15:58 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Budget week has just passed—and this will upset the member for Fisher—and what a great budget it was for the electorate of Hunter. We are delivering serious reform and real relief for those who need it. We know that people are doing it tough. Make no mistake, this budget will make a real impact for the better for this group of people and for the whole of Australia. We are a government that cares about people. If those opposite want to talk about failing to take action to ease the cost-of-living pressures for families, let's talk about the fact that their vocabulary relies and really only expands no wider than the word 'no', because that's all they say whenever we put forward policies that will help the exact people who they wrongly claim we are letting down. We all know who is failing people and Australian families in this place, and that's those on the other side of this chamber. Pretending to care to win a vote does nothing for those doing it tough. In fact, it seems pretty desperate if you ask me. I will give those opposite the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure if it's short-term memory loss or selective hearing. For their benefit, let me remind them of the measures this government has made to take real action on reducing inflation and the pressures on Australian families and businesses. I know taking real action is a foreign concept to those opposite, because they rarely did it in this place in the last 10 years that they spent government, but listen up; you guys might just learn something. The very centrepiece of our budget that was announced just a few weeks ago was a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package which is expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023 and 2024. The list goes on and on and on. I won't name everything we're doing, because I only have five minutes, but I will mention a few things. We're delivering cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE for more than 300,000 Australians, and more university positions. We're expanding paid parental leave so parents can raise their newborns without having to worry about their bank accounts. We are building more affordable homes so that Australians will actually be able to afford to put a roof over their heads. We successfully fought for a wage increase for minimum wage and award wage workers, and we're funding pay rises for aged-care workers so that hardworking Australian families have more money in their pockets to deal with the pressures they're facing. We're delivering the biggest increase to the bulk billing incentive since its introduction by a Labor government. The number in your bank account should not determine whether you can access high-quality health care. I know those opposite tried their best to make Australians choose between being able to afford to look after their health and other necessities within their nine years of cuts and neglect of Medicare, but we will not stand for that, because they did not do any of that. We have made life easier for more than 89,000 people in my electorate and millions more around Australia who can now visit their doctors and have their doctor visit bulk billed. That sounds like taking real action to reduce pressures on Australian families to me. It does not stop there. We are making medicines cheaper for almost 50,000 people in the Hunter alone, saving Australians up to $180 each and every year so they can continue to get the medicine they need without it having to come at the expense of something else. We know that one of the biggest pressures on Australian families and businesses is their power bills. Those opposite must have forgotten that five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses will be able to access electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund. As a result, power bill increases will be 25 percentage points lower and retail gas price increases around 16 percentage points smaller because of the real action this government has taken. This is the final nail in the coffin of the arguments made by those opposite. If they didn't consider this to be real action, then I don't know what real action is. 16:03 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I'll give you some real action. Let's get that on the table. That's a bit of fun. Let's do that. Let's have real action. The lowest unemployment in 50 years—we delivered that real action. We did that. The lowest welfare dependency in 30 years—we did that too. Small businesses—you opposite talk about middle Australia, and this is what they own. You can introduce yourself to them later on and find out about them. They're great people, so get out there and meet them. We had the lowest small business tax rate in 30 years. We dropped it from 30 to 25 per cent. That's real action. I'm pretty happy to put that on the table. We started off today with a bit of Monty Python. I thought that was fantastic. The member for Fenner gave a very entertaining speech. I'm not going to go the full monty—there's my contribution to these puns. We did have a very Monty Pythonesque performance today once again from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He was trying to convince Australians that their power bills have gone down and they're paying less for their energy. It's the sort of humour that is really hard to enjoy if you're on the receiving end, but I'm sure it seems quite humorous to those on the frontbenches. In my electorate, according to AGL today, average annual prices for energy in regional Australia, and particularly around Groom, will increase by $432 next year, taking them up to around $1,900. Now, we gave the government the opportunity, pretty recently, to name a single Australian who's had their energy bills go down. Just name one. They could not do that. They absolutely could not do that. We know what's happening with energy prices. They've gone up. I think the excellent member for Fraser, my good friend, nailed it when he was talking about the last election. It was a question of trust. There was a question of trust put, and that's what a good election should be based on. When the now Prime Minister promised Australians cheaper mortgages, they trusted him. They knew that was an issue. When the now Prime Minister promised lower energy prices, they trusted him. They were feeling that pain, they knew it was coming through, and they trusted him. On real wages, on grocery prices—I have the now Treasurer saying there's lots we can do to reduce cost of living, including reducing grocery prices. People trusted the then opposition, now government, when they said these things. They trusted them. And one after another those promises have been broken. That trust has been eroded. The shadow Treasurer stood up and asked, 'Do you feel better off today than you did a year ago?' I don't think he means just financially. I don't think he means just economically. Yes, there's the impact on your lifestyle, on your ability to look after your kids and pay your mortgage, but I think it's also how you feel about the decision you made once you see those broken promises, one after the other, land on you. And then you sit here and watch a minister try to pretend that prices have gone down. Going to the core of this question on inflation, we have one of the highest rates of core inflation amongst major economies. It's higher than the US, the UK, Canada and the Euro area. And whilst it's very true that the significant driving international forces pushed our inflation up and put us in the situation we're in, there are different ways to respond to it. Different countries have taken different responses and they've got different results. That's the role of government. You face the challenges that you have. And this is the question of monetary and fiscal policy: what role do they play? Do you just allow monetary policy from the RBA to whack that giant sledgehammer of interest rates down on those who hold debt and allow them to hurt more and more and more with each whack—and I note that sledgehammer, after this budget, has not been taken away. In fact, across the commentary of economists, there has been no suggestion that this has brought about an end to interest rate rises. This has done nothing to help monetary policy whatsoever. The idea of fiscal policy working with monetary policy has been abandoned by this government. That's how you get these different results across different nations. So when we come to speak about this government's actions and what it's done, let's be very clear: it's brought about a budget that has confirmed mortgages will keep going up, 175,000 people will lose their jobs and things are going to get a lot worse. 16:08 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck It's been relayed to me that there is no lonelier, no more introspective time in politics as your first budget night in opposition. It is in that moment the irrelevance sets in. And I can't imagine it gets any easier when a budget is as well-delivered and as well-received as ours has been over this past fortnight. Time and time again, these matters of public importance provide a welcome opportunity to communicate to the country, and in particular to the great electorate of Hasluck, the measures this government is taking to reduce the cost-of-living pressures and to outline why most credible economic experts are saying the Treasurer's budget approach will not exacerbate inflation. Just the opposite. The member for Hume might be the only person who just doesn't get it. Of course, we are not just trying to improve the lives of people living in the electorate of Hasluck. The electors of Hume likewise will benefit. Hume is not unlike Hasluck in that it is a peri-urban electorate taking in part of greater Sydney and then ranging across hills and valleys. I think many people in Hume will be puzzled to read their member's motion today, as all the budget positives that apply to my electors in Hasluck apply to Hume, over 3,000 kilometres away. This government governs for all Australians. The motion talks about reducing inflation. This government is the very model of a modern approach to fiscal restraint, and the Treasurer's careful judgement is paying off. International observers such as Bloomberg noted the government is on the path of fiscal restraint with the May budget, and our own Chamber of Commerce and Industry praised the government's fiscal restraint. These are independent commentators who have said our budget straddles that line well—relief for those who need it most, targeted investment in public services and innovation, banking most of the surplus revenue, and paying down Liberal debt. Peter Martin, a visiting fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU, wrote recently in the Conversation: … by cutting prices for many of us, the budget will help bring down inflation sooner. And: I'm yet to see a credible argument that inflation won't do as predicted in the budget. Who should the people of Hasluck and Hume listen to: Bloomberg, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, an ANU academic or the member for Hume? But wait—there's more. Following the budget, Fitch Ratings affirmed Australia's triple-A credit rating and applauded the government's spending restraint, saying the nation's public finances had outperformed expectations. Fitch said: The commitment in the Budget to save most of the revenue windfalls over the five-year budget horizon signals a commitment to prudent fiscal management. This positive feedback for the Treasurer isn't new. The IMF, back in February, in response to the Treasurer's October budget statement, said: New spending measures (in the October Budget) provide targeted cost-of-living relief and address structural economic issues by alleviating labour and skills shortages, promoting productivity growth, and facilitating the climate transition. The IMF also recognised the government's spending restraint helps address the inflation challenge and makes the job of the Reserve Bank easier: Near-term fiscal restraint will help support monetary policy in holding back excess demand. The Reserve Bank, likewise, stated in February, in relation to energy policy that increases in wholesale costs are expected to be dampened by the Australian government's energy price relief plan. So what was there in the May budget—which the member for Hume might need to read more carefully, as he doesn't seem to have understood the government's fiscal approach in the way academics, economists, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ratings agencies, the IMF and the Reserve Bank do? Many things are there; my colleagues have covered that ground. Saliently, more than five million households and one million small businesses will receive energy price relief. Combined with the earlier market intervention—which the coalition voted against and apparently would repeal if they could—these measures are expected to reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. Just imagine what would happen to inflation in this country if the coalition circus came to town! The Albanese Labor government is listening to the country, from Hasluck to Hume, and we are working to deliver a better future for all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 72 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 72

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 72 16:13 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson The Nationals are a party solely dedicated to rural, remote and regional Australia. We are a party that learns from history, and our history has shown us that our bureaucratic efforts haven't closed the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations peoples. Our vulnerable communities have real issues—issues that our Canberra public servants don't live through and have no real understanding of. There need to be frontline, evidence based and place based services to empower our First Nations peoples and their elders while respecting their culture. When we head to the polls, Australians are going to be asked whether we will support a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament. Australians have the right, when being asked to vote in a referendum, to have the detail and to know what the consequences are for voting 'yes' or voting 'no'. Prime Minister Albanese has deliberately geared his 'yes' campaign around emotions and virtue-signalling and not the facts. The coalition has asked 15 questions on this Canberra voice, and, to this date, not one of these questions has been answered. Are we not entitled to know exactly what the Voice means to all Australians? Instead, it seems our Prime Minister wants to shame us into voting 'yes' and to make us feel we are racist if we vote 'no'. This is just not the Australian way. Crucially, a core component that underpins our free democratic society in Australia is that all Australians are equal. In my previous role as Mayor of Whitsunday Regional Council, I had the privilege of conducting many Australian citizenship ceremonies, and part of this role was to explain to the new citizens what the values of being Australian are all about. Australian citizenship is a common bond which unites all Australians whether they're Australia's traditional peoples, first generation migrants or the descendants of early settlers. Our rich heritage stems from the contributions made by all the people who live in our country. After all, we are the melting pot of the world. But enshrining the Canberra voice into our Constitution will do nothing but divide us. Any constitutionally enshrined body based solely on a person's race does not align with our values or principles—and nor should it. Amongst our elected federal representatives, there are 11 Indigenous members, who represent all of their constituents, not just some of them. I, too, was elected to represent all of my constituents, no matter their race, religion or gender, and that is what I will continue to do. The Australian people want unity. And unity is what they deserve. A government that deliberately creates a racial divide and is deliberately not transparent is not a government that deserves to lead our nation. For these reasons, I will be voting 'no' to the Canberra voice to parliament. And it's fine for the Australian people to vote 'no'. It's not racist to vote 'no'. And I believe: if you don't know, then vote 'no'. 16:17 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Many millennia ago, a child played on a vast land as the warm sun kissed their skin. Eucalyptus danced on the breeze as a lorikeet sang its melodic song. The ochre earth embraced the child's bare feet as they explored the sacred grounds. In the distance, the rhythmic chant of elders resonated, carrying ancient stories and wisdom that mingled with the scent of burning wood. In this place, a child's senses intertwined with the land, sacredly connecting them to their ancestors, their culture and the timeless spirit of Aboriginal Australia. Today, I'd like to acknowledge that this debate occurs on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. And I pay my respects to the custodians of this land, who have played, laughed and loved upon these lands for millennia. Historians and scientists remind us of the importance of understanding the past. And what a rich past First Nations Australians have had. You should not underestimate the importance of the tight connections of the Aboriginal people to our earth. The Yolngu people knew about the links between the tides and the phases of the moon before Galileo. I know that keto diets are all the rage—low carbohydrates and high protein. Interestingly, traditional Aboriginal diets are the same: berries, bush nuts, roos and shellfish. They're low-GI, too. Maggie Dent, our beloved parenting expert, stresses the importance of outdoor play for children's holistic development. Outdoor play provides opportunities for exploration, physical activity and connection with earth. First Nations Australians have known this for thousands of years. One of the risk factors for postnatal depression is a limited social network. There's a reason we say that it takes a village to raise a child. This is why the kinship system extends to aunts, uncles and cousins and is a key part of Aboriginal culture. This support network sustains and nurtures. The rich tapestry of Aboriginal culture is something that should be a source of pride for all Australians. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our Constitution will help Australia become a more mature country. I'd be naive to think that Australia's First Nations history is all rosy. Intergenerational trauma is real. Imagine being ripped away from a land that nurtures both your body and your spirit. For me that would be like being kicked out of my weatherboard home in Kambalda whilst simultaneously my local Catholic church is knocked down—yes, sacrilegious. Forced assimilation policies included the eradication of language and culture. My parents did not teach me their mother tongue. I can cook curry, but I've missed out on a whole chapter of my cultural history. When I went to India earlier this year I felt lost not knowing Hindi. Of course, there's the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Felicity and Lincoln are my world. If someone took them away from me, I would be heartbroken and a shell of myself. Nothing could fix this. Who would know how my son and daughter would grow up? They would not know how deeply I care about them. Of course, the trauma would repeat itself. Let's talk about closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In March this year a whopping 11 metrics were not on track and only four were on track. In a country that is as developed as ours some of these results are shameful. Increasing the birth weight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies is not on track. Only 47 per cent of First Nations Australians have completed a certificate III or above. This is not on track. Employment outcomes are not on track, but they are improving. Appropriate housing is also not on track. Suicide rates are worsening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are going backwards and people are dying. Part of the Uluru statement says: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. Many of these metrics are shocking. Waiting for a royal commission or a Four Corners episode to expose one of these metrics is not efficient. We have a simple systematic solution and it's called a voice to parliament. As a scientist I know that the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Voting yes is very easy. It costs voters very little, but there is so much to gain for First Nations Australians. I recognise that statistically Australians know more queer people than they do First Nations Australians, so they don't necessarily have the experience of having an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander mate. But the principle of a fair go is something that resonates strongly with all Australians. I was so proud when Australians voted yes in the marriage equality plebiscite, including in my electorate of Swan. I was recently speaking with a dear older gay friend. She explained to me that after the 'yes' vote for marriage equality something inside her fundamentally shifted. She felt a greater sense of belonging in our community. She had a good upbringing and was an amazing teacher. Do you know what? She had a loving childhood and adulthood. Now I imagine the positivity that will come from a 'yes' outcome on the Voice and how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will feel—they will walk a bit higher, feel a greater sense of belonging and walk in both worlds. During crises like bushfires, average Australians step up and help each other. There is an outpouring of donations, people call up and volunteer and they have a lot of love to give. We step up because we want our community to succeed. Right now we have a crisis in Australia: Australia is systematically failing our First Nations people. Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would like to know that you have their back and that you want them to achieve their fullest potential. This is an opportunity to write history by voting yes. The Australia that I know is deeply generous. My parents experienced this generosity from day one when they arrived in Kalgoorlie. I'm confident that Australia will continue to show its generous spirit and its belief in a fair go for all. For 200 years First Nations people have been asking to be the masters of their own destiny. In 1967 they were counted, and today they seek to be heard. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reconcile the past with the present to build a better future. 16:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin We'll be supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill because the opposition believes and has resolved that the Australian people should get their say on the question of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. For that reason, it will pass through this chamber swiftly with the support of the chamber. However, I'm vehemently opposed to this proposal being put forward by the government. Let's be frank, the Voice, if you were to distil it into categories, is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and it's permanent—it can never be removed. I might just touch briefly on each of those components. It's risky. We know from the most recent discussions and hearings in relation to the Voice that legal opinion is split. I suppose that's not a huge surprise, to have legal opinions split on any question, quite frankly. As a former lawyer, that's the nature of the beast in the law. But, even for those eminent people who are huge advocates of the Voice, they themselves had to concede that, in the end, the arbiter of the Voice—what it means, the fact that a new chapter will be inserted into our Constitution, the way it interacts with the parliament and executive government—will ultimately be the High Court. It won't be determined in here. It won't be determined through the democratic will of the people. It will be determined by judges in the High Court. That's inherently risky. In essence, what we've got is a proposal from the Prime Minister that says to the Australian people, 'Vote for this on Saturday and then we'll start working on the detail on Monday, after you've already voted for it and it's already in our Constitution.' If you were going to buy a new car or a second-hand car, you'd go to the dealer and they'd say, 'Buy it now and pay for it now, and then we'll let you test drive it on Monday.' That's essentially what the Prime Minister is suggesting. This is the first time that a proposal of this magnitude is being put forward without there being a full constitutional process where people will come together and argue the merits of these and other things, just like the Howard government did in relation to the republic debate in the 90s. It was a very big process. Here we've got a Prime Minister and a government determined to provide as little detail as possible. That adds to the risk. If I were to be a defender of the government and the Prime Minister, I'd defend them by saying, 'Inevitably, every single proposal to alter the Constitution, of its very nature, is risky.' There is some inherent risk involved. But here you've got the government pouring fuel on the fire, adding to the risk by saying: 'Well, we'll work out the details later. Give us the blank cheque now. Buy the car now, and then you can test-drive it on Monday.' Well, that is hugely risky. It's unknown. Clearly, for those of us like me, who feel that we are fortunate to have some of the best democratic and constitutional arrangements in the world, our Constitution shouldn't be trifled with. The Prime Minister often refers to the Constitution as the nation's birth certificate. It's really the nation's rule book. It's a rule book more than a birth certificate, and it's a rule book that cannot be changed back easily once it is changed, if it were to be changed. I think the fact that, on this body, the basic questions either cannot or won't be answered by the government adds to that sense that this is unknown. What is the likely impact to democracy in Australia, our political system and the way in which government operates in those circumstances? It's divisive. It's funny how people with similar experiences can draw such different conclusions on questions like this. I've listened to a few speeches in the chamber. I have a Lebanese background: my father came from Lebanon. So I grew up in a family, like millions and millions of Australian families, where we were a bit different, I grew up in Ringwood, in my electorate of Deakin. There weren't huge numbers of people from Lebanon there. So I grew up in a family that was not of the predominant ethnic background in the area. The thing that my father always emphasised to me—and, to be frank, it was emphasised to every one of my generation—was that we don't ever judge anyone by their heritage or ethnicity. Equally—and this was always of great comfort to me—it didn't matter if your family went back to the First Fleet or whether your family went back 60,000 years or whether your family arrived a couple of years ago and were at last night's citizenship ceremony; the minute you were an Australian citizen, you were, in every single way, equal. There was no grading. There were no different rights or different rules for one or the other. Once you were on the team, you were part of the team, irrespective of your background. So, to be frank, it horrifies me that people with a similar background to mine—many on the other side of the chamber—form a completely different conclusion: that in fact now we're going to reinsert a concept where we judge people, or there are different rights conferred on people, depending on the blood flowing through their veins or on their heritage or ethnicity. I'm staggered. We all know the famous and laudable language of judging people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. Yet perversely, in 2023, we now have a proposal to completely move away from what I think has been a cornerstone of this country: that we have equality of citizenship and equality in every single way. That means, as I said, that it doesn't matter whether you were at the citizenship ceremony last night or whether you can trace your family back to the First Fleet; you get one vote. We all get one vote. We all get to have a say. We all get the opportunity to run for parliament if we want. We all get to express ourselves in a democratic way, equally, without any view to ethnicity. I think that's extremely important in a multicultural society. There are a million Indian Australians. There are around a million Chinese Australians. Why should they be treated any differently to somebody who traces their family, as I said, many, many generations back or, indeed, thousands of years? It's been noted on this side of the House many times that there are 11 Indigenous members of this parliament, and they are not elected to just represent Indigenous Australians in their electorates, states or territories; they're elected to represent everybody. As the member for Deakin, I'm elected to represent everybody in my electorate irrespective of their ethnicity. In fact, other than a curiosity, maybe, in conversation, asking someone their ethnicity, as their member of parliament, before you go to help them is not something you would do; it's not something I think anyone here would do. We're elected to represent everybody irrespective of their heritage. We're elected to represent everybody irrespective of their political views, and the better members of parliament in this place will represent those people who are vehemently opposed to them politically as much as they will represent those who are strong supporters. The idea that we're going to import some of the worst aspects of US culture here, where we're going to create or emphasise a race based society, is, I think, sad. I'd like to think most of us are pretty blind—and I truly believe most Australians are—in that most of us do not look at ethnicity or heritage when we interact with people, when we are working with somebody, when we are representing people as a member of parliament. Yet here we've got an extraordinary proposal from the government—absolutely extraordinary—that, for two people living in the same town, living on the same street, living next door to each other, in the same socio-economic circumstances, with the same challenges with access to health or the same challenges with crime or access to jobs, potentially one of those two will be conferred different democratic rights on no other reason than the blood flowing through their veins—their heritage, their ethnicity. To be frank, if, when I was first elected 10 years ago, somebody said we would be seriously debating the idea that we were going to separate ourselves on race and have different groups of citizenship in this country, I wouldn't have believed it. But, alas, here we are. The other thing that is worth mentioning in relation to these issues is the permanency of them. The government want a blank cheque. They want to, in a sense, appeal to the big-heartedness of Australians, to say, 'If you do this thing, vote for this Voice, which we're not going to tell you much about, we'll work out those details later, but it will provide all these practical benefits to Indigenous Australians.' I'm sure that even members of the government wouldn't be too bold in promising that that would occur; I think that would be a huge stretch, and would be making a promise that would be very difficult to keep. But that's really the intention of their campaign. In fact, I saw the first ad from the 'yes' campaign, which didn't really mention the Voice at all; it just mentioned recognition. It studiously avoided talking about the Voice. I suspect they did that because, for most Australians, there is now a rising level of resentment that they're not being trusted with the detail. I think Australians are quite rightly saying: 'Well, look, I'm happy to examine this with an open mind, but give me the detail.' Answer some of the questions. What is this thing going to look like? How many thousands of public servants are going to be employed? Will this body be entitled to proffer a view on defence policy, on our treaty arrangements or on economic policy? The plain reading of what is being proposed by the government is that this is a body that would have an unfettered ability to provide its opinion on anything. Again, the 'yes' campaign ads talk about 'matters that affect Indigenous Australians'. Well, I hate to break it to the government, but I'm a non-Indigenous Australian, and every single part of government policy impacts me in some way, shape or form, and I can imagine it's exactly the same for an Indigenous Australian. An Indigenous community would be as interested in defence policy as anyone else. So you can't say—and the government is certainly not saying—that the Voice will be confined in its scope. The government are saying two things simultaneously. On the one hand, they are saying this is a momentous change that is going to bring in a massive benefit to Indigenous communities suffering disadvantage, and at the same time the Prime Minister runs around and says: 'This is a very modest change. Nothing to see here—very modest—nothing to be worried about.' They cannot see the inherent inconsistency of those two positions. Either it's a momentous change or it's a modest change; it cannot be both simultaneously. I will be opposing the Voice. I think it would be a retrograde step for our country to have classes of citizenship. Why would you want to alter the best democracy in the world? 16:41 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan The referendum that Australians will have a say on later this year is an opportunity. It's an opportunity to address the injustices of the past and an opportunity to create change to deliver a better future for this country. Before I contribute to this debate, I want to pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands on which this parliament meets, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and I also want to pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands covered by the electorate of Cowan, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation. Let's take a moment to reflect on that word 'respect'. It's a simple word—the subject of a lot of famous songs—but much more complex in practice. When we acknowledge country and pay our respects to the traditional owners, it shouldn't just be lip service. It shouldn't just be something automatic that we do because we have to. It should be a real recognition, a substantive recognition, a heartfelt recognition, an authentic recognition of their unique relationship with the lands and the waterways that has lasted for 65,000 years and has endured violence, cruelty and dispossession. It should be a moment to show that we acknowledge this connection and we respect this connection, in every meaning of the word. Respect is central to the proposed referendum to enshrine an Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. It's about respectfully recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia—something that was denied them and continues to be denied them—with 65,000 years of history and a continuous connection to this land. It's about respectfully listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when it comes to the laws and the policies that we enact in this place that affect them. Those laws and policies don't affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the same way that they affect me. I take the point that the previous speaker made that when a law or policy is made it affects him as well. Sure, laws and policies affect us all, but they affect us differently. A law or policy affects me differently than it does a First Nations person living in Carnarvon in Western Australia. That is the point to be made. When we do make laws and policies, we need to understand how they impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently. The only way that we can do that is to listen to them—to really listen and to really respect them. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and to address that there is a whole lot of misinformation and fearmongering that has, sadly, found its way into this conversation and this debate about the constitutional alteration, on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. There is a lot that has been falsely said about there not being enough information on the Voice, as the previous member waxed lyrical about. That is simply not true. I'd like to put it down to wilful ignorance on the previous member's part, because the fact is that there is a plethora of information available—and in multiple languages, might I add. The Uluru Statement from the Heart itself has been translated into more than 60 languages. Information on the Voice is available online, in multiple languages. And let me say this: if you can google a recipe for a chicken curry, you can google the Voice and you can find the answers to all of those questions that we keep getting told there are no answers to. All the information is out there. Not having enough information should not be an excuse. And, quite frankly, it is the position of those who say 'no' to continue to say that there is not enough information, in order to have an excuse to oppose the Voice. It's there. It's free. It's available. It's accessible. The claims by those opposite that there is no information, and that this is something new, ignore the fact that the Voice itself has been the subject of discussion for at least a decade—that First Nations people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, have been calling for a voice for a decade. It precedes this government. It precedes the previous government. It is not a Labor thing. It is not a Liberal thing. It is not a Nationals thing. It is something that our First Nations brothers and sisters, who have cared for this land for 65,000 years, have asked for. And, quite frankly, the very least we can do is to honour that request, if we truly respect the traditional owners of the land. I'd also like to address some of the most, quite frankly, racist commentary that I've heard about the Voice. I want to specifically address the inappropriate likening of the Voice to apartheid in South Africa, which I have seen in discussions about the Voice. I say to people who liken the voice to apartheid: how dare you! How dare you hijack the atrocities of apartheid for politicking. Let me explain this simple fact yet key difference. Apartheid meant that black and coloured people in South Africa had shorter life expectancy, lower levels of education and higher incarceration rates. If this sounds familiar, it's because they're the same conditions that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are facing today. The previous speaker said: 'The minute you were an Aussie citizen, you were in every way equal.' I would say to that member that, for at least two centuries, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have not been equal in this country. That is a sad state of affairs, and we have an opportunity to rectify that. I'll add to that. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's not for lack of trying. We've tried. We have Closing the Gap. We've tried different things, but they have not worked, and the reason that they have not worked is that they have been imposed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country have not been included in the development of the policies and programs that either were specifically designed for them or had an inadvertent adverse impact on them. The Voice is a key, vital and important step to addressing the Closing the Gap measures, those measures that we have failed on for too long. It's time for us to mean it when we say we respect our traditional owners, it's time for us to mean it when we say we want to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it's time for us to mean it when we say we want to close the gap. We know that outcomes are better when we work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to address their issues, and the Voice will make a real and practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. We know this because we have evidence to this effect. I used to be a researcher. In many ways I'm still a researcher, because I still love reading academic papers. All the research tells us that, when you co-design things, consult people, talk to people and allow them to have an input into the policies, practices and laws that are going to affect them, you get better outcomes. It's a fact. It's an irrefutable fact backed by evidence and research across a number of areas, whether it be in consultation about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or whether it be when we're talking about different communities. Each and every one of us here knows that, because each and every one of us is here to represent our communities, and you don't do that without talking to your community. I don't get to come in here and represent the people of Cowan without talking to the people of Cowan, asking the people of Cowan what the issues are for them, making myself accessible to the people of Cowan and listening to, respecting and recognising the people of Cowan. It is a first principle that drives pretty much each and every one of us in this place. We don't come in here thinking that we're going to be able to represent our communities without talking to them, listening to them and consulting them. How can we deny this to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when that is what they've been asking for for at least a decade? I stand here in this place proudly representing my electorate of Cowan. I am supremely honoured to be here as the member for Cowan, because I have the privilege of seeing the very best of my community, and I am continually in awe of them and grateful for their generosity and their compassion and their warmness. I know that, when referendum day comes, they will vote for respect, and as a community we will prove that the Uluru statement, expressed from the heart, was received in the hearts of millions of Australians. I believe that we're ready to change the Constitution. I believe that Australia is ready to change for the better. I believe that history is calling. We have a choice: whether to write a future for this country where all people walk together and where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people no longer have higher mortality rates, higher incarceration rates, lower education rates and lower school completion rates; or—the other choice—whether we relegate the voice of our First Nations people to the margins of history, as it has been for 200 years. 16:55 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. As the Member for Indi, I want to first acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands across my vast electorate—lands of the Bpangerang, Dhudhuroa, Waywurru, Jaitmatang, Taungurung and Yorta Yorta peoples. I honour the resilience, the wisdom, the dignity, the scientific knowledge, the stories and art of the world's longest surviving culture, and I pay my respects. I thank the member for Cowan for making it so profoundly clear what I mean when I say I pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and I give gratitude for the treasures of culture that have slowly been revealed to me through the generosity of Aboriginal people I have come to know. They are people like Aunty Valda and the Murray family who gifted to me a message stick when I ran for the seat of Indi in 2019. I carry that message stick with me as I travel across my vast electorate. They gave it to me to keep me safe. I travel with it here to Canberra, and I feel it does keep me safe. This bill is one step towards accepting the generous invitation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which says: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. This is an invitation I accept. And I will walk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that have called for the establishment of a voice, and I will walk with them to encourage people all over the nation to, like me, vote for yes. I do that with great humility but with enormous hope. This bill proposes the words that would alter the Constitution. It has four key elements: (1) to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) to establish an advisory body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (3) to provide that that voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; (4) to give parliament the power to pass legislation with respect to matters relating to the Voice. This bill's proposal has a simple intention: to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a say in the policy and legislation that affects them. I wholeheartedly support this intention, and I am proud to take my place in this historic moment to embrace an Australia that reflects who we are as a modern nation—truly reflects who we are as a modern nation, one looking forward. For a long time, before I came to this place, I felt that our country had failed our First Peoples. My awareness of this has only deepened over time. Where I live, in Wangaratta, the signs of the Bpangerang people abound. Ring trees, canoe trees and birthing trees signal that these lands are abundant in food and water and spirit. On nearby Mount Pilot we have ancient, sacred rock art. These custodians have protected our environment for tens of thousands of years. Yet, in this same area that we now know is abundant with cultural treasures, there were massacres of First Nations people—evidenced through the names given to localities hidden in plain sight, massacres where the colonial governments looked the other way. We had government policies of moving Aboriginal people onto missions and reserves, removing children from their families, and these policies have had devastating repercussions through our local communities for generations. Since I came to this place, I have felt it was my responsibility to use my time here—my very privileged time here—to advocate for positive change, in partnership with First Nations Australians. In the last parliament, I worked with former minister Ken Wyatt as a member of his parliamentary working group. I hosted Professor Marcia Langton in Wodonga in 2021 as part of the consultation on the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process, which resulted in many submissions from the people of Indi. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should have a say about a law, policy or program that impacts them. Who could possibly dispute that? They have a right to participate in decisions that affect them and a right to have some power over their own destiny. A Voice will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people this long-overdue opportunity to participate in the decisions that directly affect them, and it will require the rest of us to listen. The Voice will embed consultation in policymaking. This isn't a new concept. It's best practice. When you consult, the difference in outcomes is profound. For example, when I worked for the Department of Rural Health at the University of Melbourne, I had the great privilege of working with First Nations people from the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative in Shepparton. This organisation was founded by the extraordinary First Nations leaders from the Cummeragunja walk-off, which occurred in February 1939. It was the first Indigenous mass protest in Australia, and the elders who led the walk-off continued to fight for the rights of the Yorta Yorta community and led the way to the creation of the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative. Their community-led services in health, welfare, disability, elder care, sport and education are highly successful and taught me what is really so obvious: when Aboriginal people have agency to determine their future and to respond to their needs in a culturally safe way, you see success, you see impact, you see empowerment and you see change. My former midwifery colleagues have shared with me the stories and evidence from highly successful Birthing on Country programs led by First Nations midwives and Aboriginal health workers. We saw during COVID the extraordinary success of ACCHOs and local leadership in keeping communities safe. I am a practical person, I want to see programs that work, and I am confident that a Voice will see programs such as these that I have described as the rule, not the exception. What we're doing now is not working. Nationally, we are failing our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For too long First Nations people have experienced racism, exclusion and disadvantage. They face barriers in the most fundamental areas: housing, education, employment, justice and health. Successive Closing the gap reports show patchy improvement at best. Government initiatives over decades have done little more than entrench that disadvantage. Poorly designed yet expensive policies which miss the mark or sometimes actually make things up far worse are not good for First Nations people and they are not good for our country. It's important to be clear: positive impact cannot happen overnight. But I am confident the Voice will bring about positive change on the ground. I support the Voice because it is a considered proposal backed by cultural authority. It's not a new idea. It's not a rushed idea. This idea gained support from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country after the detailed grassroots dialogues in 2017 that crystallised in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives issued the statement calling for this constitutional reform. Politicians didn't come up with the Voice. This is not what the Leader of the Opposition so disingenuously refers to as a so-called Canberra voice. This is not the government's or the Prime Minister's idea. Some in this place like to use tricky language to pretend that this proposition is elitist. This is wrong. This is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, a simple proposition. The Voice will incorporate local and regional voices, as was intended in the lead-up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including in the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process. This will ensure that the interests of diverse communities are represented where it counts. I've reached out and spoken to First Nations people about the Voice to gauge their perspectives and inform how I support the proposal, and I heard two main things. First, this was a fight that Australians from all walks of life need to carry forward. It does not rest alone on the shoulders of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Second, we must pursue this reform with the dignity and respect with which it was offered. I am not interested in merely voting for symbolic change, because that is not what is being asked of us. The Uluru dialogues reflected opinion polls, which have shown time and time again that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not support minimalist or symbolic constitutional recognition. It is not enough to amend the Constitution to simply recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first peoples of Australia. A preamble is not enough. A statement of recognition alone is not enough. Over the course of two decades, it has become clear that any constitutional change must provide meaningful, substantive change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A voice to parliament and government is simple but it is meaningful. To seek to spread misinformation and to deliberately sow seeds of doubt is both dangerous and disappointing. I implore those participating in this debate: do not seek to divide through your language or through your actions. Do not seek to engender fear. This bill does not set out the details of the Voice. Purely, it states that an advisory body known as the Voice will be established. This is deliberate and important. Former High Court justices Kenneth Hayne and Robert French, and constitutional law expert Anne Twomey agree with this flexible approach because, again, this is not a new concept. Our Constitution provides a framework for the lawmaking powers of parliament and the organisation of the branches of government—a framework only. This is how our Constitution was first drafted, to give the democratically elected parliament the power to make decisions on the detail. The model for the Voice is no different. It is the right process for Australians to be asked to vote now on the principle, the goal, the aspiration of a voice to parliament and for parliament to make decisions on the detail. If the referendum succeeds, and I believe it will, I will welcome more discussions about what this detail should look like. I also support the current wording of the bill that says the Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executives. I have listened to and read about the concerns about this wording, and I have again listened to constitutional legal experts. I have met with the expert working group and listened carefully to their recommendations and rationale. I do not have reservations about the wording of the current bill. I encourage those that do to listen to the legal experts. I have had many conversations with constituents across Indi about the Voice. Without exception, they are respectful, thoughtful and considered conversations. We start with an open mind, we listen, we ask questions, we search for common ground and shared values and we walk away having connected with each other, even if we might not completely agree. Voting for constitutional change is an important moment, and it's natural that people want to understand what they are supporting. My constituents might tell me that they still have questions about the detail or that they're worried a voice will create no practical change to improve lives. These are valid concerns, and it's our job as parliamentarians to share reliable information to make sure that every Australian is making a truly informed decision. Whether we agree with the Voice or not, we can all agree on that part. I'm so heartened by the conversations I have with people in Indi. I truly believe that, if Australians can approach the referendum with good intentions and an open mind, we will be better off as a nation. I encourage those people that still have questions about the Voice to have a conversation with other people, to listen and to understand. The Victorian Women's Trust and their Together, Yes campaign are a fantastic forum to have a discussion. Join in the conversation. In my electorate, towns like Euroa and Violet Town have dedicated groups of people who are more than willing to have a chat. Reach out to them if you have questions. Gunditjmara woman Judy Ahmat, who has supported me, taught me and led me since I decided to run for Indi in 2019, says that the national apology was a turning point for many Indigenous people in our path towards reconciliation. This referendum is another turning point towards a better way of doing things, of listening, of walking together. On referendum day, the votes of all members in this place will hold the same value as those of every other Australian. With the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have invited all of Australia to walk with them, to achieve a voice. I embrace that offer, and I call on all Australians to do the same. Do not lose this moment. 17:10 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I wish to start not with my own words but with those of Torres Strait Islander man Thomas Mayo, a father, wharfie and author. I will quote from the preamble to Thomas's book, Finding the Heart of the Nation: The Journey of the Uluru Statement towards Voice, Treaty and Truth: If Australia were a child, she would be traumatised by a past that she is told to forget. She has witnessed her custodians being murdered and raped, scattered to the margins of society. She suffers for what she has seen. She cannot forget. Her heart beat is fading. Thomas, who I met three years ago when he visited my electorate, wrote his seminal book in 2019. It charts the long and inspiring journey that resulted in the historic moment in 26 May 2017 in Uluru, when First Nations people from across the width and breadth of these great southern lands gathered to sign the Statement from the Heart. As Thomas says: Those custodians came together, reached into their own hearts, and gifted us with a roadmap to find the heart of the nation … We are being asked today to accept the gift that has been offered, to walk alongside First Nations people, to recognise them as the original inhabitants of these lands and to enshrine forever that they should have a voice. First Nations peoples have inhabited these great southern lands more than 65,000 years. Passage of this bill will allow the holding of a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise them. The Constitution is our nation's birth certificate. It's the foundational document of our democracy. Truth-telling demands that the presence of First Nations people be acknowledged in it. In the referendum that will follow the passage of this bill, Australians will be asked to vote yes or no to whether a First Nations voice to the parliament and executive government should be enshrined in the Constitution. If the result is yes, then it will be the parliament, this body elected by Australians to represent them, that will decide what shape the Voice takes. It will be the decision of future parliaments to reshape the Voice, if they see fit. If the yes vote is carried, what is parliament or any future parliament will not be able to do is deny a voice, because the right to a voice will be enshrined. It is important to note that parliament and the executive government are not obligated to heed the advice of voice; it ensures only that it be heard. Decision-making authority will not change. So why make these changes? Because First Nations people tell us that these changes will make a real difference to their lives and their futures. Because they will help heal wounds and bring us together. Because they have been asked for. Because they are the modest requests of a First Nations people whose lands were stolen from them more than two centuries ago. Opponents have said they want more detail, but no referendum has been preceded by more debate, more engagement by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one—expert panels, parliamentary committees, constitutional dialogues, conventions, referendum councils, codesign panels, draft text, working groups and, just recently, the parliamentary inquiry. Our First Nations People have made a few humble requests. They want recognition and they want to be consulted on matters that affect them—not a Canberra voice but a voice from communities to Canberra. This proposal is not something new. Similar models have been implemented successfully in other countries, including New Zealand and Canada. The concept of an Indigenous voice to parliament is not radical; it is a necessary step towards a better future, and it's a step we can take together. Celebrated historian Henry Reynolds, who lives in my electorate, wrote an article for the Australian newspaper earlier this month, and Henry, as always, provides some sage advice. He notes: … there is still a significant block of voters who have not made up their mind. The historical record of referendum campaigns should caution anyone against assuming the result is a foregone conclusion. But much of the commentary concentrates on the consequences that will unfold in the event of a Yes victory. Little thought seems to be given to how Australia would be affected by a rejection of the voice to parliament. The No campaigners appear to assume that they are proponents of continuity, of the status quo. But that will certainly not be the case. Defeat will have wide and serious ramifications. He goes on to say: If the referendum goes down it will be one of the most consequential events in the fraught history of relations between the First Nations and the wider community. Professor Reynolds goes on: The scars left from this contemptuous rejection will take a long time to heal. But for the Indigenous leaders of this generation who have sought reconciliation, defeat would be profoundly dispiriting. Having pursued the voice because it would provide their communities "with an active and participatory role in the democratic life of the state", where would they turn? I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to the referendum, and I look forward to voting yes. 17:16 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The Liberal Party will be supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill because we recognise the government has a mandate to put this constitutional change to the Australian people. We disagree with the change, but we respect that it is a question that the Australian people deserve to have their say on. However, I have asked to be made an authorised dissenter in order to vote against the bill. By voting against the constitutional alteration bill, I will have the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Liberal Party and on behalf of my community to the 'no' case that will be put forward in the official referendum pamphlet. I am opposed to the Voice proposal because I see it as a retrograde step that would work against real reconciliation and the achievement of practical results for Indigenous Australians. I am a constitutional conservative, and I'm instinctively sceptical of any changes to our founding document. The Constitution has enabled Australia to be one of the most successful and long-standing democracies in the world and should only be interfered with in the most extreme circumstances. By amending our Constitution to establish this entity, Australia would be opening the door to the possibility of significant High Court interference in our laws and our policy-making. It is important to note that, if the government believes that a voice is such a good idea, it could be created without constitutional amendment. It would be a far more sensible approach to road test the concept and establish a model that works rather than writing it straight into the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution had the immense benefit of being able to see how the constitutional elements worked in practice within the Westminster and Washington systems. They knew the elements to take and to leave to achieve a beautifully balanced system for our Australian context. But the framers of our Constitution had this benefit, and those proposing this addition to the Constitution do not. In fact, the examples of national representative Indigenous bodies in our history leave a lot to be desired. We have seen so many failed attempts to achieve similar entities, including the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, in the 1970s; the National Aboriginal Conference, in the late seventies and early eights; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was around from 1989 to 2005; the National Indigenous Council; the National Congress of Australia's First People; and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. The difference for this voice model is that it will be permanent. There will be no reforming or refining or reshaping. It will be permanently affixed to our Constitution without any real idea of how it will work or whether it will be effective. The Uluru statement called for a voice enshrined in the Constitution, but it also proposed a Makarrata commission be established to supervise a process of agreement-making and truth-telling. In essence, the Voice is not the end of the journey but the start of a new era of activism. It is only the first step for activists seeking to establish a treaty or move on to the payment of reparations for historical injustices. I believe that most Australians are tired of the shifting goalposts of Indigenous policy. Rather than having governments focus on achieving the next big symbolic gesture, my constituents want governments to focus on achieving results and closing the gap of disadvantage. Imagine if all the effort currently being put in by our government, our corporate leaders, our sporting codes and our media outlets to promote the Voice was directed into dealing with one Closing the Gap target. Imagine the impact that could be had if this national effort was homed like a laser beam onto reducing Indigenous suicide rates or improving employment and education outcomes for Indigenous Australians. I see moves like this as a distraction from the real work required to improve the lot of our Indigenous citizens. Empty symbolism isn't harmless. It distracts the attentions of government, the media and the public away from the real issues that affect vulnerable Australians, and it delivers a false sense of achievement which undermines efforts that get real results. A real example of this is the cashless debit card, a coalition government policy. This policy came from the communities that it sought to support. It was an idea from community leaders that could make a real difference to the health of their communities. Labor's decision to axe the CDC without any consultation with the thousands of Australians who relied on it is having devastating consequences. Community leaders have spoken out about the devastating impact that this is having on their communities, saying the CDC's removal is to blame. Is there anyone in this building who doesn't believe that a policy proposal like the cashless debit card, which came out of local wishes to fulfil a local need, would not be strongly opposed by a future voice to parliament? Indigenous leaders in my community are telling me that they don't support the Voice as it is currently proposed. They have zero faith that activists in Canberra could look after their interests when they've had such a record of failure from those who purport to lead and represent their people closer to home. They see this model as a cop-out that will give governments more excuses to ignore the local voices that seek commonsense reform and transparency to improve their quality of life. Beyond these concerns from locals, experts are also raising serious questions about this proposal. The report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum makes it very clear that the government's proposal contains significant constitutional risks which could affect our system of government. Eminent lawyers and former judges cannot agree on what that risk is, but we know that if the proposal is adopted it will be left to the High Court to decide. Two former justices of the High Court have given evidence to the committee that, if the High Court found that the duty to consider and the duty to consult exist, government would become unworkable. Robert French AC, a retired Chief Justice of Australia and someone who obviously knows a lot about the High Court, gave evidence to the committee investigating this bill that if a duty to consult the Voice was 'found in proposed section 129, "this would make government unworkable"'. Kenneth Hayne AC, a retired Justice of the High Court and a member of the government's Constitutional Expert Group, gave evidence that 'a duty to consult the Voice would "disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government" to such an extent that it would "bring government to a halt"'. The truth is that no-one knows what the High Court would do. It is uncertain. That is the very nature of the High Court. It isn't as predictable as the lower courts, and anyone who wants to claim that they know for certain what the High Court will do is kidding themselves. But it is safe to say that there is a risk here. When you've got two former High Court judges saying there's a risk, there's a risk. The government needs to explain specifically why that clause is worth the risk. Australians should not be asked to sign up to this risk without a proper explanation. The big problem with this risk is that it would be permanent. It can't be taken back once this becomes part of our Constitution. The laws we pass in this chamber cannot out-legislate the Constitution. But there is a better way. The coalition supports constitutional recognition and the development of local and regional voices, legislated by the parliament, which would make a difference on the ground. This is a way to get the advice we need while avoiding the risk and uncertainty of a big constitutional change. Beyond that, I think we're missing something big here in this discussion of constitutional changes. I want to see section 25 of the Constitution repealed. The Constitution's provisions as to races disqualified from voting are a relic of a past time, when it was envisaged that states might have contemplated disenfranchising voters of different ethnic groups. This section is jarring when you read it in the modern context, and, while it was well meaning at the time, it is clearly a remnant of a bygone period. It is a section that could easily be removed as part of this referendum and would have near-unanimous support, yet this constitutional change has remained in the too-hard basket. In this headlong pursuit of a political outcome on this referendum, the government seems to have put the cart before the horse. Section 25 could have been considered, amongst many other considerations, in a proper constitutional convention. This could have been the opportunity to delve into the complex areas of constitutional law that I've outlined today and come to a consensus position that would have had a much higher chance of success. Unfortunately, Australians have been denied the benefit of a constitutional convention and are still being denied information on critical details of this proposal. The government is committed to designing the Voice after the referendum and asking Australians to vote on this sight unseen. The lack of detail from the government on the proposal leaves me extremely uneasy. We still do not know: Who will be eligible to serve on the body? What the are the prerequisites for nomination? What definition of Aboriginality will determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? How much will it cost taxpayers? Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable? All these questions and many others remain unanswered. The Prime Minister says that the detail is in the Langton-Calma inquiry report, but he hasn't actually adopted that report. There are different options available in that report, but the Prime Minister hasn't said to the people which parts of that report would be adopted and which ones would be implemented. Also, the failure of the government to release all the Solicitor-General's advice highlights the lack of transparency that the Labor government has regarding their Canberra voice proposal. If the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are going to be true to their word and be fair, open and transparent to the Australian people, they should immediately release all of the Solicitor-General's advice about the Voice. But, beyond the finer details, I'm opposed to the Voice concept in principle. I am extremely reluctant to add something to our Constitution which entrenches race as a concept. In 500 years time, I hope that our Constitution will continue to preside as our supreme law in this country. By that stage, regarding Indigenous or non-Indigenous Australians as separate communities would be as ridiculous as regarding modern-day Englishmen as Normans, Saxons, Angles or Jutes. We need to think long term about creating a united and successful country, not letting our past get in the way of our future. The government has put us on a journey of national division with this referendum. Rather than seeking a compromise that would secure recognition, they have sought to deliberately pursue a path that will divide public opinion. If this referendum is successful, it will be nowhere near the near-unanimous verdict in the 1967 referendum. If the JSC process is anything to go by, it will be a vitriolic debate that pits Australians against each other rather than bringing us together. It may pass, but at what cost and for what benefit? The Liberal Party members' dissenting report on this bill makes three recommendations: Recommendation 1 1.124 The proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice should not be adopted in its current form. Recommendation 2 1.125 Noting the Coalition will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the proposal, the Government should amend the drafting of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to address the significant risks identified through the Committee process. Recommendation 3 1.126 The People should never again be asked to vote on constitutional amendments that do not have the benefit of detailed public debate, in the form constitutional conventions or similar. The government's refusal to compromise on these fronts significantly compromises the chances of success in this referendum. As outlined, while the Liberal Party supports the referendum being put to the Australian people, I'll be voting against the bill, as an authorised dissenter, in order to contribute to the formal 'no' case that will be distributed to Australian households. I ask Australians to review that material carefully, and I ask Australians to vote against this risky and permanent proposal. 17:30 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I'd like to start off by acknowledging that we are on the land of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, where this parliament is. I'd also take this opportunity to recognise that in my own electorate of Adelaide we are on the land of the Kaurna people and to pay my respects to those past, present and into the future. I'd also like to recognise one of the Kaurna elders in Adelaide, Uncle Lewis O'Brien, who never ceases to try and educate people on Kaurna history, Kaurna traditions and Kaurna everything—from mathematics to hunting to science—that they have passed down from generation to generation for over 60,000 years. In Australia, we pride ourselves on our democratic system of government, on our equal opportunities, on equal rights for everyone, and it's clear Australia is represented by the people for the people. Like all Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should have a significant say in the development of law and policy that affects them. I see this vote as a particular once-in-a-generation opportunity to make Australia a better place. We have an opportunity to listen to grassroots solutions directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We also have an opportunity to deliver constitutional recognition through the Voice. This necessary alteration will make a huge difference to the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, whilst having no difference to the lives of those who oppose it or vote no. The constitutional recognition of the Voice will lead to more informed and responsive public policy and it would lead to better outcomes. But it means so, so much more. This proposal should have been part of our Australian Constitution in the first place. This is our chance to grasp an opportunity, to move forward and to help heal the wounds. It will give us the opportunity to move towards being a more healed country. We know this will not fix everything. We know that, and we know that there's a lot of work that we still have to do. That doesn't mean that this work stops. It continues—in closing the gap, in doing everything that we can in this place, from both sides of parliament. This is our chance to be unified on a topic that shouldn't involve any division, arguments or sides, because it's about taking Australia forward into the future. We are a very different Australia today from the one when the Constitution originally was written. Australia has moved on since those days. The younger generations, especially, want to see all of us here working together to ensure that we respectfully reconcile the past wrongs and look to a brighter future. This is the best chance that we have to address the injustices, which we cannot ignore, and to create change that will deliver true unity. I hope that all members of parliament will find it in their hearts to see the importance of supporting this positive step forward, a step to recognise Australia's First Nations People, to recognise that these people were here for 60,000 years before any white person came to Australia, to actively work towards creating a more equitable Australia and to listen to the voices of our constituents. In my electorate, they want to see a future of recognition and respect for all Australians, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We must all remember that the Voice isn't the government's idea. It was a request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and we have the power to help make this monumental change in this place. Every one of us here today should want to contribute, in any way we can, to make sure that meaningful action is followed through. I hear in my electorate people who want to see a government that listens and understands, and we must understand the significance that the constitutional amendment will have on our children and grandchildren and for generations of Australians to come. This is a very significant and important piece of legislation, and the referendum later on in the year will have a positive impact on Australia for years to come. We don't want the next generations to grow up in a world where not recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is accepted. We want our leaders to show how powerful and unified Australia can be, and this is our opportunity to do that, all of us together—the opposition, the government and all community groups. I know I want to be part of an Australia that recognises its wrongs, involves all, listens to all and acts together so we can build a better future for all Australians. The detriment of not supporting a First Nations voice is another stab to an already bleeding wound for our Indigenous brothers and sisters. Without appropriate and impactful reconciliation there will always be division. We have a chance to ensure past mistakes will not be able to be repeated. Every one of us has that choice, a choice to be part of a long-sought-after, supported, historic change. I implore every member and every Australian to think wisely when deciding what kind of Australia they want to live in. Is it an Australia that moves forwards? Or is it an Australia that will move backwards if we don't work together to push for a First Nations voice? For those who do oppose it, I ask: If not now, when? And if not yes, why not? We are all here in parliament to be a representatives of the Australian people and to help build a positive, unified way forward. As I said earlier, recognition in the Constitution should have been done many, many years ago. Recognition is about righting a wrong. It is about a recognition of people who have been here for 60,000 years, but it is not just about the 60,000 years but the culture and languages that have been passed down from generation to generation. There is no other culture in the world like it. We have seen empires come and go, yet the First Nations people have been here for 60,000 years. Before I finish, I will talk a little about the history of the Kaurna people in the Adelaide Plains, where my seat of Adelaide is located. The Kaurna are the original people of Adelaide and the Adelaide Plains. The area is now occupied by the city and the parklands. It was called by the Kaurna 'Tarntanya', or Red-kangaroo Place. This was the heart of Kaurna country. Before 1836 it was an open grassy plain with patches of trees and shrubs, the results of hundreds and hundreds of generations of skilful land management. Kaurna country encompassed the plains which stretch north and south from Tarntanya and the wooded foothills of the range which borders them to the east. 'Karrawirra Pari', or Red-gum Forest River, is the Kaurna name for the watercourse now called the River Torrens, which runs through my electorate. It was an important resource area and a favourite camping place for the Kaurna people, providing their hunting, water, fish and other foods. The Kaurna were usually called by the colonists 'Cowandilla', which was another First Nations word for 'running water', or 'Adelaide tribe'. The term 'Kaurna' is now generally accepted around the Adelaide Plains as the name for the first inhabitants of that area. They spoke a complex language which reflected their sophistication, culture and deep knowledge of the environment. Kaurna society was ordered by a system of structures. They continued their traditional way of life. Official reports, if you look at the documents, noted their declining numbers. The Kaurna were being decimated by the processes of colonisation, new diseases and alcohol. Underpinning everything else which was very, very detrimental to them was the loss of land and livelihood. This took a very heavy toll on them. The story of the Kaurna people is not much different from First Nations peoples all around Australia. So I ask this place respectfully—members on all sides—to find it in their hearts to vote for the bill. I know I will be supporting the 'yes' vote when the referendum comes. It's really important that we have a respectful debate and ensure that we right a wrong and recognise that this land was inhabited 60,000 years before the colonists came here. This is one of the most important bills that I have seen in this place. It will make a real change in terms of the recognition of our First Nations people. 17:40 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I love this country—a country expansive, desolate, beautiful and yet, at times, brutal. A land of extremes unlike any other place on earth. A land where you can have a cyclone and a bushfire on the same day and not be surprised by it. Over thousands of years, Australia's Indigenous people have made their peace with this land, and it's become part of their soul. Lives infused by the land, the seasons and the stories of their ancestors. The 2021 Senior Australian of the Year, Dr Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr Baumann, calls the contemplation of this land 'deep listening', 'dadirri'—the ability to stop, contemplate and listen. To listen to the deep waters of our country, to the present as well as times past; to listen and to hear the beckoning of change. This is such a moment for our country and for the home we share, Indigenous and immigrant, drawn from every creed and from every corner of the world. Today we are seeking to put before the Australian people a change to our shared national document, the Constitution—the document that belongs to all 25 million of us. First and foremost, I recognise that the Constitution is this nation's rule book. A sparse document so frugal with language that its words can fit in your pocket. It is the invisible pillar that holds together the great national endeavour that we have the privilege of contributing to. Australia is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, and this is in part due to the work done by the framers of our Constitution in the 1890s. But it's more than a rule book. The Constitution was also the answer to the deeper challenge that tested the minds of people in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Perth in the 1890s. It was the challenge of how to become one people. One people. To no longer define ourselves by the state we originated from, but to be a part of a nation where others would also have a say. The question of that time was: could we build a federation based on trust where every Australian, no matter where they lived, would have a seat at the table? Through patience, listening, compromise, negotiation and finding common ground, the Constitution answered that question. And it can answer that question again in 2023. Next week marks 125 years since the June referendum of 1898, the first time Australians went to the polls to vote on becoming one people. And in a lovely coincidence, next week this House will have the opportunity to vote on the next step on that journey, to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. For a century the question of constitutional recognition has been before us. It stood before us on the day the first Parliament House in Canberra was open, when two Aboriginal men—Jimmy Clements and John Noble—turned up uninvited. Think about that: the opening of the first Parliament House and not one Indigenous Australian invited—and yet they turned up. And despite the half-empty grandstands, the authorities tried to move them along. And the quest to participate in this democracy continued when the late great William Cooper, the son of Yorta Yorta people, petitioned the king 90 years ago to have seats reserved in this chamber for Aboriginal Australians. Australia can always delight, and I'm sure William Cooper would have been amazed that 11 Indigenous Australians currently sit in our national parliament. Not as the result of a quota, but on their merits; leaders in their own right and embodying the rich plurality of the Australian people. They represent all of their constituents of all races, religions and backgrounds. They are faithful representatives of their parties. They are parliamentarians who happen to be Aboriginal, not representatives of the Aboriginal people of Australia. Still, the recognition in the Constitution that they talked about for decades has been elusive. It's a tribute to the wonder and faith of Indigenous Australians that even in times of disappointment they've never given up on this democracy. Step by laboured step they've sought progress: the 1967 referendum; the bark petitions; the breakthroughs of Neville Bonner and Ken Wyatt, of Nova Peris and Linda Burney—they all speak to it. And through it all—the frustrations, the failures as well as the progress—the times and the seasons hadn't aligned for constitutional recognition. As Miriam-Rose might say, the time for ripening and gathering had not come. When it did, it was not what anyone expected, least of all me. For that, I marvel at life's mysteries and the extraordinary people that life has brought across my path. It was about a decade ago that I sat down with a small group of constitutional conservatives and Indigenous leaders and worked on a proposal for constitutional recognition. The flowery words and symbolism-only approach taken for so long was neither attractive to Indigenous leaders or these conservative thinkers, so we started again. We talked and we listened. The idea we developed was different. It was organic, practical, consistent with our constitutional heritage, and a uniquely Australian idea built for Australian conditions. It was called the Voice. It was a way of giving recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have loved this continent since time began. Consistent with our Constitution, a rulebook which creates the institutions of government, the Voice was practical too. It was about creating new structures to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In the years that followed those early gatherings at Greg Craven's study at Australian Catholic University, the question was taken back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. On the way to Uluru and at Uluru, they were asked what they wanted from constitutional recognition. They said they wanted a means to make a difference to life expectancy, to education attainment, to job opportunities, to incarceration rates and to housing and safety too. They wanted a voice. Instead of rejecting the document that was silent about them for so long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians embraced it. As put so eloquently in the Uluru Statement from the Heart: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. Empowerment, decision-making, responsibility, accountability, giving back—these are conservative ideals. The Voice is about Indigenous Australians seeking a greater stake in their own future, no different than any one of us in this chamber or in the communities we represent seek, because it's only through empowerment and responsibility that accompanies it that a difference can be made. That's why I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the Voice—because it's about embracing our shared national project. It's about Indigenous people in local and regional communities and nationally being consulted, getting involved in issues that affect them and making a difference on the issues that have stubbornly not changed for too long. In a democracy it is right that every idea is tested and even contested, and that is particularly so with the Constitution. Free speech, freedom of expression, the involvement of citizens to make decisions—this is what we celebrate as citizens of the Commonwealth and as parliamentarians. The proposed constitutional alteration has required us all to reflect. In this debate I believe that, given we are dealing with amendment about our fellow citizens, we all have a responsibility to engage in this debate respectively and, I might add, gently. We can't let this debate become yet another place of cultural fraying. For about two decades our shared sense of belonging has been fraying. Our willingness to walk in another's shoes is something few of us contemplate these days. I believe we have a responsibility to do so in this debate. Those advocating for the 'yes' case, like me, have a responsibility to engage with the legitimate questions and doubts that many Australians have. Those advocating for the 'no' case have a responsibility to hear the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who believe the Voice will make a difference. All of us have responsibility to show goodwill to each other. In my own case, as I made a decision to move from the frontbench to go to the backbench to prosecute this case, I want to acknowledge the generous personal support I received from my parliamentary colleagues, from my leader, Peter Dutton, and my old boss, Tony Abbott, to so many in the Berowra local Liberal conference and so many of the men and women who sit on this side of the chamber, and indeed the kind words of those from the other side as well. I also want to acknowledge Warren Mundine. He is a passionate and committed leader of the 'no' case, but Warren doesn't miss a chance to send a kind or encouraging word to me. You don't read about any of that because it doesn't fit with the narrative about Peter, Tony, Warren, Jacinta, Kerrynne and our party, but that's my experience. People of goodwill can and do disagree. I believe we need more goodwill in our public debates here, in the media and online because the strength of our country depends on the goodwill between all of us in public life. It is in the spirit of respectful debate that I want to put the main arguments tonight about why Australians should vote yes at this referendum. The first reason is that the current state of Indigenous affairs is not working. In most referendum debates the argument is put that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and that's normally a valid and compelling argument. But the system is broken. As a country, despite small progress on some fronts, Indigenous Australians are not enjoying the same opportunities or outcomes as other Australians. The life expectancy of an Indigenous Australian is eight years below that of other Australians. One in two Indigenous Australians live in the most socially disadvantaged areas of the country. Infant mortality is 1.8 times higher for Indigenous Australians than other Australians. The unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians is estimated to be about 30 per cent; that's nine times higher than the rest of the population. The suicide rate for Indigenous Australians is almost 2½ times that of other Australians. One in five Indigenous households are living in accommodation that does not meet an acceptable standard. This and so much more continues to be a shared national failure. I believe that the Voice creates the frameworks and structures to make a difference at the local, regional and national level. The Voice will be a place for ministers to road-test policy to ensure it has maximum effectiveness when it's translated to community. The Voice will be a vital ingredient in helping to close the gap. The Voice has been called many things by its opponents: a third chamber of parliament; a fourth layer of government; a new House of Lords. I prefer to call it what it is: an advisory body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, trying to better direct federal government funds to achieve better outcomes. The Voice is advisory. It won't be Moses handing down tablets from the mountain. The parliament will still be the democratic centre of our national life. The parliament will still be supreme in matters of law and policy. The Voice will advise—just like the security services, the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Scientist, DFAT and other agencies advise. And it remains with the parliament and the executive to weigh that advice, to consider and reflect on it, and sometimes to reject it, because our duty is to consider the national perspective and the national interest. The same will apply to the local and regional voices. Advice will always be weighed. In fact, the words the amendment uses are 'make representations', a much more modest term than 'advice'. 'Advice' implies mandatory consideration, whereas 'representation' only implies receipt. The Voice in its different forms will advise on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It will have no interest in where the Department of Finance purchases its paperclips or its recycled paper, as some have claimed. It will not run programs or dish out grants, and it won't have interest in submarines, as some 'no' advocates suggest, as if our subs are going to be painted with Indigenous designs like the fuselage of a Qantas plane. And if the Voice wants to lambast the RBA on interest rates, I say: join the queue. Rather, what the Voice will do is to work on making our remote communities safer. It will work to rid communities of nicotine and alcohol and ice. It will work to get children to school and keep them there. It will work to address the terrible rates of infant mortality and renal failure in Indigenous communities. And it will work to create local jobs and industries, so that we can break a culture of welfare dependency. Frankly, it will have too much real work on its hands to worry about the boring culture wars of Twitter. The Voice is not about two classes of Australians. It's actually about eliminating the differences in economic and social outcomes that separate Indigenous Australians from other Australians. Some say that the Voice will give Indigenous Australians a place of privilege. Does anyone really believe that Indigenous Australians occupy a place of privilege? If they do, let them go to Laverton and Leonora; let them go to Ceduna; let them go to Palm Island; let them go to Aurukun; let them go to Alice Springs. There, and in hundreds of communities around Australia, Indigenous people are burnt out from generations of government policy failure. I honour those Indigenous people seeking to make a difference in their communities, as nurses and paramedics, police and community workers, teachers and public servants—working every day, simply for the hope of a better day. The idea of special privilege is nonsense, because in too many places it's simply about survival. Tonight I know there are many Liberal and National voters wrestling with how to vote at the referendum. To them I say that the Voice is seeking to accomplish things in accordance with our values and history. We might not trumpet our virtues as others do, but we've always been on this journey. Robert Menzies gave Aboriginal people the right to vote in Commonwealth and Territory elections and established AIATSIS, that national treasure that seeks to preserve Indigenous language and culture. Harold Holt brought the 1967 referendum to a successful conclusion. John Gorton appointed the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Malcolm Fraser passed the first land rights act. John Howard made the first attempt at a referendum for constitutional recognition. And Scott Morrison secured the National Resting Place and built a historic partnership with the Coalition of Peaks. In the months ahead, many will deploy the names of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton and others, trying to make this referendum an extension of our day-to-day political debates. It's not. This is not the choice of politicians. This is the choice given to all of us, as citizens. At the referendum, the burden of responsibility rests on us all. For me, I'm looking forward to supporting the 'yes' campaign. It will be a journey that I hope to share with Australians from all walks of life, particularly from my community. On referendum day, my wife, Joanna, and I will walk to the end of our street to the local school, where we'll help set up and work on a booth. On that day, we're going to bring biscuits, sandwiches, refreshments and drinks for the workers on both sides, because no matter what side you're on in this debate all of us are Australians who love our country and want the best for it. I believe in the Voice. I will campaign for it, and I will vote yes for it, because the time for constitutional recognition and a voice has come. 17:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong On Monday morning I found myself here in this chamber, being the dutiful backbencher that I am. I happened to be in here when the Leader of the Opposition launched into his ugly attack on the Voice. Thankfully, since then I've also heard from many others who gave this matter the respect and dignity it deserves, just like the extraordinary contribution we've just witnessed here from the member for Berowra. I thank him for his considered position and dignity that he's giving to this debate. Yet those mean and nasty words of the Leader of the Opposition have stayed with me since I heard them on Monday. I guess what has kept them with me is that, at this point in time right now, he has seized this once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring our country together, our once-in-a-generation opportunity to listen to communities across the nation to continue on a path to reconciliation, and, instead of seizing that opportunity, he's used his 15 minutes here to engage in fearmongering and the politics of division. He's relied on the talking points of shock jock's and conspiracy theorists while perpetuating misinformation regarding the proposed constitutional alteration. As I sat there on Monday unwillingly absorbing that disinformation, someone messaged me and challenged me to use my speech and my time in this place to call him out, and so I will. The Leader of the Opposition claims that: If Australians vote for change, then our nation, our democracy and their lives will be fundamentally altered… This is false. In response, I'll draw the Liberal Party's attention to the words of the second law officer of the Commonwealth, Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue. He said that the Voice will not impede or restrict the exercise of existing parliamentary powers. He further emphasised that the Voice is not only compatible with our system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution but that it enhances that very system. The next piece of misinformation from the Leader of the Opposition is the shameful implication that this process has been rushed. He says: Our Constitution is not something to be toyed with lightly, yet that's exactly what this Prime Minister is doing. Whenever we've made a change to the Constitution in the past, there's been a convention. … Instead, we have had a 4½ day committee, a kangaroo court … Again, this is false. The falsehood, of course, is the dastardly implication that this referendum has been rushed, is ill thought out and is being rammed through this parliament. Firstly, there have been four referendums that have been put to the Australian people that were not based on any convention recommendations. Three of those four referendums were carried. Secondly, there actually was a constitutional convention for this one. He said there wasn't one. It wasn't that hard to find out. There's a quote on the parliament's website. It wasn't that hard to find. It says: A constitutional convention bringing together over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders met last month at the foot of Uluru in Central Australia on the lands of the Anangu people. …   …   … … the First Nations National Constitutional Convention met over four days from 23 to 26 May 2017 to discuss and agree on an approach to constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That misinformation, again, is quite easily disproven. Now let's talk about this implication that the process has been rushed. In 2018 a bipartisan joint select committee led by the member for Berowra and the Hon. Senator for the Northern Territory Patrick Dodson examined the proposal made public in 2017. The recommendations of the committee's report were accepted by the Morrison government, when the Leader of the Opposition was a senior cabinet minister. Then a senior advisory group established by former Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt brought together Indigenous representatives and the government for a co-design process. They delivered their final report in 2021. Then, of course, we had a commitment to hold this referendum as a key plank of an election platform for the Albanese government. To imply that this process has been rushed or is undercooked is not only patently false; it is farcical. The Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are deliberately sweeping away years and years of consultation and work carried out by Indigenous elders, representatives and members of their own caucus to cast out this generous offer made by Indigenous Australians. Then the member for Dickson expresses concern about the lack of detail regarding the Voice. We know that this line comes straight from the cookers' handbook. The conspiracy theorists and those who oppose the Voice continue to parrot this line each and every day. In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'The government wants you to vote for the Voice on a vibe.' This is false. I'll tell you what's not 'a vibe': 280 pages of detail in a report to the cabinet. This is the report that was delivered to the former government and presented to a cabinet that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of. This report resulted from an 18-month collaborative process, providing a comprehensive plan and implementable recommendations to incorporate the voices of First Nations people in the Australian government and parliament. Not only is there a 280-page report that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have ignored; there has also been substantial information released by reputable third parties. The Indigenous Law Centre has published three issues papers addressing critical matters, related to constitutional amendments, the referendum question and the finalisation of the Voice design. And, of course, the draft amendment to the Constitution has been made public. After all this detail, to claim that there is no detail on how the Voice will work is abhorrent and absurd. Mark my words, Deputy Speaker: it is also deliberate. It is divisive and it is disingenuous. Finally and probably most offensively, the Leader of the Opposition continually refers to the Voice as 'the Canberra Voice'. He shouts that he and the Liberals 'do not support enshrining in our Constitution a divisive, disrupting and democracy-altering Canberra based Voice'. This, again, is false. The Voice is a generous offer by Indigenous Australians. The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender balanced. The Voice will enhance our democracy and will bring our country together. It will bring us closer to treaty and truth and will enhance our country on our journey towards reconciliation. I hope, in my minutes here today, those opposite truly understand what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do when he chooses to deliberately spread misinformation in his opposition to the Voice. He aims to instil fear, he aims to cast doubt and he aims to bring down this referendum, one that his party and his former government were committed to not so long ago. In his closing statements, the Leader of the Opposition encourages all Australians to be guided by their heads, and on this point I concur with him. Australians should not vote on party lines on this matter, because if they do then this referendum will fail. I would encourage everyone to be guided by their heads, by their intellect and by their compassion. The Australia that I know and the Bennelong that I represent will make decisions based on reason and empathy, and I'm hopeful that they will vote in favour of this referendum. The referendum is a simple matter encompassing two crucial aspects: recognition and consultation. If Australians consider those two matters, then they too will vote yes in this 45th referendum, making it the ninth successful referendum in Australian history. As they did at the last federal election, I have faith that Bennelong and the nation will reject the politics of fear and reject the politics of division and misinformation. I have faith in Australia to unite in support of this referendum and vote yes. 18:04 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith Before I begin this speech, I'd like to first acknowledge the traditional owners of these lands, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, whose connection to this land we know as Canberra has spanned tens of thousands of years and continues today. I'd also like to acknowledge the Jagera and Turrbal people, the rightful owners of the lands across my home city of Meanjin Brisbane. First Nations people across this continent are part of the oldest continuing culture in the world. The resilience, courage and strength of First Nations people who have continuously fought for better outcomes in the face of unrelenting racism and discrimination is incredible. The Greens are committed to progressing all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—truth, treaty and voice. A successful referendum could be the start of a decade of change for First Nations people as we move towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. As we approach the Voice referendum, we are pleased to have secured the commitment from the government that First Nations sovereignty will not be ceded and that truth and treaty will be pursued. The Greens and I are also strongly in favour of ensuring that a voice is truly representative of First Nations people by ensuring membership of the Voice is selected by First Nations people rather than being handpicked by the government of the day or by another convoluted selection process that shuts out First Nations voices not already connected to the political system. Establishing the Voice in simultaneous progression of truth-telling and treaty will give this country a shot at moving forwards towards First Nations justice, because it is well past time for this country to hear the truth—that the violence and state sanctioned genocide started with colonisation and continues today. First Nations communities are still experiencing high rates of imprisonment, deaths in custody and removal of their children from families. Significant underinvestment in First Nations health care, education and housing continues to leave First Nations people significantly more likely to experience housing stress, overcrowding, homelessness, poverty and health issues. It's a truly terrible and unacceptable thing that First Nations people are so often homeless on their own country as a result of the systematic failures of government. The destruction of land, water and sacred sites is devastating communities' connection to country and culture, and unchecked climate change will likely impact First Nations people first and hardest. These problems are not some distant history; these are here and now, pervasive and getting worse. Successive governments at all levels already know the solutions to many of these issues but continue to ignore them. The rate of First Nations child removal is at an all-time high. A new generation of First Nations children are being taken from their families, yet the self-determined solutions of the Bringing them home report are still ignored by governments. Our legal system fails First Nations people on a daily basis, with life-and-death consequences. First Nations people make up just three per cent of the population but more than 32 per cent of the daily prisoner population. There have been more than 500 First Nations deaths in custody since the 1991 royal commission into the issue, yet for decades government have refused to implement many of the commission's recommendations. First Nations children continue to be criminalised and institutionalised at record levels, yet Labor and Liberal governments across the country refuse to raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 despite every expert and First Nations organisation in the sector begging them to do so. It shouldn't take a constitutionally established voice for Labor and Liberal governments to realise prison is no place for any child. First Nations sacred sites remain unprotected, with tens of thousands of years of cultural heritage able to be wiped away in an instant in the name of iron ore extraction or setting up a new gas plant. When will the government listen to communities demanding protection for these cultural assets? Or will they continue to let the mining industry ride roughshod over tens of thousands of years of history? Across the continent the impacts of climate change are destroying communities and country, and First Nations people are so often on the front lines of that struggle, fighting to protect their land from the wanton destruction of multinational mining corporations. Yet this government cosies up to the fossil fuel industries, approves coalmines and ignores climate science and cultural knowledge. These are not new problems, nor ones without self-determined solutions already known to the government. Let's be really clear: a voice to parliament is not going to solve every problem in this country, and it must only be the start of a pathway towards genuine justice. A voice to parliament democratically selected by First Nations people in tandem with truth-telling and treaty can help bring the country along towards First Nations justice. That means politicians hearing the voices of First Nations people even when they don't want to hear what they have to say. I can think of so many brilliant First Nations leaders and organisers who are currently denied a voice on the national stage, locked out by a political and media establishment that don't like what they have to say. If the outcome of this referendum is those leaders getting a chance to speak truth to power and a chance to speak on the national stage, that will be a positive step forward. I'm looking forward to ensuring as many people as possible in Griffith vote yes and that we continue to push for truth and treaty. 18:09 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle It's a privilege to be able to speak in support of this Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill, on the lands of Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, having come to this place representing Fremantle or Waylyup, the lands of the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation. To exist and thrive as a healthy democracy and go forward as a unified and resilient nation, Australia must have the capacity to make positive change. Every one of us in our personal and family lives will know the importance of learning from one's mistakes, of seeking to do better over time and of changing how we do things in order to respond to changing circumstances. Nations have the same challenge and they have the same opportunity. Australia is not the country we were at Federation, let alone in the tens of thousands of years before that. We've adapted and matured. We've faced up to shortcomings and blind spots. We've tackled crises. And sometimes we've put up more sail if the wind's been at our back. In all of those circumstances, we've had the courage to change, drawing on the strength of our democratic processes and on the strength of our character. In the 20th century we established the building blocks of fairness in things like Medicare, the social safety net and superannuation. We opened and transformed our economy. The top five export earners out of Australia today are completely different from the top five in the middle of last century. We became one of the most successful and multicultural nations on earth. Now, in the 21st century, we're taking on the energy transformation required to reach net zero emissions by 2050 as we achieve our potential of becoming a renewable energy superpower. We're making important reforms at both ends of the life cycle, in early childhood education and aged care, and we have the opportunity to cross a landmark bridge on the path to reconciliation with First Nations Australians, on the path to deeper engagement with our oldest and most precious cultural heritage, on the path to voice, treaty and truth. Every one of us knows someone who, for whatever reason, isn't able to take stock, change tack, and they get stuck in a rut or can't admit when they're wrong and aren't capable of self-reflection and change. Instead, they find more and more bizarre reasons to keep taking the same old ineffective approach to life. Australia cannot allow itself to get bogged down like that. We can't find ourselves in the position of being unable to learn, reflect and change, of being unable to become the better version of ourselves in order to pursue our best future. That is called the getting of wisdom. It's called evolution and renewal. It's called national maturity—and, as we seek always to be more inclusive and kinder to one another, it's called generosity of spirit. Countries that lose that capacity will inevitably stagnate. They will fail to adapt to changing circumstances. They will fall prey to disunity and cynicism, circling down into the smallest of ambition and hollowness of national spirit. So we must as a community have the ability to resolve upon sensible well-founded and forward-looking change. That's what this bill is about. It will enable a referendum to be held, in the second half of 2023, that seeks to produce a change that is eminently sensible and a long time coming. This bill is the second-last step on the road to fixing a serious glitch in the fabric of our constitutional democracy and to creating an effective means of hearing from First Nations Australians. Nothing is more dishonest than to suggest that the journey to this point has been rushed or that the proposition lacks details or that our purpose and objective is anything other than unifying. Indeed, we've reached this point through the most careful and thorough process in Australia's constitutional history. The relatively recent way stations on this road include not just the Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution back in 2012 but also the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition, relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in 2013, the Kirribilli statement in 2015, the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017—a process created and endorsed by the former coalition government—the Referendum Council in 2017, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in 2018 and the Indigenous Voice co-design process from 2019 to 2021. As Aunty Pat Anderson said of the Uluru dialogue process, in her testament to the joint select committee: This process is unprecedented in our nation's history. It is the first time the constitutional convention has been convened with and for first peoples. The dialogues engaged 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates, an average of 100 delegates from each dialogue, out of a population of approximately 600,000 people nationally. This is the most proportionately significant consultation process that has ever been undertaken with first peoples. God only knows why the coalition government, which created that process and committed to delivering its outcomes, then turned its back. This last weekend, at a community event on Whadjuk Noongar country in the Beeliar Wetlands in my electorate, Thomas Mayo, who was a participant and a signatory to that Uluru Statement from the Heart said, 'We didn't do all that hard work to reach that wonderful consensus to then go and take no for an answer. There are two possible Sundays ahead of us—two starkly different or alternative Sundays in the coming spring following the Saturday referendum that this bill enables. On one of those Sundays, we wake up around Australia as citizens of a nation that has chosen to walk forward together, that has chosen to fill an aching gap in our history and our national identity and that has chosen to apply the gift of our democratic process to evolve and make positive change through reconciliation. On that Sunday, we will have achieved something at the same time simple and profound. First Nations Australians will finally be recognised in our Constitution, and First Nations Australians will have a guaranteed means of providing input and advice into matters that affect them. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will be recognised and they will be heard. It is as simple as that, and yet, of course, it goes deep. That Sunday in the spring is not far away from us now, but there is another possible Sunday: a Sunday of bewilderment and heartbreak; a Sunday in which we wake up as part of a nation that has somehow chosen to leave a great historical justice unremedied and a great historical opportunity ungrasped; a Sunday of disappointment, of disunity, of pain and, inevitably, of recriminations; a Sunday on which those who are most let down will likely experience that hurt, for the most part, in shock and silence, while the noise and even the blame, as ridiculous as that would be, will come from those who have practised cynicism and negativity. We shouldn't accept that version of reality, and I cannot believe that Sunday will occur, because I cannot believe that Australia has lost the courage to take responsibility for things we've got wrong in the past or that we've lost confidence in our ability to make things fairer and better in the future. I can't believe that bleak Sunday will occur, because I'm convinced that the Australian community as a whole, while containing a diversity of views, will nevertheless resolve together to walk forward together. So I have faith in the bright version of that Sunday in spring, but I know that Sunday only occurs if a majority of Australians and a majority of states vote yes on the Saturday beforehand, and no-one takes that for granted. It is the outcome that we will be privileged to help make real. We have a responsibility to help make it real. It's the fair go answer to the generous offer contained in the Uluru Statement from the Heart stop. So, if you're convinced that it makes sense, and that it has made sense for a long time, to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the oldest continuous culture on earth, in our foundation document and to ensure there will always be a mechanism that allows First Nations peoples to be heard on matters that affect their lives, please do more than vote yes. Please add your conviction to the collective effort that is building in order to achieve this change. Please let those around you know. Please consider getting involved in the campaign and encouraging your fellow citizens to be part of this decisive moment and this decisive change. If you're not entirely convinced, please at least look at the information and the evidence and listen to those like Pat Anderson, Noel Pearson, Pat Dodson, Linda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Michael Long and many, many others. Please take five minutes—just five minutes—to read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and, in the end, please recognise the careful and thoughtful process that has brought us this point. Even if, for some reason, you think the change being proposed at the referendum might not be entirely necessary, please let yourself be swayed by the people who speak from such long experience of what it means to not be recognised and not be heard and of the terrible impacts of that national blindness and deafness that we have suffered along with for far too long. This bill enables a referendum that allows us to make a modest and utterly sensible change that has the most thorough foundation of any constitutional process in our history. It will only lift up the quality of our decision-making. It will only lift up our common purpose and unity and shared wellbeing as Australians. 18:19 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina When this issue goes before the people of Australia later this year, everyone will have the opportunity to individually have their say by way of a vote, and that is a good thing. I do urge and encourage people to cast their vote based on their own views, formed by their own research into this issue. Many correspondents, from my electorate and, indeed, from elsewhere, have written to me with a view on the Voice, and I do thank them for their correspondence—I do. Whilst people will have strong opinions one way or another regarding the Voice, and others may have yet to even make up their mind, I've consistently said in public: I hope the referendum and ensuing debate does not cause division within our nation. I fear that it has already done so, in some circumstances. I do fear, and know, that some have used this to drive a wedge into Australia's psyche, into Australia's conscience, and that is a shame. People are entitled to be in favour of—or, indeed, opposed to—the Voice. That is the great aspect about living in a free democracy. But it would be best if debate on this matter did not continue to divide or even worsen the divide within the nation. Divergent views are fine, but let's keep the debate respectful and at all times tolerant. I remain deeply concerned about what the Voice will do to our country and the way in which we are governed—I do. The Nationals came out, late last year, with a party view on the Voice. There were some who were very pleased at the fact that we did just that, and there were some who were concerned about why we did that. I'll tell you why we did that. It is because, had we not, and had we not had the discussion, I could imagine that, over the Christmas period, where the focus should be on other matters and people should be worrying about family reunions and the like, we would've been picked off by the media one by one, and it would've caused a huge debate and uproar about where we stand individually and where we stand collectively on this matter. We took the valued and principled position that we would say what we thought as a party. The Nationals recognise the immense challenges impacting many Indigenous communities, including domestic and family violence, health care, substance abuse, child safety, education, housing and unemployment. One of the things that the Nationals were very concerned about was the withdrawal of the cashless welfare debit card. We know what a difference it made to the communities we serve. We know what a difference it made because we are on the ground, talking to people—talking to families. We're talking particularly to women in those families, who saw the impact of alcohol and substance abuse lessen, reduce; who saw the difference it made in their ability to send their kids to school with what they needed as far as uniforms, school educational resources, and, indeed, even food in their stomachs—in many cases, for the first time in a long time. And yet this government decided to take that opportunity away. Australia's had an Indigenous representative bureaucracy before. It was called ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It was notorious for its inefficiency, its wastefulness and its dysfunction—it was. Already there have been many Indigenous voices. In the 47th Parliament, there are 227 elected representatives in the Senate and here in the House of Representatives. Amongst those elected by the people are 11 Indigenous members, and that is a good thing. That is representative. There's also a Minister for Indigenous Australians, who's overseeing a billion-dollar federal department. Additionally, we have the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council; we have land councils; we have more than 3½ thousand Aboriginal corporations; and we have the national Coalition Of Peaks, representing about 80 top Aboriginal organisations, groups which already have an influence, have an impact, give advice and offer support to our decision-making here in this place in Canberra. As Nationals, we believe that adding another layer of bureaucracy in Canberra won't genuinely close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The Nationals want to address the serious issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, by delivering frontline evidence based and place based solutions which will help lift Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people out of poverty. We want local decisions, not Canberra-led bureaucracy telling Aboriginal people what's good for them and what's not good for them. We want to stimulate economic participation, generate jobs, improve access to education, enhance the provision of health services and eliminate domestic and family violence. When I talk about jobs, I talk about such projects as Inland Rail. 302 Indigenous people worked on the Narromine to Parkes first stage of 13 tranches of the Inland Rail, and 197 of those were local Indigenous workers. For many, perhaps even most, it was not only an opportunity they would obviously not have otherwise had but also their first job. I know that Snowy Hydro 2.0, for many of those Aboriginal people who worked on that particular project, and still are, was the first job they'd ever had. They were so proud when I went to the Wagga Beach and talked to a number of them who had been trained and were ready to don the high-vis and whatever else and make their way up to Cooma, Tumut, Talbingo and elsewhere to start on that project. But for Inland Rail this was particularly important, because it was nation building. So many of those people who talked to me, Aboriginal people who were taking up job opportunities—as I say, nearly 200 of them as local residents of both the Riverina and Central West—said to me that they were so excited and that this was going to make such a difference to their families. That's why I am really alarmed by the fact that—I'm not making a political statement here; I'm just making a factual statement—so many of these infrastructure projects are now on hold because of the 90-day review put in place by the minister. That's 90 days of uncertainty for those Aboriginal people. I fear that the Inland Rail is going to stop where it is, stop in its tracks—pardon the pun. Everybody in here should be really wanting that project to go ahead not just because it's a great project but because of the fact that it's going to provide such great enhancements and opportunities for Aboriginal people. We believe as Nationals that the bureaucracy should leave Canberra and visit communities around regional and rural town halls and campfires, instead of the bureaucracy coming to Canberra. Each community has vastly different needs. I know that because I've been to Tennant Creek, I've been to Katherine and I've been to Alice Springs. I've been to Mornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria, where the mayor, Kyle Yanner, just wants a swimming pool. He just wants an aquatics centre. The Voice isn't going to provide that. Infrastructure investments will. I know that referenda are supposed to be about detail. I know that Australians generally don't like their founding document to be changed, and that's for a good reason. The Constitution gets interpreted by the High Court. I and the Nationals believe it's absolutely essential we take a sensible, considered, serious and orthodox approach to what is being proposed, by examining the available material in detail—not that there has been enough; not that there has been too much at all. On this matter it is evident the federal government is severely lacking in the detail that they have needed to provide. But don't just take my word for it. I spoke recently and spent most of the afternoon at a football game with Hewitt Whyman, a wonderful fellow. He's an Aboriginal fellow who served our nation in Vietnam. He came back and trained soldiers at Kapooka, home of the soldier. Hewitt will be voting for the Voice. He told me that, at this stage, he was in favour of it but he didn't have the detail. He said, 'I appreciate it may well lead to benefits for us in the long run, but I'd really like to see more detail.' I understand where he's coming from. I respect his view. Aunty Cheryl Penrith from Wagga Wagga, a local Wiradjuri elder—I always pay my respects to Wiradjuri people—said, 'We First Nations people are not the people who will ultimately decide this. Everyone gets a vote, including Michael,' she told the Daily Advertiser, the local newspaper, that being me. She added, 'This is something that will be seen on the world stage, and I think we need to have a think about what we want the country to look like.' I respect her view. I know that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is leading the campaign against the Voice, and she has lived experience. I very much value the views that she has put across publicly. I understand exactly from where she's coming. She's an outstanding Australian. And I take onboard all my local constituents, such as Kevin Smith from Forbes. He told me that he is totally against the Voice, that it will divide us by race, that we are all Australian no matter who we are. Len Oliver of Cowra said that, from his conversations with people, there appears to be almost no information or detail on the Voice. Everyone he'd spoken with about this matter did not want any change to the Constitution under any circumstances. I also know that amongst the dialogue discussions and regional consultation that took place to devise the Uluru Statement from the Heart, my electorate was not represented in those. In fact, the closest was Dubbo, which is a long, long way from Wagga Wagga. That's a shame, because when we talk about local and regional influence it is a shame that one of the largest Wiradjuri electorates—an electorate which, at the census of 2021, had little over 12,000 Aboriginal people—was not represented in those dozen dialogue discussions and one regional consultation to take place. At the end of the day, everyone will have their chance to have their say via the ballot box. That's a good thing. Whatever the result, I hope that all Australians work together to build a better nation, one in which we can all thrive. I want to take issue with some of the virtue-signalling organisations such as our sporting organisations, including the Australian Football League and the National Rugby League. Particularly in the northern reaches of my electorate, sometimes you see Aboriginal footballers and others in the northern Riverina league who can barely get to games because of the wide travelling they need to do, and they can't even afford a pair of footy boots. Yet we have the displays that we had in the Indigenous round. It was quite entertaining. I appreciate that, both the spectacle before the game and the close contests on the field. But when the AFL spends that amount of money, I would love to see them spend a little bit more on the outer reaches of their country communities who give so much to the great national sport that Australian Rules is. When it comes to rugby league, and I listened closely to the member for Parkes—he and his wife, Robyn, have bought jumpers for a couple of football clubs so that they can field teams. But they're disappointed too that the NRL doesn't always extend the reach, the support and the finances to some of those Aboriginal communities that absolutely love their rugby league. Then, of course, you have the banks, that are closing branches and calling it 'property consolidation' and it is great because it lowers emissions. I cannot even fathom that, as to one of the reasons why bank closures seem to be a good thing. They're closing banks in areas where they're so sorely needed by Aboriginal people. That to me is just unforgivable and unfathomable. One figure I heard bandied about earlier today was 92 branches of major banks being closed in country areas in just the last nine months. That is terrible, and it's particularly terrible for Aboriginal people who use those banking services. It's simply not good enough. Everybody's going to have their say. That is a good thing. I just hope that, whatever the result is, we can genuinely and earnestly and honestly and passionately work together to continue to close the gap. We're not doing well enough at the moment, and I'm not sure the Voice is going to—if it does get up—succeed in closing the gap. But there are challenges out there. The removal of the cashless welfare debit card did not help our Aboriginal people or communities and I'm not so sure the Voice will, if it ever gets up, either. 18:35 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I thank the member for Riverina for saying that he hopes the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is respectful, and I acknowledge that his tone is just that: quite respectful. But I have to say that this week in the chamber we heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition that was not so respectful. It was vile. It was actually offensive, and it pains me to reference it here. It was simply a playbook of every lie, every dog-whistle and every scare campaign tactic that they have in their arsenal. It belittled this hallowed chamber. While those opposite denigrate the generosity of spirit that embodies the Uluru statement as mere hubris and stand there and laugh at the possibility of a unified and positive future for this country, those of us on this side of the House have chosen to walk with First Nations people on a journey to reconciliation, and what a journey it has been. It's my privilege to represent the electorate of Cooper. It is home to a diverse community, including many First Nations people and First Nations organisations. At least a dozen Aboriginal organisations have their services domiciled in the electorate of Cooper. It is named after William Cooper, a Yorta Yorta man who led an absolutely remarkable life He was an Aboriginal activist who petitioned the King back in the 1930s for Aboriginal representation in parliament—for an Aboriginal voice. This petition was presented to the federal parliament in 1937. If we cast our minds back to then, before most of us were alive, in 1937 there were no Indigenous members of parliament—no women members of parliament, for that matter. There were certainly no Aboriginal votes placing any member of parliament in this House. William Cooper was a trailblazer. In fact, now, a century later, First Nations people are still calling for the same thing he asked for: to be heard. It's difficult to identify a pre-referendum process since Federation that can hold a candle to the process that has led to this point, including the hard work by William Cooper. We are here at this point now to propose the enshrining of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. No referendum has been preceded by more debate, more engagement and more discussion by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one. Almost six years ago, Indigenous Australians from right across the country gathered at Uluru to deliver a statement after years of discussion, years of sorting out representation and years of distilling an important message. Over 250 delegates supported the statement, and 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were involved in dialogues that led up to that incredible moment—the moment the Uluru Statement from the Heart was drawn and sung into life. It is a beautiful proposal and quite simple. It asks us to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution and to consult with them on issues that affect them. It's only 440 words long, and you'd think the Leader of the Opposition could find a few moments in his busy schedule to actually digest its significance, because what he and everyone on that side of the House fail to acknowledge, at every single turn, is that it is a generous offer that has been made to us by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. No political party came up with his proposition. It didn't come from conversations in Canberra. It came from them, First Nations people themselves. They ask us to walk with them to a better future, a future with listening at its heart. The referendum is about two things. It will be about recognition and listening: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia, and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to laws and policies that affect them, because listening to communities does lead to better laws and policies and better outcomes. It does make a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing, and that is what the Voice will deliver. Yet, despite this, the Leader of the Opposition stood in his chamber and stoked what they have always stoked: division and fear. I was disgusted to hear him call the Voice a symptom of madness. How can anyone dare to stand with a man who has so debased such a beautiful offer of reconciliation? The Leader of the Opposition and his co-conspirators continuously peddle a lie: that the Voice is a Canberra Voice. Let me reiterate the point put beautifully by Aunty Pat Anderson, who told the joint select committee what the Uluru dialogue delegates had called for: What they asked for was a voice to Canberra, not a Canberra voice. What we heard in the dialogues was that … people don't want to be politicians. … They don't belong to political parties. They don't want to be going to Canberra to be politicians. They want to serve their community. They want to live in their communities and serve their mobs and their families. They're extraordinary men and women. They've lived their whole lives in their communities helping their own mobs. They don't want to be in Canberra as a Canberra voice. The opposition seem to be a little confused about where the Voice will come from, despite countless testimonies and direct input from grassroot communities who proposed it. They're not listening, which is why we need a voice. Let there be no confusion about this. The people in this building who continuously peddle misinformation about the Voice are not sitting on this side of the chamber. I can't imagine what is going through their heads or why on earth they would make outlandish claims like the member for Dickson's claim that the Voice will grind our system to a halt, when people like Bret Walker SC, who appears in the High Court more often than any other barrister in Australia, said that the idea of the Voice 'somehow jamming the courts from here to kingdom come as a result of this enactment is too silly for words'. The Solicitor-General's opinion makes it clear. He says the proposed section 'is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution but an enhancement of that system'. Some First Nations people have asked legitimate questions about the Voice and the referendum, questions that do not dog whistle or throw racist barbs. Rather, these are questions about the future and wellbeing of their communities. Will the Voice cede sovereignty? Will it be tokenistic? Shouldn't we work towards treaty rather than constitutional recognition? Will it represent grassroots voices? Will it take resources away from existing First Nations programs? Will it override state initiatives? These are legitimate questions, more relevant and important than the horrid dog whistling from those opposite. To answer these questions, First Nations communities in my electorate met with the excellent Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. She explained beautifully that sovereignty will not be ceded by anyone, that she herself would not support the Voice if it did. She told firsthand how she saw the Voice making a huge difference for the community and the people she represented. She explained that the Uluru statement will be supported in full, that the Voice will work in conjunction with state processes, that existing programs will not suffer from resource depletion and, importantly, that representation will be what First Nations people wish it to be. It will be determined by them and them alone. This year, Australians will be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum on a very simple question. Many people will never have voted in a referendum, or, like the many wonderful year 12 students I've spoken to in my electorate, it might be the first time they're exercising their right to vote. This referendum will be history making. It asks us as a country: do we stay the same, knowing that we face a reality where there is an unacceptably stark gap for First Nations people? Or do we take up the invitation to unite our country? To that I say: more of the same is not good enough. The offer that the Uluru Statement from the Heart put forward was a generous one and one I am proud to accept. 18:43 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. This is the bill that provides the detail of the constitutional change all Australians will be voting on in a referendum later on in the year. The bill confirms that we will be asked if we want to permanently include a race based agency called the Voice that may make representation to parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Both sides of the debate agree that this is not an insignificant change and that either a 'yes' or a 'no' outcome will have an effect on our nation. The passing of this bill signals the referendum campaign's start proper—as I suppose you could describe it—but it also signals the end of Prime Minister Albanese's highly selective process to formulate the constitutional change being proposed. It is a process that has involved handpicked academics and professional elites, ignoring the fact that every Australian owns an equal share of our Constitution and that any change should be shaped by all its citizens. Referendums have typically involved all of us having a very inclusive conversation—a national conversation—about the changes proposed. This has involved constitutional conventions open to citizens, like the one that we had in order to examine whether we wanted to be a republic or not. Also, the Electoral Commission usually delivers to every household a pamphlet that explains the 'yes' and the 'no' cases so that when people go to the ballot box they do so informed. Labor's approach to this referendum has been very different. There won't be any constitutional convention for all Australians, and there was an attempt to kill off the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. Not only does Prime Minister Albanese's our-way-or-the-highway approach go against long-held agreement that a referendum of this nature must have bipartisan support, it has also contributed to an environment of nastiness, where we've seen insults and accusations flourish. Given the tone of the debate so far, it needs to be said, unfortunately, that it is perfectly okay to vote 'no'. Voting 'no' at this referendum doesn't mean you're a racist or dispassionate about closing the gaps between disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians and mainstream Australia. Indeed, many Aboriginal Australians will be voting 'no'. This number of citizens appears to be growing rapidly, which then raises the very relevant question: what if a large proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people vote 'no' but the 'yes' vote is successful due to a non-Indigenous majority? Forcing a large number of Aboriginal Australians onto this new system against their will would resemble historic, paternalistic policies from the past that everyone agrees should never have happened and are a national shame. I haven't come to my position lightly or due to the position of my political party to say 'no'. Coming to my position has been done with an open mind and an open heart and a genuine desire to see positive change. But there are multiple reasons why I can't support this proposal. Firstly, there is a difference between constitutional recognition and the structural change the government proposes. I'm open to acknowledging in our Constitution that before colonisation Australia was occupied by people who also migrated here but many thousands of years earlier. Aboriginal Australians hold an important and unique place in our nation's identity, and their identity should be recognised and celebrated fittingly. But this proposal goes far beyond constitutional recognition as the average Australian would define it. This proposal is designed to substantively change the Constitution and the structure of government. Those are words from the Uluru statement. As well as constitutional recognition, the statement speaks of self-determination and its being achieved through constitutional change. Of course, government programs directed specifically at any group of disadvantaged Australians should be informed by those who government is trying to help. But, like the very disadvantage an advisory body may be created to address, that advisory body should not be accepted as permanent, and therefore should not be enshrined in the Constitution. My view of self-determination is that it happens very much at the level of self, not of government. When a person chooses the right path and takes positive actions to achieve the future they hope for, they practise self-determination. When we take responsibility for the good and the bad we do and learn from those choices, we all are practising self-determination. The Uluru statement speaks of high rates of incarceration within the Aboriginal population, and no doubt the Voice would be called upon to advise government on solutions to these terrible statistics. I believe the answer to lowering these rates doesn't lie within a 'yes' vote to enshrine within our Constitution a new bureaucracy; it is held within each individual. Real and lasting self-determination happens when an individual chooses not to commit the crime; not when government changes the law or lowers the bar or, even worse, when government ignores the crime and pretends it isn't happening. Real self-determination is the same for everyone regardless of race or any other attribute. Most often, when people make the right choices in life, they find they are free from government intervention. The Voice seeks a kind of self-determination that focuses more on the design of government policy and less on encouraging the individual to eliminate government dependence and intervention in their life. Much of the concerns on the 'no' side of the debate revolve around the scope of the Voice, and particularly its role in providing advice to executive government and what is meant by 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people'. It's a simple fact that only the High Court will be able to resolve these questions raised because of the very broad and vague nature of this set of words. 'Executive government' is quite a technical term that includes more than just the Prime Minister and his mates in cabinet. 'Executive government' also includes the entire Commonwealth bureaucracy. That's every Commonwealth department and agency right up to the Governor-General. It raises the real prospect that every one of these may be required to consider if a program, policy or investigation being initiated is a matter relating to Indigenous Australians and if the Voice needs to be consulted before proceeding. If the Voice or other activists believe it should have been and wasn't, it will be off to the High Court on a very well-worn path. I know people who want to vote for constitutional recognition and an enshrined advisory body within the Constitution but will say no because of the concern about the vague and risky nature of this proposal and what it will due to our system of government if put in the hands of the High Court, who will ultimately determine its actual scope. Another relevant concern about the Voice is that it breaches human rights principles by creating a class of citizenship with greater rights than others. Without limiting the Voice's advice to specific or special laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it risks creating a system where laws that apply equally to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians are still within the scope of the Voice. This will create a system of governance that embraces racial preference where non-Aboriginal Australians won't have equal treatment by government in matters that are not specific to Aboriginal Australians alone. While we must do all we can to take practical action to close gaps between mainstream Australia and disadvantaged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, for me, it doesn't extend to permanently enshrining a racial divide and inequality in the Constitution which I believe has the potential to do more harm through disunity than good. All Australians currently have a voice to parliament via our representative democracy and their participation in it. Aboriginal representation in our democratic system is at an all-time high, a significant development that all Australians should be so proud of. That all Australians democratically elected these members and senators speaks to our nation's health and the progress of true reconciliation. It also speaks to the will of our nation to address Aboriginal disadvantage by using our precious and hard-fought-for democracy through equality. While there is much to do, all our voices, including the current representative bodies, Aboriginal members and senators, as well as the Minister for Indigenous Australians, are already contributing to better opportunities and outcomes for many disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians. Many of the gaps are closing, and we need to maintain the focus on practical measures. That leads me to what I believe is the most substantial reason this proposal should not be supported, and that is its lack of substance. At no time has it been demonstrated how the Voice will make real improvements to the lives of disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians. How will it affect real change more than the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices that already exist and advise government? As it stands today, the Constitution treats every Australian citizen equally. It is everyone's Constitution, and we are all brothers and sisters enjoying that equal citizenship. But we must also remember that this is the Constitution we will pass on to future generations of Australians. My conscience tells me I have to make decisions that will unite our children, not divide them, into the future. That is why I'm saying no to this legislation. I'll be saying no at the referendum, and I'll be voting no to the Voice. 18:55 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand In 1937 a great Australian, William Cooper, an Indigenous activist and a resident of Melbourne's west, petitioned King George V on behalf of First Nations Australians. His reason for petitioning the King was simple: the Australian government was failing in its obligations to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the voices of Indigenous Australians were not being heard by the parliament. As Cooper's petition put it: … all petitions made on our behalf to Your Majesty's Governments have failed. As such, Cooper's petition sought the King's intervention to 'grant us the power to propose a member of parliament to represent us in the federal parliament'. Eighty-six years on, we can clearly hear the echo of William Cooper's plea for representation in the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart for a voice to parliament. As the Uluru statement declares, in 1967 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders sought to be counted. In 2017, at Uluru, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders asked to be heard. And in 2023 Australians will have the chance to make this a reality. Like William Cooper's 1937 petition, the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not directed at the Australian government or the parliament; it aims to speak to a higher power. In 1937 that higher power was the King. In 2023 it is the Australian people. Later this year, Australians will have the opportunity to respond to this request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at a national referendum—a referendum to recognise and to listen to First Nations Australians, to recognise 65,000 years of continuous culture and connection to this land and to listen to those First Nations people through a voice to parliament. It's a chance to listen to First Nations Australians about how best to close the gap in health, education and employment measures between Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders and the broader Australian people. It is a chance to deliver practical improvements in policymaking because listening to communities leads to better policies and better outcomes. It is a chance to respond to the call from Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard that has been echoing since William Cooper's petition to the King 87 years ago. Through this vote Australians will have an opportunity to show what sort of Australia we want our country to be, what sort of Australia we want our kids to grow up in, what sort of Australia we want to project to the world. The Albanese government recognises that 65,000 years of continuing culture and wisdom is an asset for our nation as we engage with the world around us. That's why we've been pioneering a First Nations foreign policy—a policy that, in the words of Foreign Minister Penny Wong, 'seeks to elevate the perspectives, practices and interests of First Nations Australians and how we engage with the world'. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were our country's first diplomats, and they were the first Australians to trade and engage economically with our region. The recently appointed Ambassador for First Nations People, Mr Justin Mohamed, follows in a long lineage of Indigenous Australian diplomacy. Their knowledge is a source of strength for Australia and a source of connection and influence for us around the world. In my role as Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, I've seen firsthand that there is enormous interest in both First Nations foreign policy and the process of Indigenous constitutional recognition that we are now pursuing across South America, Africa, South Asia and right across the globe. Indigenous communities I've met across the world recognise our efforts and the need to harness the knowledge of the world's oldest continuing culture in this engagement. Ambassador Mohamed is already working closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in a genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As the foreign minister has said, Mr Mohamed is seeking to build collaboration across communities and the countries of our region and to grow First Nations trade and investment. But as the foreign minister has also said, our foreign policy begins with who we are. It begins with our national identity. And our response to the Uluru Statement of the Heart and the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament is an important step in Australia's journey as a nation. Through our history we've made terrible mistakes as a nation in the way that we've treated Indigenous Australians. We can't change our history, but we can change the way we grapple with the ongoing consequences of it in the present day. There will be a time for truth-telling about our nation's history and for makarrata, for coming together after conflict, after the establishment of the Voice. But members of this place should reflect on the context in which we are debating this bill, a context highlighted by William Cooper's petition, a context of more than a century of elected representatives not just failing Indigenous Australians but failing to see them as people, let alone as fellow citizens. Failing to hear them. When thinking about this debate, I've been thinking about my friend the minister for aged care and sport, the member for Lilley, and her first speech in this place, which enjoined us all to be good ancestors. The way we respond to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is one of those moments that we shape the nation for our descendants. Our descendants will judge us for what we do on the Voice in this place and in our communities during the referendum. In this regard, I've been thinking of my ancestor John Watts, one of the first squatters on the Darling Downs and later a member of the first Queensland parliament. All people contain multitudes, and Watts had many positive personal characteristics. He seemed to treat his workers well; he was regarded as an honest magistrate; he was charitable. But none of these characteristics redeem his failures with regard to the dispossession of Indigenous Australians. As a squatter, and particularly as an MP, he just couldn't see Indigenous Australians as people with equal rights and dignity. He never listened to them, and the consequences were terrible—and I should warn listeners that the history I now recount is confronting. In the first decade of the colonisation of the Darling Downs, John Watts was a partner in the Eton Vale sheep station with Arthur Hodgson. The land on which Eton Vale station was established was Aboriginal land. It was the land of the Giabal people, which stretched between Dalby, Millmerran, Allora and the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range. The colonisation of this land was resisted by the Giabal people as well as the people of adjoining lands, like the Yuggera, the Jarowair and Bigambul people. Indeed, barely three kilometres from where I grew up was the site of the Battle of One Tree Hill, where on 12 September 1843 Indigenous leader Multuggerah won a famous victory in this resistance. In short, the sheep station of my ancestor was taken from Indigenous people violently. Writing about his experience in the 1850s, the subsequent decade, Tom Davis, the father of the famed bush writer Steele Rudd and a surveyor on Eton Vale sheep station, recalled: No doubt many will regard it as strange that I was not molested by blacks during this time. It wasn't strange at all. The blacks, even this far back, were quiet on the Darling Downs. Hodgson, the Leslies and others by many conflicts had taken the go out of them. To this day the bones of many an aboriginal still lie bleaching on well-known parts of some Downs stations. Charles Pemberton Hodgson, the younger brother of my ancestor's partner in the Eton Vale station, reflected: The earliest inroads of the settlers were marked with blood, the forests were ruthlessly seized, and the native tenants hunted down like their native dogs. Echoing this, John Watts, my ancestor, told the Queensland parliament in 1861: In the early days of the colony, murder really was committed—a man would jump off his horse and shoot every black he came across. Still, he insisted: For my own part, although I had often been provoked myself by the blacks, and had seen men killed under me while protecting property, I am glad to be able to say that I never fired a shot at one in my life. Even in the 1860s though, he insisted: … the people of this colony must be considered to be, as they always have been, at open war with the Aborigines. The lie of terra nullius was obvious. In the decades following the arrival of my ancestor, disease, violence and forced resettlement literally decimated the local Indigenous population. This alone is a disturbing legacy to grapple with. Regrettably though, it was John Watts' legacy and his actions as a parliamentarian that caused even greater harm to Indigenous peoples of South-East Queensland. And it was here that the failure to recognise and to listen to Indigenous Australians was even more disastrous. Not long after the initial colonisation of the Darling Downs, the colonial parliaments established paramilitary forces to effect the violent dispossession of Indigenous Australians. Historian Jonathan Richards described the operations of the Queensland Native Police in the following terms: 'When an attack of any form was made on settlers, the native police responded by tracking Aboriginal people to their camps. Once they had been located, the troopers surrounded the camp, firing their rifles into the sleeping people at dawn. The bodies were usually burnt to cover up the killings.' Historians' estimates of the number of Indigenous Australians killed by the Queensland native police range widely, from 10 up to 60,000 people, but it was clear that there were many thousands of murders and rapes committed by this state-sanctioned organisation. Historian Henry Reynolds has called it 'the most violent organisation in Australian history'. The Queensland native police operated under the direct control of the executive council—the Governor, the Colonial Secretary and other senior ministers. And my ancestor, John Watts, as a member of parliament and minister, was thoroughly aware of its activities. He was a member of the Queensland Parliament's inquiry into the actions of the Queensland native police in 1861. There were no Aboriginal or Strait Islander peoples invited to give evidence to this inquiry, neither native police troopers nor members of the broader community. Their voices were not heard in that parliament. No-one questioned the existence of a government-controlled paramilitary force engaged in large-scale extrajudicial killings. My ancestor joined with committee members in recommending that the native police continue its operations in Queensland, which it did for nearly 40 years afterwards. On the tabling of the report, Watts told the parliament that: 'The natives must be taught to feel the mastery of the whites. The natives, knowing no law, nor entertaining any fears but those of the carbine'—that's a gun—'there were no other means of ruling them,' and that, 'the means must be resorted to'. In supporting native police, he saw himself as choosing the lesser of two evils, telling the parliament from 'direct experience' that: 'leaving the settlers to defend themselves tended much more to the destruction of the blacks than the maintenance of a native force. Before this was established, the settlers had to arm themselves to the teeth, and such men, seeing their children killed before them, could not be expected to refrain from using them indiscriminately.' This is the context of this debate. This is the history that the Uluru Statement from the Heart responds to—a history of violence and dispossession; a history of refusing to recognise or to listen to Aboriginal Indigenous Australians. It's a history that we continue to live with the consequences of, in the form of extraordinary disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is why the Prime Minister calls the Uluru statement 'a gracious hand extended to the nation'. We've made terrible mistakes as a nation when it comes to our First Nations Australians. But our greatest strength as a nation is our ability, as a democracy and an open society, to recognise these mistakes and to change course—to do things differently today, so that our country is greater tomorrow than it was yesterday. This debate is one of those opportunities. It's a moment that will shape the arc of our nation's history. It's a moment that will define the kind of country that we are in for generations to come. It's a moment that future generations will look back on as a moment when our parliament and our people chose a different future for our country. It's a moment in which our actions will be judged by our descendants. I encourage those opposite to reflect on this—to see the bigger picture, beyond the short-term day-to-day of politics, the short-term dynamics of a party room or personal career prospects. Take this moment to be a good ancestor. 19:08 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Here in Australia we're about to have a referendum: not one just recognising Indigenous Australians as the first inhabitants of the continent—a proposition that almost everyone would support, and certainly I would—but a referendum which is proposing a new chapter in our Constitution to ensure one racial grouping has more access to and more influence on our government and parliament than any other group, and entrenching that power in the Constitution. The proposal is a fundamental change to our democracy. It directly undermines the premise that we are all equal and every vote has the same value. Winston Churchill is well quoted, and he once said this: 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.' Democracy has its foundation in the Judeo-Christian principles. I'm indebted here to Paul Kelly for pointing out: Human universalism is the heart of liberalism. It comes from the Jewish and Christian traditions. Recall St Paul: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female but you are all one in Christ Jesus. On the basis that democracy was formed on these values, we are all equal in the eyes of the laws and institutions, and it must remain so. The referendum proposal does not target need or disadvantage—far from it. It instead seeks to provide special advantage to a racial group determined by who their ancestors are, above all else, regardless of their circumstances. It inserts races and race in the Constitution in a completely new chapter. This is the principal reason why I'll be voting no when the referendum is staged. In fact, while I'm sure it's not intending to be, the proposal itself is inherently racist, because it is saying that Indigenous Australians can expect to be marginalised forever, that those of Aboriginal descent should never expect to be able to compete in a modern Australia without ongoing, permanent assistance and that they will always need extra help. I reject that premise entirely, and this place, with no fewer than 11 directly elected representatives with acknowledged Indigenous ancestry here on their own merit, proves that not to be the case. It is interesting that one of the Voice's champions today, Marcia Langton, wrote on his issue a decade ago: This is why I hope a robust but intelligent debate on the issues I have raised will begin. And it begins with imagining that an Aboriginal man or woman is not some version of the 'noble savage', but a person who should have the opportunity to fulfill her potential. Removing the barriers to that aspiration means ending the colonial commitment to 'race' and the era of indigenous exceptionalism. It also requires imagining the Australian society in which we see each other as individuals—each unique and with a multitude of characteristics. Being Aboriginal in that circumstance would not be extraordinary or contentious or reason for hatefulness. Our status as the first peoples would be a simple acknowledgement of historical fact … Marcia Langton, you elucidated that in a far more erudite manner than I could ever hope to do, and you were right. I'm not sure what, if anything, has changed since then, but you were absolutely right. Only by addressing disadvantage on a needs basis and removing race as a factor will we ever rid ourselves of racism. Even if the proposal is wrong in principle—and it is—we need also to focus on how the Voice would work in practice. If Australia isn't troubled by the principles at play, it should be by the lack of clarity around the mechanisms. The reach and the powers of his body are far from clear, and it seems likely they would be determined by the High Court on a case-by-case basis. Mr Albanese tells us it is a moderate change and it will be subservient to parliament and simply good manners, but he declines to provide any detail on how the body would be appointed or would operate, saying that it will be for parliament to determine if the referendum should pass. But here's the rub. Given the Labor Party has complete control of the lower house and, on this subject at least, effective control of the upper house, the Prime Minister should be able to tell us right now how the operating rules for the Voice will be drawn up. The government are unlikely to have to compromise at all should the referendum be successful, and they almost certainly will have considered how they will formulate the legislation in that event. If they have not, they are incompetent and a danger to the country. If they have—and we should assume they have—we can only reason that they think that Australia will be so alarmed by what they intend to do—what they intend to legislate—that in the end it will not vote 'yes'. This would make the government devious and dishonest. You can take your pick. There is no excuse for this complete snow job. Where is the transparency, Prime Minister? What are you hiding? Additionally, the Prime Minister has loudly proclaimed that he is fully committed to delivering the Uluru Statement from the Heart in its three-step process of voice, treaty and truth. I can understand why the government may not have fully developed proposals for these next steps, but they must have thought it through. What kinds of things do they propose to have covered by the treaty? Will it grant extra powers, levels of consultation and restrictions in determining land use? Will the treaty challenge the sovereign rights of Australian governments, who act as the democratically elected representatives of the nation's owners, its people, in an equal manner? In this space, New Zealand is often promoted as a positive example. They have had a treaty for more than 180 years and a model that we can follow. However, despite the treaty stretching back to the time of Queen Victoria, in 1975 they decided to establish the Waitangi Tribunal, which was to be an advisory body designed to interpret the Treaty of Waitangi for the modern world and to be predominantly focused on land access and rights. It was to be an advisory body only—make note of that. However, over the years, its powers and reach have been redefined by the High Court of New Zealand, to the point where they now control a portion of the health budget, allocated on the basis of race, not need; where the New Zealand government has recently preferenced Maoris as a racial group for the distribution of vaccines; and where, following pressure from the tribunal, they have been granted the right of consultation in international trade agreements. Certainly these agreements affect Maoris, just as they affect all other New Zealanders, but the argument that they impact singularly on Maoris is a stretch. How different are we and the Voice proposal, here in Australia, to that New Zealand experience? We are being assured by the Prime Minister that the Voice will be able only to make representation on issues specifically affecting Indigenous peoples and that it will be subservient to the parliament, advisory only, and, as I said earlier, simply a matter of good manners. But will it? While there are a range of constitutional experts who assure us that will be the case, there are at least an equal number who say that it will not and the Voice will be justiciable, open to having its powers reinterpreted by the courts. Who to believe? This is no simple question for Australians. It is complex and opaque. We should be able to believe our Prime Minister, but his assurances that change is minimalist are undermined by those around him. For instance, Professor Megan Davis, the chair of his working group, said in February: There is a misconception that it will have no power and it will have no influence. … it will have a lot of power because it's a constitutional voice that is mandated by the Australian people and that gives it a lot of power. Former High Court Judge Ian Callinan says: … I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice … Professor Greg Craven, a member of the government's working group and personally in favour of recognition, says the proposal is 'far worse' than he had contemplated. We're even told that Mr Albanese's Attorney-General tried to convince the working group to remove the clauses around executive government. One thing we do know is that the government no longer proposes the Voice be directly elected by Indigenous people. This is, after all, hardly surprising, given that there is not a legal definition in Australia of what it is to be Indigenous that you couldn't drive a truck through. Maybe the government is wise not to be opening that particular can of worms. But at this stage it's true the government is sharing precious little detail. At best, we know the government is planning to ask existing peak Indigenous bodies to appoint representatives. Mr Albanese refuses to formally adopt the Calma-Langton model. It's little wonder we are all confused. The best most can surmise, using that model as a guide, is that there will be 23 or 24 appointed representatives, which is likely to dictate that in South Australia we would have possibly three representatives. A few weeks back, I spent four days on the APY Lands and visited every community, speaking to all and sundry. None raised the issue of the referendum on the Voice with me, so it became my job to try and find out what they were thinking. Four days and probably a hundred conversations later, I had not found a single supporter among either the local population or the non-Indigenous workers. I'm not saying they don't exist—I'm not that silly—but they didn't speak to me. Many knew nothing of the proposal. Of the locals that did, the first reaction was: 'How could they ever expect us to get one person to represent all of us here, in all of our different communities, with the different families within?' Indeed. But if there are only 23 representatives Australia wide, then they would be lucky if they got one that lived remotely, and it would certainly be a stretch to think they might come from the APY Lands. It should be important for those with a little experience in this area to understand that Indigenous groupings in remote Australia are not naturally trusting of those outside their direct family groupings and that their representative bodies are often far from reaching mutual agreement and understanding. An issue I raised with Marcia Langton, Tom Calma and Ken Wyatt is that the most difficult part of establishing the Voice will be the establishment of the local and regional voices. It is also the most important step, and it should be done before any attempt to establish the national voice. It is, in fact, what the Calma and Langton report recommended. Despite a last-minute dip of the lid from the government to a local voice, saying that it will now be part of the overall architecture, they are pushing ahead with the national voice first and attempting to put the cart before the horse. The second concern of the people on the APY Lands was that it will be run by people in the city, whom they do not know and do not trust. They're probably right, but, of course, the Prime Minister is choosing not to share that detail with us. The next point I make is that the Voice is to be made up of representatives of the most powerful existing bodies. How does the government think that will come up with different answers to the ones the representative bodies are already providing to government? After all, they are the same people. The premise that somehow Indigenous people are not consulted by governments when it comes to policies that affect them could not be more wrong. The remnant proof of policy decisions that have given in to local wishes are littered across the length and breadth of our remote Indigenous communities. People of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent make up 3.3 per cent of Australia's population, but that percentage mix is far higher in the regions, and obviously lower in the cities. In my own electorate of Grey, the last census tells me that 7.4 per cent of my constituents are Indigenous. It stands to reason, then, that those of us in this place who have the highest numbers, those of us who are the members representing the remote Indigenous communities and work with our Indigenous groupings on a day-to-day, week-by-week and ongoing basis, might have a little more insight into the challenges, aspirations, successes and failures of programs and of our Indigenous constituents' distrust of the mob in the city, both the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous. However, it is this grouping, those of us who know more about Indigenous people on a personal basis and deal with their issues every day, that almost to the person are opposed to the proposal. Certainly, from my own experience, I have had more Indigenous constituents tell me they will vote no than yes. The referendum should be a unifying event. The Prime Minister says it will be. But I remind the House that in 1967 the referendum was supported by 90.7 per cent of the population, and the referendum loudly declared that all Australians were equal. Regardless of where you came from and who your ancestors were, it was a unifying moment for the nation. This referendum is likely to be greatly different. It is dividing the nation as we speak. The signs of acrimonious division are already with us, particularly for those who support the no case, and more so if they are Indigenous. The attacks on Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine and Mick Goode are absolutely disgraceful and a blight on our society. Surely we are mature enough to discuss this issue in a civil manner and appreciate that if someone has a different view to ours it does not make them or their view invalid. Every vote in Australia will be of the same value on referendum day. That is the sign of a true democracy like Australia's. For others who may hear or read this speech, I say: be on the right side of history by refusing to vote for something that will divide our nation on racial grounds and runs the risk of hurting the people we're trying to help. 19:23 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. To those in this chamber and those listening at home and those who will inevitably watch this recording, I have something to say, and I'm going to be brutally honest. If you are honestly okay, satisfied and content with the rates of recidivism and satisfied and content with the high rates of incarceration of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, then vote no. If you are honestly okay and satisfied and content with the poor health outcomes and higher levels of chronic disease—nephropathy, hypertension, diabetes—then vote no. And if you are honestly okay and satisfied and content with the educational outcomes of our First Nations children and young people—our youngest and our future—then vote no. But if you want to see a country united and standing as one, then vote yes. If you want to see a body formed that, at the end of the day, is people having a say about the issues that affect them, then vote yes. If you want to see the recognition of 75,000 years of language, 75,000 years of culture and 75,000 years of love, then vote yes. If you want to make sure the voices of those who have been forgotten, who have been marginalised and who have been oppressed are present and loud, then vote yes. A lot of you in this chamber know my nan, Aunty Robyn, an incredible Aboriginal elder and leader in my community. Nan is a part of my story, a part of our community's story and now a part of this parliament's story. Nan was one of seven children, and she spent her childhood in what was inhumanely branded 'the camps'. Nan grew up where severe abuse and poverty were the norm. The threat of not living or sleeping somewhere safe and secure was real. The threat of not eating was real. Nan's story is not an isolated one. It's in parts of our vast land that this continues to happen. In 2023, in one of the wealthiest, most advanced nations on the face of this earth, this continues to happen to First Nations people. That is shameful. If we'd been doing it right then we would be seeing drastic changes amongst our communities, but we're not. We need to do better, and we can do better. We have a chance to do better together at the end of this year by voting yes. It all starts with this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. This bill is what is required to hold a referendum to amend our nation's birth certificate for the better. This bill is what is required to constitutionally recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters and establish a voice. Once passed, the referendum will be held in the second half of this year. We hear about two words frequently: recognising and listening. I want to focus on the listening aspect for a moment. It's a little off topic but highly relevant to this debate. In medicine it is often said that taking a patient history is the most important part of clinical practice—more important than the clinical examination and more important than pathology testings or scans. This is because, with the patient history and by listening to the patient, more often than not you can obtain a provisional diagnosis, begin treatment and ultimately save a life or prevent further deterioration—all from listening. That is the importance of listening, and that is the power of listening. It is this listening that leads to better laws and policies, and therefore better outcomes. It's not a radical idea. It's not radical to let the people whose lives will be affected by a law be involved in the discussion. That is not divisive. That is not a threat to our way of life. That is not a threat to our system of government. That is what a fair and equal society looks like. I think I've provided enough detail to the chamber as to why listening is important. As a man of Wiradjuri heritage, a voice to parliament is essential. It will ensure that we as a united country address the injustices of the past and create meaningful structural change to deliver a better future. This is our best chance to come together as one, to rise together as one and to move into the future as one. As a nation, we need practical measures that will address the issues affecting First Nations communities, and that is what the Voice will do. It will give local people and local communities a say in areas that affect them. Let's talk equality. I've listened in the media today and I've sat in this chamber listening to the opposition talk today about this being divisive and this being unequal. I challenge all of you who sit opposite to visit First Nations communities across the country and ask them how equal they have been made to feel. Based on my conversations with many, I know the answer. This is not putting one race above another. This is not putting First Nations people above other communities. This is about grasping the hand of a generous statement from the heart to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I now want to talk on an issue that has been brought into this debate: 'We have 11 First Nations MPs and senators now. Why do we need a voice?' Essentially, 'Why do we need more?' We have 11 First Nations MPs and senators in the Australian parliament, and we all have different circumstances, different life experiences, different political party biases and different electorate responsibilities. I'll add that, while this parliament has 11, the next parliament may have none. The Voice will not be MPs or senators. It will not be politicians. It will be an independent advisory body comprising First Nations people from First Nations communities. It will in fact be not just one voice but the voice of many coming together as one, and it will be enshrined in our Constitution. It cannot be replaced or discarded by future governments. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 102 ADJOURNMENT Mallee Electorate: Energy 102 19:30 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Mallee is kilometre upon kilometre of prime agricultural and horticultural land. If you haven't been there, I invite you to come. REMPLAN estimates the region's gross regional product at around $10 billion. The people of Mallee clothe and feed the nation and, indeed, the world. I rise to speak on an issue that has farmers and their communities worried about that being compromised. The issue is the Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector West project, or VNI West. Originally, the proposal for this transmission-line project was understood to be an upgrade to the existing 220-kilovolt line from Ballarat to Kerang via Bendigo. However, in February the Victorian Labor government ordered the Australian Energy Market Operator, or AEMO, to accelerate their plans. In the process, AEMO's preferred option was to change to a 500-kilovolt double-circuit overhead transmission line connecting the Western Renewables Link at Bulgana to EnergyConnect in the New South Wales Riverina via a new terminal station in northern Victoria—123 kilometres of 80-metre high towers with wires draped across farmlands. Consultation on the project by AEMO Victoria planner, AVP, has been tokenistic at best. Farming communities have had technical language dumped on them by the AEMO consultants in order to tick a box. I have been repeatedly informed that a survey was conducted in the streets of local towns where bystanders were paid $20 to fill out a technical set of survey questions—another box ticked. Community meetings were called giving AEMO the opportunity to answer questions from locals and therefore display its accountability, but AEMO refused to attend. Apparently, the crowds were too large and intimidating. One was in St Arnaud, which I attended, where there were 300 justifiably concerned locals present. AEMO failed to attend a town meeting in Charlton when I brought down the Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, to meet with the community. The only meeting they turned up to was a small forum in the Loddon shire hosted by the Loddon Herald. I point out that Mallee locals are the heroes here. A number of Mallee farmers have taken the bit between their teeth, so to speak, and the initiative to raise objections to the process and the project. It is so pleasing to see the younger generation of farmers standing up and fighting for their futures. Jason Barrett and Bill Baldwin are two who showed great leadership at the St Arnaud town meeting and clearly articulated the issues they have with the project. Why? Because the risks are real to their land, their productivity and their future. Glenden Watts is another young farmer who has actively galvanised the community. I stand by these farmers and their neighbours, and I'm proud to help amplify their voices in this House. Labor must learn that regional communities are not their dumping ground. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, spoke recently on the importance of social licence. He called it the most important issue these transmission projects have to face. He said it was wrong to dismiss concerns as merely NIMBYism—not in my backyard. These comments sounded familiar. In fact, the minister made the very same comments in March 2022, just over a year ago. The transcript of these comments is still on the minister's website. But here he is, 12 months later on message on a rinse-and-repeat mission, but meanwhile actually doing nothing about it. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, commented in 2021 on the Western Renewables Link, a similar project which feeds into the VNI West. The minister said the project had jeopardised the social licence for renewables in agricultural areas. Two years later, Labor are now panicking to achieve their ambitions, which according to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are in serious jeopardy of not reaching 82 per cent renewables by 2030. With consultation operating under AEMO there is very little hope of changing that revised trajectory. It remains to be seen whether the extra $3 million recently approved by state and federal energy ministers will assist AEMO's consultation track record. Energy market experts Professor Simon Bartlett and Professor Bruce Mountain have submitted a detailed critique of AEMO's consultation report, calling it a monumental mistake. The Labor government needs to listen. Modi, Prime Minister Narendra 103 19:35 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Last night, my electorate of Reid was the site of what really felt like a rock concert. It wasn't the Killers, John Farnham or even Bruce Springsteen; it was the reception for the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. What an evening it was. With 20,000 of the Australian-Indian diaspora coming out to attend, it felt like a real marker of how far our two countries have come, and it felt like the start of an even deeper relationship full of colour, full of energy and full of vibrancy. It was absolutely teeming with pride for both Australia and India. This was an event that shows how important the relationship is. I was struck by what the Prime Minister of India said about our people-to-people connections being fundamental to the development of our broader relationship, and it's absolutely true. Right at the heart of our bilateral relationship is the Indian-Australian community. It's our second-largest diaspora and the fastest-growing one. In my own community, the impact of the Indian diaspora is profound. Strathfield and Homebush, in particular, are home to many Indian-Australians, and one of the greatest pleasures of my job has been getting to know this culture better and understanding the things that they care about. That's why I'm so grateful for the huge generosity of spirit with which the community has welcomed me as the federal member. When I think about my local diaspora community, I can see why Prime Minister Modi decided to come to Reid: because there really is a lot to celebrate. There are religious traditions, like the Diwali service I attended at the Sri Karphaga Vinayakar Temple in Homebush alongside the member for Strathfield and the mayor of Strathfield, where we got to celebrate the traditional post-harvest festival of light. There is the Holi festival that I held in Airey Park in Homebush, a celebration of colours and powders to mark the coming of spring, where local students came to celebrate with us, including the year 7 class from Homebush Boys High School. What was so heartening about that day was seeing school students, grandparents and everyone in between—some of Indian background and some not—all celebrating this wonderful tradition that is so colourful and so bound by community. There's an inclusiveness and openness to the diaspora in my area, and I'm privileged to be part of it. I'm so blessed to have the Strathfield Australians of Indian Sub-continental Heritage in my electorate, an excellent not-for-profit community organisation that elevates and celebrates the work of the Indian diaspora community. Similarly, we have Seva International, a non-political and non-religious organisation that focuses on the rapidly expanding Australian-South Asian community in Sydney. It's a diaspora community that has been growing in prominence over the last few years, and for good reason. Fortunately, I think it's now very clear that we're finally moving beyond the three Cs: Commonwealth, cricket and curry. Can I suggest a new formulation? That is: compassion, community and collaboration. One thing that is very clear is how fundamentally important it is for my Indian diaspora community to give back. We saw it particularly through COVID, when they were all going out and supporting each other. So many local organisations helped out those who were doing it tough through the pandemic, particularly those vulnerable international students who didn't qualify for government support. While I'm sure Prime Minister Modi gets to do a fair bit of travel in his job, there is no doubt that he will remember the rock-star reception given to him at Sydney Olympic Park, in the electorate of Reid, by the Prime Minister and the Australian Indian community for a long time to come. I know I certainly will. Infrastructure: Regional Australia 103 19:40 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes A few weeks ago I received a phone call from the infrastructure minister, Minister King. She asked me if I would take a position on a committee that she's setting up to look at applications that come through for the Growing Regions Program that she set up. It'll be a bipartisan committee, with government members, members of the Liberal Party, me and crossbenchers. I said, yes, I would do that. She wants to try a new way of assessing regional programs. I would be prepared to do my bit. Anyone that knows me in the time that I've been here knows that I always try to work in a collaborative way. I'm on the record as saying that sometimes in this place you have leverage, but most of the time you're relying on goodwill. So I was quite prepared to go along with her suggestion of this bipartisan committee. So you can imagine my surprise last night during Senate estimates when members of Minister King's office were feeding information to Senator White to build a case to accuse me of trespassing in my own electorate. There were blown-up photographs of me and Senator McKenzie, who is the shadow minister for infrastructure, inspecting the Inland Rail. Senator White took great joy in trying to explain that somehow we were breaking the law and we were putting ourselves and others in danger because she had photographic evidence of us standing next to the Inland Rail. Apart from anything else, with line of sight two kilometres either way, we probably would have had time to not get run over by a train, should one have come through. But we were actually standing on a level crossing—perfectly legal. I was horrified to think that a minister with a portfolio that's undertaking a review of all regional programs at the moment, a minister who is in charge of the largest and the most beneficial infrastructure project that this country has seen in the last hundred years, has the energy to try and somehow get me into trouble for trespassing too close to a railway line in my own electorate. I will continue on and be part of this committee process to assess the applications under the Growing Regions Program, but if the minister could focus on the job she has—a regional MP who is the minister for infrastructure, which to me is the most important portfolio in the cabinet because regional electorates rely on infrastructure. We rely on that to connect us to cities. Local councils rely on decisions the infrastructure minister makes about funding priorities for community infrastructure like roads. So the resources of a minister's office being placed in something as trivial as this, I've got to say, was a bit humorous. John Cleese would not have looked out of place in Senate estimates last night. It was the most Monty Pythonesque stunt that actually backfired. I'm sure Senator White was somewhat miffed when she found out that she was actually the patsy that was put out there with false information to try and discredit a couple of members of parliament doing their job and what was expected of them. Hopefully we can move on from here. Lingiari Electorate 104 19:45 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I rise tonight to speak about a number of issues in my great electorate of Lingiari. Tonight I just want to quickly touch on a letter sent to me today by a young person in my electorate. Abigail is 10 years old, and she lives in Katherine. She wrote to me and spoke about the deep sense of fear in her community. Abigail wrote: My name is Abigail and I live in Katherine, NT. I am 10 years old and I love where we live because our town has lots of lovely people and is a nice quiet town. Or so it used to be. I like playing sports, horse riding, fishing and camping. Our town is good, but I am worried about it. There have been some bad things happening that you may have never experienced and therefore do not know how scary and sad it is. She went on to list a number of incidents that she had witnessed and experienced. The things she listed are things no young child needs to experience: rocks being thrown at them, getting broken into, being spat and sworn at, and her school being violated. It has been heartrending to receive a letter like this. It is critical for our young people to feel safe, to feel that their home is a place of security, connection and happiness, yet in many places in my electorate it is not. All of us here in this parliament have an obligation to work to create a better future for our young people. For me, I will be standing firm and speaking out to make sure that the concerns of our young people, and particularly young people like Abigail, at 10 years old, are heard and actioned. As Abigail has said, we need action. We need systemic action. I wrote to Abigail and explained to her that I would take this letter to me in my work. I will raise it with ministers in the federal government. I've had a conversation and I have sent a letter on to the Northern Territory Chief Minister, who said she will look at it and make some change. What I also want to say to Abigail is that the issues we face have been many centuries in the making. There is much work we need to do to address them. We need more housing, we need better services, we need to get people into jobs, we need to lift people out of poverty and we need to stop the neglect of our young people. But there are things—and I've spoken to the Chief Minister today—that we need to put in place, including tighter alcohol restrictions and extra resourcing for our frontline agencies like the police, youth services organisations, schools and healthcare workers. We need to create communities that are prosperous and safe, and we need our young people to be in schools, not prison. We need our young people to feel safe when they go home. We need the scourge of alcohol to start declining, not increasing. I was happy to be sitting in a meeting with a number of organisations with the federal Attorney-General to talk about introducing justice reinvestment, a program to coordinate service delivery and reduce the levels of crime. I'm also doing substantial work with the Katherine High School, with the school principal, and with cultural leader and traditional owner May Rosas. That school is showing that they are providing a very strong framework for justice reinvestment. It is great to see the federal government investing in schools through Minister Clare. We are rebuilding our remote jobs program and investing significantly in housing. These federal programs will make a difference, but I hear every day from young people in our communities who are hurting and are frightened like Abigail. I say to Abigail and all the young people in Lingiari: thank you for standing up and having your voices heard. It is so important for members of parliament to listen to young people and to represent their views. I've told Abigail my job is to come here and represent her views and the concerns of Lingiari, and that's exactly what I will do. Community Pharmacies 105 19:49 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to give a big shout-out to and thank 6,000 community pharmacies for helping us get through the COVID episode, which is, fortunately, in the rear-vision mirror. There is a milder version circulating, but they're still out there helping people with their health needs. Community pharmacies are even more critical in regional Australia than they are in the big smoke. There are plenty of towns—in fact, over 300 of them—where it is the health system, where there isn't a general practice anymore. They've all been put on salaries in state government hospitals, in preference to working in general practice, and we have a shortage. Pharmacies upped the ante and expanded the range of services they do. Some of them have gone more corporate, and gone into a supermarket model where they're just a retailer and prescription dispensing is a small part of their business. I'm really quite flabbergasted to see that, in this recent budget, there has been a cut, which the finance minister has mentioned—$3.5 billion less over the forward estimates. This is going to affect so many pharmacists. I'm flabbergasted. Having worked in the portfolio myself as a minister and assistant minister, I thought the community pharmacy agreements were locked, signed, sealed and delivered financial arrangements. Until a new arrangement has been done, I don't know how they think they can do that. It's like summary justice. I'm sure plenty of people in the pharmacies would happily sit down if the government wanted to change things. Come to the negotiating table. Anyhow, I was just looking back on what happened with COVID. I remember there were roughly 10 million vaccinations delivered through pharmacies. When general practices were shut and you had to do telehealth for consults and to pick up scripts, and you couldn't get into a general practice, what was open? The pharmacist was open—like in country towns. I worked in health for 33 years as a doctor; I worked in a country area. We had fantastic support from pharmacists over the years. Their work in their pharmaceutical role is not just dispensing; they do a lot of other work in advice and medication management, and they do a heap of work in aged care. At the moment they are bundled up and have done many of these things pro bono. When you cut $3½ billion out of a system that is financed, has got loan commitments, has employees to keep employed, has pharmacists to hire and work in your business—it is a really devastating blow to wake up one day and be told that, within a week, your whole business model is up in the air. There was an impact analysis done by the government. I had a look at it before this speech, and it said that there are going to be unintended consequences. I know why the pharmacists are worried—because plenty of people have put their life savings, their mortgage, into opening these businesses. Some of them will be losing $250-odd thousand by the fourth year of these changes. Instead of dispensing 350 drugs once a month and being paid for it, now they've got to do two months but don't get twice the payment. The core of their businesses is their dispensary—unless you're one of these huge corporate things that sell everything and has a different business model. But for true community pharmacies that check your blood pressure, do medication management and do Webster-paks—all these things being done pro bono will evaporate. On some of the documents saying they're reinvesting: the government is actually just announcing the reinvestment of things that were already baked in, so it's quite misleading. To say they're putting extra money in for stuff that other people get, like the e-script infrastructure, the National Immunisation Program vaccinations—it's not new money. But we won't realise how valuable pharmacists are because plenty of them will close— (Time expired) Pancreatic Cancer 105 19:55 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to speak about a story of grief and loss. However, it is also a story of resilience, the comfort of community and the uplifting power of friendship. Within my electorate of Pearce, a milestone has been reached by constituents who are connected by being neighbours and friends who share a common love of music and as musicians earlier in life. Tony Hughes, who lives in Harbourside Village, in my home town suburb of Mindarie in Western Australia, wrote a song to help his neighbours Colin and Wendy Herbert deal with the immense grief of losing their son Mark to pancreatic cancer last year. The song was part therapy and a gift to Tony's friends, who were left devastated by the death of their beloved son. The song 'Impressions of You' is also a wonderful musical tool to raise awareness of the devastating disease, pancreatic cancer, around the world. From a small suburb in Perth's north, the song has now been heard around the world after being released globally as the World Pancreatic Day Anthem. 'Impressions of You' has now reached more than 127,000 streams and downloads on YouTube and Vevo. It is also available on music streaming platforms. The World Pancreatic Cancer Coalition submitted the song to the organisers of World Cancer Day, in Geneva, who endorsed it to become an anthem for World Cancer Day 2023. The song was shared across 106 global pancreatic organisations, increasing its reach and impact. The music video was also played at football games around the world, including in England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia. Former professional soccer player Irish midfielder Liam Millar died aged 36 from pancreatic cancer. He had played for clubs including Perth Glory, Brisbane Roar, Melbourne City and Manchester United. Perth Glory helped share the video to other clubs, to honour Liam and other victims of the cancer. Song royalties go to Pancare Foundation Australia, and Tony hopes the song will raise significant funds for early diagnosis and awareness of this aggressive cancer. Mark Herbert passed away only five months after receiving the tragic news from his doctor. What is also remarkable about this story is that so many people contributed their time to the project free of charge, to write, produce and record the song and music video. That includes opera singer Amy Manford, the Western Australian Screen Academy and the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, not forgetting the wonderful Harbourside Village Choir. Parents Colin and Wendy Herbert were once members of the 1960s band Gullivers People and worked with Tony, a former musician, to refresh and complete a song he wrote years ago and turn it into an uplifting piece that honours the memory of Mark. Last week we learned that pancreatic cancer had claimed another life, Andy Rourke, the guitar player from British band The Smiths, who died aged 59. The Smiths are a band that formed in the early eighties in Manchester, where I was born. The band said: Andy will be remembered as a kind and beautiful soul by those who knew him and as a supremely gifted musician by music fans. Band member Johnny Marr remembered their time as bandmates and childhood friends: We were best friends, going everywhere together. When we were 15, I moved into his house with him and his three brothers and I soon came to realise that my mate was one of those rare people that absolutely no-one doesn't like. Andy and I spent all our time studying music, having fun and working on becoming the best musicians we could possibly be. Andy reinvented what it is to be a guitar player. The Smiths' front man, Morrisey, paid tribute to his former bandmate: He will never die as long as his music is heard. As I speak tonight about a song written within my home electorate to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer, it is evident that music is a powerful medium. That this song has reached more than 127 downloads, is absolutely remarkable. Pancreatic cancer is often diagnosed late, and symptoms can include stomach and back pain and loss of appetite. Purple is the colour associated with raising awareness of pancreatic cancer. I commend Tony, his wife, Janis, Colin and Wendy and everybody who had a role to play in creating this beautiful song and video. You should all be incredibly proud. I honour the memory of Mark Herbert, who died from pancreatic cancer. The House transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.

Wednesday, 24 May 2023

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 107 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Environment 107 09:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Tasmanians are naturally proud of our natural environment, so imagine our community's alarm and sometimes even anger at the increasing likelihood of losing so much that we love. Currently, more than 650 different plant and animal species are listed as threatened in Tasmania, including six critically endangered vertebrae—for example, the Maugean skate, an ancient fish found only in the waters of Macquarie Harbour. Its population almost halved between 2014 and 2021, while the state government was cheering on the seemingly unrestrained salmon-farming in the harbour, despite it so obviously causing oxygen depletion and creating dead zones. Don't get me wrong, the salmon industry is an important contributor to the state, but it has a responsibility to do the right thing by local communities and the environment, just as the government has the responsibility to hold the industry to account, and neither is the case right now. The Swift parrot is another species facing extinction within the next decade without urgent action. Here, again, governments are failing us by allowing grossly irresponsible destruction of habitat. The thing is, it wouldn't be hard to turn this around, because by one assessment only seven per cent of public forests currently available for logging need to be protected in order to give the Swift parrot a fighting chance. But even this has been too much for both state and federal governments, who have instead exempted the Regional Forest Agreements from the EPBC Act and related national environmental standards. Moreover, our natural heritage is under threat from sweet deals between developers and governments. For instance, the luxury helitourism project proposed for Lake Malbena would pay just $4,000 per year to lease public land and exploit a wilderness heritage area for the benefit of wealthy tourists. This is markedly less than what a load of families in Hobart are paying in rent every couple of months right now. Tasmanians well know what it's like to be on the environmental front-line. For example, the flooding of Lake Pedder was a catastrophe which destroyed a place of incomparable beauty and birthed the environmental movement in this country. The campaign to save the Franklin River prompted Australia more widely to recognise the value of our national heritage and the voices of campaigners. Thank heavens that the Hawk federal government intervened to save the Franklin—so too should we be pleased with this federal government's Nature Positive Plan, which sets out a goal of improving Australia's environmental laws to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. But such steps are still only the start, and Australians—Tasmanians in particular—want more, much more. We want genuinely deep reform of environmental laws which would reflect the value of our natural heritage, protect species, and genuinely establish for Australia a global reputation as a clean, green nation. E-Cigarettes And Vaping Products 107 09:32 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite In February last year I spoke in this place about Steven, a distressed father of two young boys, who inhaled from a friend's grape-flavoured vape in a primary school bathroom. Only a week later, Steven's five-year-old was frantically rushed to hospital, struggling to breathe. Steven's son now has an ongoing asthmatic condition. Stories like this are not uncommon. Parents and teachers are increasingly concerned about vaping and its role as a precursor to smoking and nicotine addiction. We know that over the past 12 months Victoria's poisons hotline has taken 50 calls about children under four becoming sick from ingesting or using a vape, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I acknowledge Steven and all the brave parents who have spoken out and advocated for legislation to better regulate vaping. As a result, I can proudly stand here today and declare that the Albanese government are listening and we are acting. Earlier this month, our health minister announced that the Commonwealth will contribute more than $730 million towards stamping out vaping and cigarettes. When the minister made this announcement, Steven dropped into my office with his boys to celebrate. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09 : 34 to 09 : 46 Ms COKER 263547 When the minister made this announcement, Steven dropped by my office with his boys to celebrate. Steven said at the time: I'm grateful for the efforts our current government is making. Everyone in our community should see and welcome the need for this change and the safe regulation of vapes … …   …   … To realise there was so little known about vaping, and the poisonous chemicals they contain, is frightening. …   …   … I love my children dearly, and to see this harm come to them never really leaves one's mind. For Steven, and for all parents, this reform is long overdue. Our plan begins with the banning of single-use, disposable vapes, a public health information campaign on the dangers of vaping and funding for quit support programs. It will also include: an increase to the minimum quality standards for vapes by restricting flavours, colours and other ingredients; requirements for pharmaceutical-like packaging; reduction in the allowance of nicotine concentrations; and an increase in the tax on tobacco by five per cent per year for three years. No longer will we stand by as children as young as four inhale from these devices which can contain more than 200 toxic chemicals, causing cancer and other chronic lung conditions. Some of those chemicals are found in nail polish remover and weed killer. This is unacceptable. No longer will we stand by and allow vaping to create another generation of nicotine addicts. Health Care: Pharmacists 108 09:48 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra As the grandson of a pharmacist, I know pharmacies are an essential service communities rely on. Pharmacists are the front line of health care in our communities. They are professionals, community leaders and counsellors and they operate a triage service, helping people understand and manage their health needs. I see it all the time. Our community pharmacies keep many people afloat. I have great pharmacists in my community, like Alex Torrens from Hornsby Heights Pharmacy, Adam Shanahan from Pennant Hills Pharmacy, Warwick Best of Best's Pharmacy Cherrybrook, Yvonne Nguyen from Carmen Drive Community Pharmacy, Sunny To from the Priceline pharmacy at Beecroft, Susan Cole from Mt Colah Pharmacy, Diksha Mehrotra from Friendly Pharmacy at Round Corner, Susan Low and Leanne Plumbridge from Mount Colah Pharmacy and many, many others. Given all this, when I hear from pharmacists in my community that are deeply worried about a policy change, I pay attention. In recent weeks, I've had phone calls, emails and visits from pharmacists across the Berowra electorate. They are all telling me the same thing. They are saying the government's 60-day dispensing policy could be fatal for community pharmacies and bad for patients. It will make the most unwell people in our communities even more vulnerable. We risk seeing the closure of pharmacies in communities that need them most. Sixty-day dispensing makes sense on paper. Cheaper medicines and more efficiency—who would oppose that? The government's policy falls into the notorious trap of not enough listening to the people who will be actually affected. As the Council of Small Businesses of Australia said, 'Initially, the proposal seems to expect small business pharmacies to fund consumer cost-of-living savings.' Dr Nick Coatesworth said: The savings in costs to consumers is a fantastic outcome, but if that is only partly absorbed by government and passed on to pharmacies, the potential here is that smaller pharmacies will be under pressure. The last thing we want is the loss of pharmacies … I want my community to be able to access more affordable health care, but to try to suggest you are helping patients by risking the closure of their local pharmacy is utter nonsense. One pharmacist in my community shared with me an independent assessment on the impact of this policy change on her pharmacy. Fifty-two per cent of the patients who visit her pharmacy would be affected by this policy change. The bottom line financial loss to the pharmacy is anticipated to be $140,000. This is not a cost a community pharmacy can absorb. Minister Butler said that other services will be directed towards pharmacies so they will be funded in different ways to provide different services. The pharmacists in my electorate tell me this is nonsense. For example, $377.3 million over four years will be going to reform opioid dependence treatment access, but in some locations this service is not relevant. Money is being removed from dispensaries, which all pharmacists have, to fund services that only some pharmacists participate in. It is the bread-and-butter of pharmacies being cut. Pharmacies are not like other businesses; they can't just adjust their prices to address bottom line. If there are pharmacy closures in my electorate, the Prime Minister and Minister Butler will be responsible. I urge the government to do their homework and consider the effects of this decision on community pharmacies across our country. Franklin Electorate: Citizenship 108 09:51 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to take a moment today to talk about one of the privileges of this job, which is meeting extraordinary people doing what they think are ordinary things in local community but are actually quite extraordinary contributions they are making to our community. Last week the city council where I live, the Clarence City Council, did their citizenship awards. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to be with them but I did nominate some people for the awards. I do want to talk about our citizen of the year for 2023, from the Clarence City Council, Lewis Taylor. In 2021, Lewis set a goal of climbing Tasmania's 158 mountains called the Abels in 158 days and raise $158,000 for Cancer Council Tasmania to provide support for Tasmanians who have been impacted by cancer. Lewis' inspiration was his mother, Jane, who had received a second breast cancer diagnosis. The impact of the diagnosis inspired him to do something meaningful. Lewis was successful in achieving his goal of raising $1,000 per Abel, and to date has raised over $164,000 for Cancer Council Tasmania. Lewis showed a commitment of never giving up and demonstrated that, when you believe what you are doing is important, great outcomes can be achieved. Another nominee was Simon Bailey from the Clifton Beach Surf Life Saving Club, of which I am a patron. Simon gives much of his time and energy to the Clarence community through his passion as captain of the Clifton Beach Surf Life Saving Club and through his work as a local TAFE teacher. He offers mentorship, training and guidance and is always out and about patrolling our beaches over the summer. Simon is always generous with his time and is a great role model for young people in the community. Then we have of course the Neighbourhood Watch team—Maureen Newman and Stephen Bourke. Maureen and Stephen put a lot of time and energy into helping to keep our community safe. They print and distribute their Neighbourhood Watch flyers and safety information to local communities. They engage with the police, business owners, community organisations, politicians and locals to keep them well connected and informed on safety issues. I hear a lot of concerns in my office from the local community about safety and it is local community members like Stephen and Maureen who are out and about actually making a difference in our local communities. They are great role models for young people and they offer comfort to others with their passion and dedication to improving public safety. These are just some of the citizens that were recognised in our Clarence City Council citizenship awards in my local electorate. I'm sorry I couldn't be there but, as I said, the great privilege of this job is getting to meet great local people doing extraordinary things in local communities. Banking and Financial Services 109 09:54 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Business councils and individuals throughout Australia, particularly regional Australia, including the Riverina and central west, have inundated the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into bank closures across our rural areas. The inquiry has received more than 550 written submissions and last week held public hearings in Queensland. I commend Senator Matt Canavan for the work that he has done with this inquiry, as well as Senator Perin Davey for her work in putting up the task force into regional banking to begin with. This is what the Mayor of Junee, Councillor Neil Smith, said in his submission: The banks make millions of dollars in profits. The total shareholder focus at the expense of our rural and regional areas is wrong on so many levels. Even if a branch is not particularly profitable, they should be cross subsidising them. The banks have given many different reasons for closing rural and regional branches, but one from the ANZ bank recently just takes the cake. The ANZ, which has closed a number of branches in my electorate over recent years, including in the thriving centres of Parkes, Temora and Forbes, has in its 2021-22 financial year boasted of continuing its emissions reductions due to, among other things, 'property consolidation'. That's code, I believe, for branch closures. What an absolute insult. In the Climate activepublic disclosure statement by the ANZ bank, under a heading 'Emissions reduction actions', it says—and this is disgusting, this is disgraceful: Emissions reductions continued in 2022 due to property consolidation and ongoing flexible working arrangements for our non-branch staff. 'Property consolidation'! Go figure. What a disgrace those banks are. They make huge profits out of farmers, out of mining production, out of Mr and Mrs Average in regional Australia, and then they put in their financial documents the fact that they are— Mr McCORMACK 219646 This is regional banking. You're a minister. You should be just as disgusted as I am about regional banks closing, and their customers. Mr McCORMACK 219646 What have I done? We did a lot, thank you, Minister. Fair dinkum! We've got a bank here using woke excuses, and you're defending them. You're defending branch closures. You wouldn't know regional Australia— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order, please! Mr McCORMACK 219646 I didn't interrupt you when you were making your statement, and you shouldn't interrupt me. So just leave the chamber, as you are—just running off. Typical. This is a disgrace. The ANZ bank should absolutely explain why their woke procedures are closing banks in my region. Disgraceful. Shortland Electorate: Volunteers, Hicks, Mrs Eileen 110 09:57 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Last week was National Volunteer Week, and I was fortunate to catch up with some truly wonderful groups in Shortland who have been awarded Volunteer Grants and who are making a real difference in the lives of others with their work. I visited Lake Macquarie's Marine Rescue unit at Pelican. Shortland is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and some truly magnificent lakes. Swimming, fishing, boating and skiing are an important part of our lifestyle, and the assistance that Marine Rescue provides to those who find themselves in trouble on the water is significant and much valued by our community. Whilst at Pelican, I also met with the Pelican memorial trust to discuss their grant for new equipment and I heard about the wonderful work they do supporting veterans and defence personnel locally. Swansea Community Cottage is a wonderful neighbourhood centre, helping some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Susan, Annie and Nat briefed me about some of the issues people are dealing with, particularly regarding the difficulty in finding a GP who bulk-bills. I was proud to be able to tell them that the Albanese government is making the largest ever investment in bulk-billing, and this will help over 76,000 people in Shortland. They know what a difference this will make. I sincerely thank all those involved with the cottage for the special and important contribution they make to our community. I enjoyed meeting with volunteers at both Belmont and Swansea Meals on Wheels, and I also acknowledge and thank them for their fantastic service. Having done meals delivery for Swansea Meals on Wheels, I know the difference they make to people's lives each and every day. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the Cerebral Palsy Alliance at Croudace Bay for hosting me at their launch of Australia's first regional early diagnosis clinic, which will provide a vital service to families with children at high risk of cerebral palsy. A division ha ving been called in the House of Representatives— Mr CONROY 249127 As I was saying, it was very moving to hear some of the firsthand stories from families who have already received support from the Cerebral Palsy Alliance, including Kylie, Kris and their daughter, Anika, who had a stroke at less than 48 hours old, which led—in some aspects, thankfully—to an early diagnosis of cerebral palsy, which enabled Anika to receive valuable support from CPA from almost her earliest moments in life. This new clinic will assist over 100 infants like Anika in the Hunter in the coming years, and I'm thrilled that this initiative is happening in Shortland. One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is working with wonderful people and groups in our community, and I thank them all for the service they provide. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Mrs Eileen Hicks, who tragically passed away last week. I had the privilege of meeting Eileen on her 100th birthday late last year and learned all about her service in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force during World War II. I was fascinated to hear about her meeting General Douglas MacArthur. I thank her for her service and send my sincere condolences to her dear daughter, Cheryl, and all her family. Cost of Living 110 10:12 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay As people right across Australia and particularly in my community in Western Sydney struggle in the face of relentlessly rising cost-of-living pressures, so too do our charity organisations, our front line services who assist with food and housing to those who need it most. I held a roundtable just the other week to discuss these issues with many of the organisations operating locally in my electorate of Lindsay. I heard about the work they are doing with the homeless people, whose numbers increase every day now include working families, and they just can't keep up. These organisations, which are designed to help people in financial hardship, are also against the wall in many cases. There's been a 50 per cent increase in demand for services across the board. One food provider told me 60,000 meals has now doubled to 120,000. They have the food for now, but it is the $1000-per-quarter rise in their energy bills and the transport costs that are exorbitant. There are fewer and fewer people to help the ever more that grow needy as their volunteer base also feels the cost-of-living crunch. When across our country these organisations who deliver frontline services are also struggling to make ends meet, the situation is dire. Those who are putting their hands out for help are also changing. Families who have never asked for anything before, feeling despair, are now coming to our local food services to get meals. The most vulnerable have now expanded to include people who work overtime and working families with more than two jobs, and the reasons they are asking for help are the higher cost of living, the inability to access housing and energy poverty. What does it look like? I'll tell you. People who are looking to rent are effectively being rendered homeless as they are priced out of the market, and the competition to let is fierce, with lines queued down the block. Average people with jobs now seek crisis accommodation. What will we do when social housing becomes long-term housing for those with no options? Australians are struggling to keep up with mortgage payments and are going under, with rate increase after rate increase over the last 12 months. People are starting to default, and mortgages are getting cancelled. Investors are being driven out of the market under the looming threat of increased taxes and changes to negative gearing, meaning that rental stock dwindles and prices rise. They are now facing the reality of exiting the market at a loss. Costs are being passed on, as the landlords just can't wear it. They are just average mum-and-dad investors, particularly in my community. Homeowners are holding on to homes longer because of stamp duty and selling costs, resulting in fewer homes hitting the market. Millions of Australians are struggling right now. They are becoming the Albanese Labor government's working poor, because there is nothing in this budget for them. I'm really concerned about people in my community who may end up homeless in the near future. Aston Electorate: Schools 111 10:15 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I'd like to speak about a couple of fantastic schools in my electorate of Aston. I recently joined principal Liz Swan, her staff and students at Bayswater Secondary College to officially open their 'Avenue of Honour', planted during the second half of 2022 as part of the Queen's Platinum Jubilee celebrations. Bayswater Secondary College lost a lovely old pin oak tree in a shockingly destructive Melbourne storm in late 2021. Fortunately, however, the school was able to apply for and were successful in receiving a grant of $5,000 as part of the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. The college has been able to create a garden path, planting trees known as Griffith pinks, which will grow into a tranquil place of reflection for all the students in the years to come. Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was well known for and quite fond of gardening, often remarking on the power of a garden and nature in general to calm a busy mind and help us to reconnect with ourselves. The 2022 VCAL class and their Horticulture Personal Best class, led by Mr Chris Flynn—a favourite teacher of the kids—together planned, designed and planted—and will maintain—this beautiful Avenue of Honour. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10:31 Ms DOYLE 299962 I had a lovely chat with principal Liz Swan, Chris Flynn and the VCAL students following the ribbon-cutting ceremony, and they took me through some of the great things they're doing there at Bayswater secondary. I'd like to thank them all for inviting me to officially open this lovely new Avenue of Honour and I hope very much to visit again soon. Another fantastic school I had an opportunity to visit was Scoresby Secondary College, where principal Gail Major and her staff hosted a primary school leadership training day with the eight local primary schools: Carrington Primary School, Karoo Primary School, Kent Park Primary School, Mountain Gate Primary School, Knox Park Primary School, Knox Gardens Primary School, Scoresby Primary School and Wantirna South Primary School. The day involved senior student leaders from Scoresby Secondary College running leadership training for the school leaders from these primary schools, where they focused on developing an understanding of what it means to be a good leader, and how to collaborate to create a fundraising pitch. These bright young kids were all passionate leaders in their fields, and, as I asked some questions of them, I witnessed some excellent future leaders. I'd like to thank principal Gail Major, her staff and her students for so warmly welcoming me. Gail told me about her vast experience and passion for education in general and for the great students at the college. I am looking forward to watching these schools grow and to visiting them and other schools in Aston over the coming months. Budget 111 10:33 Mr TED O'BRIE 138932 Fairfax N () (): Much has been said about the Albanese government's federal budget and the fact that it has totally ignored middle Australia. Middle Australia are faced with higher prices, higher taxes and higher mortgages. What has been less said but is every bit as important is that this budget also ignores regional Australia. We know that the Albanese government has a razor gang. It is putting on the chopping block for review $120 billion worth of infrastructure projects. This is going to impact regional Australia more than anywhere else. Let's take the Sunshine Coast. One of those projects is a $1.6 billion rail project, a project that the community has united around, regardless of their political stripe. To us, especially given the booming population, a new rail line that goes all the way through to the Maroochydore CBD is precisely what our community has called for. In government we allocated $1.6 billion for 50 per cent of that $3.2 billion project. The state Labor government has stalled it, and now this Albanese government is putting a big fat question mark over it. Secondly, we had the Mooloolah River interchange—$160 million from the coalition government for a road that the state is fully responsible for. That too has a question mark over it. For that project, people have already been evicted from their houses—up to 400 residents. Amid a housing crisis and a population boom, the government is now holding back on whether the project even proceeds. What we found out through Senate estimates is that it's not just projects that might be on the chopping block but, in fact, the programs, including programs that we rely on locally, especially in regional areas, such as the Black Spot Program and Roads to Recovery. Our local councils rely on them. Literally tens of millions of dollars were allocated by the coalition government for these local roads, and we've had them through nearly every area of the Sunny Coast but I want to call out one in particular. We were able to secure $3.2 million for Zgrajewski Road in Yandina Creek. A local resident, Angelo Reitano, had campaigned for this upgrade for 30 years. Imagine that! We were able to have that road fully sealed. This is what infrastructure is about, this is what looking after the regions is about and it's what looking after middle Australia should be about, but the Albanese government are rejecting and ignoring it. Housing Affordability 112 10:36 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The Albanese government knows that housing affordability and rental stress are front of mind for so many Australians right now. It's a concern for people in my electorate of Wills and across the country. I would hope it's a concern for the opposition. It sounds like it's a concern for those opposite, yet they are blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund in the Senate. We know that rising interest rates are making it harder to pay the mortgage. We know that renters' costs are going up and are being passed on in the form of increased rent. Someone who is in their 20s or 30s might line up for an hour to inspect a rental property. Once they get in there, they discover that the taps don't work or that it's about $700 a week. They just can't get into the rental market. There's a real pressure on supply. That's why our government, in the recent budget, invested $2 billion for more affordable rental housing. This is about increasing supply of rental homes by building tens of thousands of affordable rental homes. We've also increased the rate of rent assistance, and we're working with states and territories to develop reforms to put renters' rights front and centre. There are changes to build-to-rent housing, including some changes to depreciation which should add to supply. These incentives provide much-needed support to reduce rental stress and tensions in the supply market. While it's concerning for young people, it's not just young people who are affected. Across the community, everyone is struggling with rent increases. Many are struggling to get into the rental market, and we're talking about working Australians: teachers, aged-care workers, early educators, ambos, those who work in emergency services and police officers. Those who are struggling to get into the rental market are the people who kept us going during the global pandemic and who worked so hard for us day in and day out. We know that there is this doubt about young people getting into their own home or owning their own home, given the stresses that I've just been talking about. The budget also included incentives that expand eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme to now allow friends, siblings and other family members to make joint applications to the scheme. The criteria for the Family Home Guarantee are also being expanded to recognise single legal guardians of children, such as aunts, uncles and grandparents. That means that, from 1 July, more people will have the opportunity to own a home sooner. But that's just the start. There's the $2 billion investment in affordable rental housing, but there's also a bigger part of this. There's the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, creating 30,000 places in new social and affordable housing. It's been pretty clear that it's for women and children suffering from domestic violence. It's for people who are unable to get into the market. Those opposite are opposing this. The Greens are opposing it. This is real housing for real people who need it now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 112 CONDOLENCES Humphries, Mr John Barry, AO, CBE 112 10:39 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Barry Humphries was many things: a satirist, a raconteur, an actor, a force of nature. His rise to fame in the 1960s came at a time when Australian cultural identity was changing on a fundamental level. There was a growing realisation that Britishness was no longer a viable basis for our identity and that there was an urgent need to reformulate our national image. It was the era of new nationalism and the cultural cringe. Many artists and creatives felt a kind of shame based on the cultural cringe, but Barry Humphries was unwilling to let a crisis of national cultural identity go to waste, so he doubled down on it. He gave the cultural cringe a human form in Bazza McKenzie, Sir Les Patterson and, of course, Dame Edna Everage. Dame Edna was the product of Australia's need to recast its place in the world and its image of itself. Barry himself said: In Edna I created a satiric portrait of my hometown of Melbourne, a large provincial English city paradoxically in far Southeast Asia. Overseas, these characters acted as self-appointed envoys for the new Australia, while being unapologetic relics of the old. Barry and his alter egos endeared themselves to audiences in the UK and the United States, finding extraordinary success on stage and screen across several decades. In these settings his satire took on an Australian sensibility, often needling at classism, prudishness and the cult of celebrity. He never indulged the self-importance of others because who could be more important than Dame Edna? Gough Whitlam commented that the only Imperial honour he ever bestowed was upon Dame Edna, a moment immortalised in the final scenes of Barry McKenzie Holds His Own. Barry's characters helped to create a distinctly Australian genre of satire based on self-deprecation and caricature that has enriched our culture for decades. Each of his characters is iconic in their own way, yet each is very different to the other. You felt that you'd met them all before because, in a sense, you had. They were the product of Barry's keen observations of human nature and mannerisms. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 42 to 10 : 55 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 I'll pick up where I left off in celebrating Barry Humphries. We did love Bazza. All these characters and Barry Humphries's satire were an important part of the evolution of Australia's cultural identity, and their cultural impact will long outlast him. Rather than resile from ockerisms as an embarrassing relic of the past, Barry hammed them up. He repopularised outdated slang terms and coined new euphemisms. There was, of course, the liquid laugh and the technicolour yawn. Many of his contributions to the Australian lexicon could be considered unparliamentary, so I'll resist the temptation to provide a few further examples. He took great glee in repopularising Australian idioms and slang that had long fallen out of common usage. In doing so, he pioneered a kind of performative Australianness that I think many of us are familiar with and indulge in—the kind of humour that tends to emerge only when foreign audiences are watching. Those who knew Barry Humphries privately talk of a charming, generous, witty and warm-hearted man. Their feeling of loss at this time must be profound, and I extend my deepest sympathies to his family and his many friends around the world. Notwithstanding his success across seven decades, and notwithstanding the position he held in the constellation of Australian fame, Barry Humphries believed that you should never exempt yourself from ridicule. He said: I can laugh at myself, I think it's one of the precious things Dame Nature gave me … I think if you can't laugh at yourself you might be missing the joke of the century. In the passing of one man we have lost a host of colourful and very often ridiculous characters. We've lost a mirror to ourselves, a reflection that we've cringed at and laughed at. More importantly, we've lost one of the finest satirists of a generation, a national treasure and a cultural icon. It's very appropriate that there will be a state memorial for Barry Humphries AO CBE held at the Sydney Opera House in December. His family have accepted the offer, and it will be co-hosted by the Australian and New South Wales governments. We hope that Barry Humphries rests in peace, and we also hope that his legendary words and mannerisms long live on. 10:58 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I too rise to speak on this condolence motion on the passing of Barry Humphries, a great cultural icon—perhaps the cultural icon of Australia and for all Australians. It is a totemic, epochal moment that he has passed. For almost everyone in this chamber he was a living, breathing embodiment of the Australian character for the entirety of our lives. My first reflection on Barry Humphries is: thank God so much of his career was in an era when we had the technology to record and preserve it, because how could you possibly explain Barry Humphries—what he was about, who he was and how brilliant his comedy was—to anyone in the future without them being able to see it firsthand, as we can. I'm sure I'm one of the millions of Australians that's taken the opportunity to reacquaint myself with so many of his great performances on YouTube in the last few weeks since his passing. I say Barry Humphries is the great cultural icon of Australia and for Australians because I do think that what we know and describe as the Australian character, particularly in the modern era, really, frankly, is thanks to Barry Humphries more than anyone. Some of those great Australian attributes in our egalitarian society include those of self-deprecation and, perhaps even more controversially at times, tall poppy syndrome and the other elements of Australians' liking to exist on a level playing field and exist in a society where we can laugh at ourselves and laugh at each other. One of the great legacies of Barry Humphries is that he made sure, through his brilliance, that everyone understood the value of poking fun at ourselves, at those in our society, at, sometimes, our leaders and at some of the stereotypes in our society, and that it made us more comfortable and at ease with our society, because what is better than laughter when it comes to considering and weighing up the society that we live in and the culture that we live in? Of course, he also grew up and rose to prominence and then fame in a period of Australia doing a similar thing, really. The post Second World War period, again, was an epochal moment, and I think, probably, the Melbourne Olympics was also one of those defining points in time when Australia, in the early days of the great Menzies era, was understanding its significance in the world. Hosting the Olympics is obviously a pretty good example of being centrestage in global affairs for a period of time, and it was in that era and in that city of Melbourne that Barry Humphries moved from his adolescence and university days into his early days of performance and fame. Of course, that was just the very beginning of a career that saw him conquer the great comedy capitals of the world, particularly London, Los Angeles and New York, and to have an Australian with a very, very unquestionably Australian sense of humour and Australian comedic technique conquer audiences of non-Australians is one of the great examples of him not being a funny comedian—an excellent comedian—but an unbelievable comedian that fellow comedians around the world, since his passing, have acknowledged as being, some say, one of the greats, and I would say: the absolute great. Apart from Sir Donald Bradman, I can't think of an Australian that had such an unquestionable dominance of their particular pursuit and talent in life. I don't think any Australian comedian would be offended at Barry Humphries being described as the greatest Australian comedian, and, of course, being an Australian, I would say: the greatest comedian of all time, not just in this country but across the globe. He leaves a great legacy in my home city of Adelaide. He very honestly and openly always described Her Majesty's Theatre on Grote Street in the Adelaide CBD as his favourite performance venue in the world, and in the last few years we were particularly honoured to have his significant contribution in fronting the fundraising efforts to completely redevelop Her Majesty's Theatre, which was a $60 million undertaking. It's the last remaining Tivoli theatre. It was renamed Her Majesty's Theatre. It has been completely redeveloped, and Barry was, of course, there throughout that journey—both the fundraising journey and then the first performances in that finished product—and that's one of the great legacies he'll leave in my home city of Adelaide. Very early in his career, he travelled to Adelaide and performed in Adelaide, and just in the last few years, of course, he was the artistic director of the Adelaide Cabaret Festival. Right through his career, from beginning to end, Adelaide was a very big part of it. We will never have another Barry Humphries. Many might say, 'That's a good thing,' in both a complimentary and derogatory sense—and I say that statement with both of those elements—but the legacy and impact he leaves on our nation and on our culture, I think, is immeasurable and in many ways will never be eclipsed. As Australia has become the nation that we have, some of the greatest attributes within our society and within our culture were certainly empowered, emboldened and brought to life by Barry Humphries. His contribution in those ways will never be forgotten. Vale Barry Humphries. 11:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Just to pick up on a couple of points that the member for Sturt made about Sir Donald Bradman and Barry Humphries AO CBE, both are from the Riverina—both greats. And, in tribute to Les Patterson I probably should—not that I've ever done this before—do the speech! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Just be careful, Member for Riverina! Mr McCORMACK 219646 So we pay tribute to Barry Humphries and his alter egos—what a great Australian. He died on 22 April, aged 89, following complications from hip surgery at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, having suffered a fall in February. A state memorial service will be held at the Sydney Opera House on Friday 15 December, and we will mourn him again then. And we have indeed mourned his passing—people from all walks of life, from prime ministers past and present to everyday Australians. Barry Humphries's alter egos, and some of the things that he did and said, you wouldn't get away with these days. The comedy was typical of the seventies and eighties. Wagga Wagga, my home town, has a unique link to Barry Humphries. While Wagga Wagga may be known as the city of good sports—and we've produced any number of good sportspeople—it is also the birthplace of one Dame Edna Everage. Not a lot of people know that, but Dame Edna hailed from Wagga. She was born there, according to Dame Edna's autobiography, My Gorgeous Life—I'll just fix my jacket!—and statements made by Edna over the years. She was born Edna May Beazley in Wagga with a sibling who would give birth to the lovable Barry McKenzie. Wagga Wagga recognises and revels in its association with the lovable Dame Edna. Images of her can be found in the city. A large Dame Edna mural graces a building in Cadell Place. It was created for the Lost Lanes winter festival in 2018. So many people go to that. They go and have a coffee at Meccanico and then go round the corner and just marvel at this amazing mural. The good thing about murals, whether they're in Cadell Place or on silos throughout regional Australia, is that they remain almost vandal-free. Even vandals have the respect to leave them alone. They'll put their daub over every other fence and telegraph pole et cetera, but they leave these sorts of murals alone. Even they have respect for them. This particular mural was created by Melbourne based street artist Ling, who painted a friend wearing the iconic purple wig and cat-eye glasses of Dame Edna Everage as a playful nod to Dame Edna's place of birth. It's fantastic. If you ever go to Wagga Wagga—and put it on your bucket list at any rate—have a look at this beautiful mural. And it is beautiful. There is also a Dame Edna mural painted under the Wollundry Lagoon Bridge. It's a few footsteps from my Wagga Wagga electorate office. I know some Wagga Wagga residents visited that mural after Barry Humphries's death to pay tribute to his unique brand of humour, which delighted millions and outraged some for more than half a century, not just here but certainly abroad and certainly in England. He had that ability to make you laugh out loud and squirm uncomfortably at the same time. Wagga Wagga has had to share the limelight of Dame Edna with Moonee Ponds, represented by the Hon. Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong. So, that's something that Bill and I certainly have in common. Sadly, however, when all Australians should have been celebrating Barry Humphries's contribution to Australian culture in his dying days, he fell victim to another type of culture, and that's the cancel culture—and such a shame. The Melbourne International Comedy Festival failed to pay official tribute to this comic legend, despite his pivotal role in establishing the event. I think that's such a shame. There was no official tribute to Humphries on the closing day of this year's festival. It ran from 29 March to 23 April. Of course, relations had soured in recent years following a number of comments made by Barry Humphries. But culture cancellers can't dim or take away his contribution to Australian life, to our unique Australian culture, whether it's larrikin or whether it's irreverent—it's all of those, and so much more. We should ensure that his legacy and that of Dame Edna lives on. I would like to encourage Wagga Wagga to honour and perpetuate Barry Humphries and Dame Edna in some other way, perhaps by the city council placing a walk-of-honour plaque in Baylis Street, our main street, perhaps by organising a Dame Edna exhibition in the Museum of the Riverina or by naming an award after Barry Humphries at one of the growing number of comedy shows in Wagga. I think this would be a fitting tribute. Farewell, possums. Maguire, Father Robert John (Bob), AM, RFD 115 11:10 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It is with a bit of sorrow but with immense pride that I stand up to speak to pay tribute to Father Bob Maguire. He was a local legend in my part of the world. A division having been called in the House of Represen tatives— Sitting suspended from 11 : 11 to 11 : 21 Mr BURNS 278522 And just like Bob McGuire, who liked to have a bit of a tangent, it is good to be back talking about the great man. Bob Maguire was a legend of our local community. He was also a friend, someone who I admired and someone who I got to know over my time representing the people of Macnamara and a bit before that. Bob was educated at the Christian Brothers College St Kilda. He was the parish priest at the Sts Peter and Paul's Catholic Church in South Melbourne for 39 years. The organisations he founded and worked for—Open Family Australia and the Father Bob Maguire Foundation—were based in South Melbourne and Albert Park and did much of their work in our local area. Open Family worked particularly with homeless and runaway kids in St Kilda, and the Father Bob McGuire Foundation had its offices famously in Albert Park and also had the community pantry in South Melbourne. Bob loved our area. It was home. It was a home base. He loved the whole City of Port Phillip and, dare I say, the City of Port Phillip loved him in return. Everyone loved Bob, everyone respected him. He had a disarming presence. He would talk to people as they walked by and, no matter what happened in their day, Bob was able to bring them into the moment and connect with them. I first met Bob Maguire well before I was an MP. In 2014 when he set up his pantry in South Melbourne, I went along on a Wednesday afternoon and volunteered. I learned a few things from Bob in those experiences. I had obviously seen him on John Safran vs God program where he was hysterically funny. But what I learned from Bob after seeing him up close volunteering for his organisation was that Bob Maguire was incredibly generous. He gave away everything. He had nothing for himself. He did not judge. Whatever he was able to acquire, he acquired it for the foundation and passed it on. This is how it went: you would turn up on Wednesday afternoon, set up trestle tables—in the early days, before it became this well-oiled machine—and you would put on different stations of different things that people need. You'd have one table that would have food such as fruit, vegetables and some frozen meats that they were able to acquire from various local businesses and producers who donated them. Then you had toiletries and personal items. Then you had another table that was for clothes. I was often stabled on the juice table because you had to lift cartons of juice, and I gave away the juice to people who wanted it. I asked Bob that very first time that I volunteered, 'What's the deal? Do we just give people whatever they ask for,' and he said: 'Absolutely. If they come here, they are in need, and we're going to give them what they need.' And that was Bob Maguire. He was funny. He was a little wild at times. He said some crazy things. But underneath all of that he had a method to his madness. He had a kindness that underpinned everything he did. He was a man of the people and he gave the people what they needed. I respected Bob for that. I think everyone respected Bob for that. I learnt that if we are only for ourselves then there will be no-one there for us, but Bob was never for himself; he was always there for others. Bob didn't just preach the Christian gospel of 'love thy neighbour'; he practised it, and he practised it in ways that improved the lives of thousands of people. He loved public housing tenants. He loved our public housing residents and he did everything he could for them. There were other sides to Bob Maguire that people may not have heard about. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Australian Army Reserve and won the Reserve Forces Decoration for his work in officer training. He was a successful and a very entertaining broadcaster. Obviously, his most famous broadcasting partner was Jon Safran, who gave a very moving tribute to his great friend. Bob was a skilled operator in gaining funding for his various works from governments of all persuasions, and I want to personally thank Bob and his team for inviting myself, ministers from all sides of politics—the member for Petrie came when he was the assistant minister for homelessness in the previous government. He warmly welcomed the member for Maribyrnong when he was the Leader of the Opposition and then our Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaigns. He created colour, movement, pictures and a welcoming place. But he did it not just for his own foundation; he did it for the people that they were going to help. Bob also helped me. There were moments where he came and gave his support to me and to my efforts. He knew my team. His team knew my team. Paul and Trish—the whole Father Bob Maguire team, who we would see every other week, I know will be hurting right now. Bob was one of the last old-time Irish Catholic, dare I say it, Labor- inclined stalwarts. As a young priest, he lived through the Labor split of the 1950s, when many Catholics left the Labor Party, but his commitment to solidarity never faltered. He stood on picket lines. He expressed solidarity to many union courses. He was a man of the people and a man of the workers. I'm probably not the best person to lecture anyone on Christian theology, but if the Catholic Church is correct that salvation is gained through good works and not just by declaration of faith then I think Bob's place among the angels is secure, because few people have packed more good works into one lifetime than Bob Maguire. He was a good man, a funny man, a kind man. He was a man of our community. He was a man of the community. He will be missed. I pay tribute to the great Father Bob Maguire. 11:29 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Father Bob Maguire was one of Australia's best-known priests, but to call him a priest is a bit like calling Nick Cave a guitarist: it's technically true, but it doesn't really capture the breadth of the bloke. Bob Maguire was born in 1934 in Thornbury, Victoria and worked as a beekeeper and army officer before becoming a parish priest for Sts Peter and Paul's Catholic Church, in South Melbourne, from 1973 to 2012. In that role he campaigned on issues of social justice, homelessness— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:29 to 11:40 Dr LEIGH BU8 In that role, Father Bob campaigned on social justice issues, particularly homelessness. He engaged with communities through radio shows on 3AW and Triple J and frequently clashed with the government and church authorities. I first got to know Father Bob in 2013 when he joined me for an in-conversation event about a book I'd written called Battlers and Billionaires: the story of inequality in Australia. I quickly learned why over a thousand people came to his final church service. He was incisive, amusing and passionate. A division having been called in the House of R epresentatives— Sitting suspended from 11 : 41 to 11 : 56 Dr LEIGH BU8 Father Bob Maguire's brand of Catholicism wasn't that of Daniel Mannix or Bob Santamaria, and it certainly wasn't prosperity gospel. His was a form of social justice Catholicism, larrikin Catholicism, in the vein of Australian Catholic leaders of the past, like Peter Kennedy and Bill Morris, and Naples priest Mario Borelli. It meant reaching out to the local community through his Bob Squad and the Bobmobiles. Bob's work over the years brought him multiple awards, including Victorian of the Year, and a documentary was made about his life: In Bob We Trust. In 2014, in an effort to gauge the happiness of Australians, he organised a competition in which first prize was the chance to work in one of his soup kitchens. Bob Maguire had it tough. When Bob was a child, his father was violent towards his mother and towards Bob. Bob said later in life that he forgave his dad and he was on a journey of trying to redeem his father. He said his father was a sailor and suffered from placelessness. Bob lost his sister Kathleen to tuberculosis when he was aged just 11, and he'd lost both his parents by the time he was 15. Yet, he was remarkably generous towards the world. He told me in a podcast we recorded, 'To know all is to forgive all.' He talked about the five Cs: care, communication, concern, compassion and common sense. He said he believed in a message of religion, pure and undefiled. I asked him if living a good life really was that simple, and he responded, 'I would think so.' I was fascinated too as to how Bob Maguire managed to be present and completely focused on a single parishioner when he was in confession. He responded to me by saying, 'The real presence of God is in the next person you meet.' He talked about the importance of the church becoming the heart of the neighbourhood. He said that's what they were doing, 'up there for 35 years at Sts Peter and Paul's.' He clashed with Denis Hart, Melbourne Archbishop at the time, over the sale of church property to the poor. His love for others is demonstrated in a phrase he once recounted to me. He said: 'The Japanese talk about forest bathing. I believe in crowd bathing.' He said that he loved going into crowds. He said, 'I think if you can give a crowd the chance, it'll welcome you.' So many prominent Australians have acknowledged Bob Maguire's contribution to the nation. Eddie McGuire said: He imbued what he believed to be his religion, not the pomp and circumstance of it, he really imbued the sense of what he believed Jesus was about, that you gave everything, that you stood with the sinners, that you looked after people. His collaborator, John Safran, said: More than being kind in broad brushstrokes, he was kind in small ways. John Safran went on to say: He attracted all manner of outcasts, not all pleasant, but he was open hearted to those people too. I asked him how did this and he said, "You don't have to like people to love them." John Safran was acknowledged too by former Albert Park MP, Martin Foley, who said the loss of Bob Maguire was: … a blow to the 'unlovables' who he supported and sustained over a lifetime of lived social justice. May his example inspire us all to overcome poverty injustice and hate. Bob Maguire once said, when asked why the poor matter: Because not only are they the majority but they're also the treasure trove of wisdom and resilience … The elites might have everything, but they know nothing. Bill Shorten said of Bob Maguire: He would have been the best pope we never had, but he would have laughed at this because there was no way he was going to be constrained by convention. There are a lot of things in life that if we don't do someone else would. But occasionally you meet rare individuals that but for them things would never get done. He would poke fun at those in power but he never stopped fighting for those without power. I found it a great privilege to have known Bob Maguire and to have bathed in his wisdom and his eclectic view of the world. He was the great larrikin priest. I'm not sure we'll ever see his like again, but Australia is richer and the poor are better for his having walked the earth. Vale Bob Maguire. BILLS 117 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 117

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023

Second Reading 117 12:01 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm This legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023, is really important to me, as someone who has spent the best part of the last decade working in the labour movement with, in particular, workers who are some of the most marginalised in our community, such as those in insecure work, migrant workers, young workers and women workers. This bill will improve protections for those cohorts, so the proposed legislation before us today is really important. What this amendment bill seeks to do is strengthen the current legal framework to provide additional protections to those workers who, unfortunately, have been left without vital protections to protect their entitlements. This proposed legislation seeks to address the key issue faced by many Australian workers, which is where companies may try to avoid paying their employees' entitlements, which can leave workers without their rightful wages, superannuation and other entitlements. In some cases, there is no legal recourse to recover them, and I've worked with many people over the past decade who've been left in dreadful situations as a result of the failure of the legal framework in this country to provide those adequate protections. To address this issue, this bill proposes to expand the definition of 'entitlement' under the Fair Work Act 2009 to include not only wages but other employee benefits such as superannuation, redundancy pay and annual leave. This will ensure that workers are protected and have a legal right to claim these entitlements. This bill seeks to provide greater protections for Australian workers and ensure that they are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. This bill will make it harder for some employers to exploit workers or avoid their legal obligations and will provide greater recourse for workers who have been denied their entitlements. This amendment bill also seeks to provide additional protections and flexibility for workers in relation to unpaid parental leave entitlements, superannuation entitlements and migrant worker rights. The bill also proposes to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to provide greater flexibility for employees to take leave in shorter periods and to take up to 30 days of their unpaid parental leave flexibly. This will allow employees to take leave in smaller blocks, which can be particularly helpful for parents who want to gradually return to work after the birth or adoption of a child, which is just another way that we're increasing gender equality in this country. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:04 to 12:15 Dr GARLAND 295588 This bill seeks to expand protections for all Australian workers to ensure they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. It will make it harder for employers to exploit workers or avoid their legal obligations, and it will provide greater recourse for workers who have been denied their entitlements. This legislation, as I mentioned earlier, will also be good for gender equity by encouraging greater access to parental leave, with flexible blocks of leave able to be taken. That is going to be particularly helpful for parents who want to gradually return to work after the birth or adoption of a child. Importantly, this legislation provides additional rights to employees in superannuation entitlements by proposing to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to require employers to provide regular updates to their employees on their superannuation entitlements, including the details of the contributions made on their behalf. This will help to ensure that employees are aware of their superannuation entitlements and can take action if they are not receiving their rightful contribution. Superannuation is, of course, a proud Labor legacy and we will always protect it. Significantly, this amendment also confirms that migrant workers are entitled to the benefit of the Fair Work Act regardless of their immigration status. This will ensure that all workers in Australia regardless of their visa status are protected by Australian workplace laws, including the minimum wage, leave entitlements and protections against unfair dismissal, which I think many people would agree are very commonsense amendments. Of course every worker should be covered by the Australian workplace laws. I have worked with far too many people who have been denied their entitlements, who have been too afraid to speak up because of a lack of protections and a lack of clarity in the law regarding their coverage by Australian law, so I am very pleased to see that these amendments are going to come into place. These amendments regarding migrant workers come from the recommendations of the migrant workers task force. Unfortunately, migrant worker exploitation occurrences are far too common in Australian workplaces, so it's pleasing to see these recommendations are being included in these amendments. Ultimately, this legislation is about providing greater protections and rights for Australian workers. I do want to acknowledge all the work that has been done over many years by a range of different organisations including unions and individual workers who been speaking up about what's been happening to them, which has enabled us to make these changes that will improve their lot. One of the key issues that the bill seeks to address is underpayment of wages, which is unfortunately a widespread problem in Australia, with many workers being paid less than the minimum wage or having their entitlements withheld. The proposed changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 will provide greater protections for workers and ensure they are able to then claim their entitlements. I've heard lots of stories, from apprentices to workers in food manufacturing, about the withholding of wages and entitlements. I'm really pleased to see this bill address those very substantial issues. This bill, by expanding the definition of an entitlement to include not only wages but also other employee benefits such as superannuation, redundancy pay and annual leave, will ensure workers are protected and have a legal right to claim these entitlements, and that they can't be denied. In proposing to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, we do see a greater protection around super which, as I mentioned before, is something that is a proud Labor legacy. I'm also proud, even though it's not a part of this particular bill, that we have announced that we as a Labor government will be instituting our payday superannuation, which means that workers will be paid their superannuation on the day they receive their wages. We've seen the underpayment of superannuation occur because of the nature of the way payments were able to be made, particularly to insecure migrant workers and other marginalised workers. I have a substantial number of those workers in my electorate, so I'm really pleased to see that this will be more money for workers in their retirement. This bill is going to make a big difference in making sure that people's superannuation in this country is protected. This is a really commonsense set of amendments that we're dealing with, particularly in relation to confirming that migrant workers are entitled to the benefit of the Fair Work Act, regardless of their visa status. They work in this country, and workers pay taxes. They are part of our communities. It's only right that we are able to confirm this here and hopefully alleviate a lot of the suffering and exploitation that, unfortunately, I've witnessed myself and heard stories about in the past decade that I've been working in the labour movement, in the Migrant Workers Centre at Victorian Trades Hall and at the United Workers Union. So, I'm really pleased to be able to support this legislation that's before us today. I think it will make a really big difference to the lives of many people in this country. 12:21 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023, and I commend the contribution from our lead speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business, who outlined the coalition's position on this bill, elements of which we are very supportive of. But the title of the bill—'Protecting Worker Entitlements'—is perhaps not the best summary of every element of this bill, particularly schedule 5, and I want to make a brief contribution on our various serious concerns regarding schedule 5. The summary of that is that it expands the circumstances in which employees can authorise employers to make valid deductions from payments that are due to employees where the deductions are principally for the employees' benefit. Now, what exactly does that mean? And what would that apply to? Well, very clearly we're talking about, in particular, union fees. This bill creates a circumstance in which a union can change—and we all know that means increase—the fees they charge to an employee, which the employer may well deduct automatically from the employee's pay packet, which is the standard way that union fees are levied, without the authorisation or permission of the employee. If that is 'protecting worker entitlements', then I'll go he. We absolutely oppose this element of this bill. First and foremost, the surreptitiousness of it is outrageous. As I said, in a bill that purports to be focused on protecting workers' entitlements—and it has measures in it that we support—to put in place this special little payback deal for the union movement, to allow them to up the fees on workers without telling them and without getting their authorisation to do so, is completely disgraceful and outrageous. It is also I suppose thoroughly predictable. It is just another one of these paybacks that this Labor government owes the union movement for all the support, particularly financial support, that they gave them during the election campaign. These little things that are hidden in legislation under cosy titles like 'Protecting Worker Entitlements'—designed to take money away from workers and give it to the union movement, which will indeed provide a dividend to Labor Party campaign coffers into the future—are the sorts of things we see time and time again. These little changes are clearly on some kind of list the union movement has provided to the Labor Party, saying, 'Don't forget, these are all the things you need to do for us in exchange for the extreme financial support we provide you to get you into government.' It's a very cosy little pyramid scheme that's going on, and this is one of the best examples of it. And of course it's an example of putting the interests of workers last and looking for an opportunity to take money out of the pay packets of workers. Make no mistake, what this does is say: 'We don't want the permission of workers to take more money out of their pay packets. We're going to change the law so that it is not required to say to an employee: "Hey, the union fee that we take out of your pay packet every fortnight is going up; are you okay with that? Can we have your permission to take more of your hard-earned money out of your pay packet and give it to the union movement?"' That's what has to happen at the moment. You need permission to take someone's money from them. It's not an unreasonable principle in this country, society and economy. The government want to change the law and say, 'No, the union movement can take money without authorisation, and can take additional money out of the pay packets of hardworking Australians without their permission,' which is absolutely appalling and outrageous. I don't begrudge people having the free right to join a union, and I've said that there have been important things in decades gone by—particularly in the 19th century, which is a long, long time ago—of benefit done by the trade union movement. Obviously, we take very seriously the importance of workplace laws, workplace safety and workplace protections, and they are enshrined in our statutes. Some of the elements in this bill indeed lead to improved outcomes for the entitlements of workers, but this provision is absolutely disgraceful. It is absolutely appalling that a Labor government called the Labor Party, which purports to be for the working classes, are repaying their union masters by changing legislation to disadvantage workers and to put workers in a position where they can have money taken secretly from them without their permission. What would be wrong with a circumstance where, if it's all very reasonable and sensible that the union movement have to increase their fees, they get permission from their members to do so? Why is that in any way an objectionable position? Why is it not the case that unions, before they donate the funds to political parties, should go to their members and say, 'Hey, all that hard-earned money of yours that you've paid to us, we're looking to give a lot of it to a political party—do you approve of that or not?', like shareholders have votes on remuneration of senior executives and board directors. Why is it that the hard-earned money of—and let's be honest—in many cases some of the lowest-paid workers in our society is used so frivolously by the union movement and, if this legislation passes, taken from workers in greater amounts without their permission. Why would it be that the union movement requires of the Labor Party, as part of a quid pro quo for the enormous financial support that they provide them, this ability to secretly take extra money from hardworking Australians without their permission? We all know that the more money that goes to the union movement, the more money comes back to the Labor Party through donations from the union movement. Not only is it payback for the financial support that the union movement give to the Labor Party but the Labor Party also clipped their ticket in this whole process anyway. The union movement can surreptitiously take more money from workers without their permission, facilitated through legislation, which says you don't have to tell workers or get their permission to take more money from them. You just tell the employer, 'Hey, I want to take an extra five per cent going forward in union fees from all the following employees who are members of my union that work for you,' and with this legislative change the employer will need to abide by that ruling, taking the understandable chagrin of workers who might call the payroll department of the company and say: 'Why did I get less money this week? Why have you taken this extra money from me?' Well, the unions have increased their union dues and they don't need your permission to take it from you. That's why you're getting less money in your pay packet this fortnight—without your permission, that Labor government have legislated to allow the union movement to increase union fees and just take it from you without permission. The good thing for the Labor Party is that they get a return on that because, as union funds increase, so does—as night follows day—the amount of money that the union movement can donate to the Labor Party to help them win elections so that they can come back into parliament and pass more laws that benefit the union movement. What a fantastic, virtuous circle it is! We of course abhor that principle and abhor this specific measure that says money can be taken from workers without their permission. It is a disgraceful proposition, and I cannot understand how anyone can say they are a member of a party called the 'Labor Party' when part of the policy platform that they're implementing is to try to surreptitiously and without permission take money from workers. What could be more the antithesis of what a party that is meant to represent the working people and the working classes should stand for. Another element that we have covered is additional changes to the National Employment Standards. I appreciate the opportunities that we've had in the past to enshrine additional protections in the NES. That was certainly the case around certain leave entitlements that were put in place recently in this parliament. We have further changes to the NES. It is certainly appropriate that we have in the National Employment Standards the same entitlements that are established within the award structure. The Fair Work Commission has always adopted the recommendations that the NES should give a proper national standard of entitlement across a whole range of things, such as leave et cetera. We've had the chance to pass bills previously in this place regarding family and domestic violence leave. Of course, the genesis of those provisions were decisions or determinations within the fair work process that applied to awards. Of course, we know that not everyone is on an award. Most people are not under an award structure, so the National Employment Standards are an opportunity to say that, if we are creating and applying entitlements for workers within the award structure and if they're good enough for people on the award structure, then we should expand them to anyone who is employed under Australian employment law. It's the purpose of the National Employment Standards to ensure that we have a situation where an entitlement for workers that we believe is due and proper, in the case of award determinations, applies equally to those not employed under awards. Paid family and domestic violence leave is an excellent example. It progressed. It was initially five days unpaid leave, but it has now become 10 days paid leave. It was good work through the Fair Work Commission process that applied that through the award structure. The benefit and the sense of it was properly and fairly identified through that process. Having seen it applied to the award system, there was no excuse whatsoever for not enshrining that entitlement more broadly across the National Employment Standards, so that it applied not only to those employed under the award structure but equally to those who are employed in any circumstance whatsoever. I also note important provisions regarding superannuation that are addressed in this bill. My colleague the Manager of Opposition Business has made important contributions on those changes and how they will be impacting not just the workers involved but also more broadly the circumstance and the strength and the rigour of the superannuation system in our country. I commend the Manager of Opposition Business's contribution on this bill. We have foreshadowed and outlined where we stand on elements of this bill and which elements we oppose. We'll be voting accordingly when divisions come upon this. With those comments, I conclude my contribution to this second reading debate. 12:35 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney If there has been an abiding truth in my life, it is that almost anything can be achieved when an individual is driven by a strong work ethic and accepts responsibility for their own actions and when communities unite behind a common purpose to achieve a positive change for society. In this context, then, that it was with deep interest that I seriously reviewed and considered the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 which we find in front of the House today. While I believe there is much to agree with in this bill, as with many reforms on industrial relations I fear there is definitely devil in the detail when it comes to this legislation. I am most concerned about its potential impact on small and medium-sized business across Australia. Growing up in the 1970s, I witnessed my parents working together in a family small business. They both worked extremely hard. Nothing was ever given freely or taken for granted, yet by striving to always operate a fair ship they were able to not only provide an incredible quality life for me and my siblings but also employ many others along the way, thus helping their families get established and subsequently grow. Fast forwarding to my own work experience, it began in earnest in 1992. I can honestly say I have always understood the importance of striving for a fair balance between employee rights and the needs of an employer or business. As a working woman in the early 2000s, I was fortunate to have an employer who supported my desire to continue to achieve extraordinary highs in my career whilst also being able to have a family. At times it was not easy. It required a level of commitment, patience and understanding on both sides, but inevitably, regardless of the circumstances and challenges, by working together as an employee and an employer we were able to find a way through our challenges. In this context, I am concerned that this bill will weaken that trusted and mutually respectful relationship between employee and employer as the emphasis of responsibility to make something work shifts significantly towards the employer and away from the personal responsibility I believe all employees should maintain. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, any business with under 200 employees is considered a medium-sized business, while those with under 20 employees are considered a small business. By this definition, 98 per cent of businesses in Australia, or over 950,000 employers, are small and medium-sized enterprises. Nearly 70 per cent of small businesses in New South Wales are located in the greater capital city area, with the highest number of small business being found in the Sydney inner city area. Nearly 50 per cent of those are in my seat of North Sydney. Indeed, the area of North Sydney is the third-largest business centre in Australia and is home to organisations as large and as varied as Coca-Cola, Sony, Microsoft, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Nine Entertainment Company and as small as Morgan's cafe in Kirribilli, The Hunted in Cammeray and Lane Cove, and Radiance Hair in Northbridge. In total, there are also more than 2,000 small-sized building and construction businesses in North Sydney and over 660 registered not-for-profits, including Endometriosis Australia, the McGrath Foundation and Landcare Australia. While the diversity of businesses here cannot be overstated, the reality is that in the last financial year over 90 per cent of them had a turnover of less than $2 million. In fact, 80 per cent of them had a turnover of less than $200,000. In this context, small businesses truly are the backbone of the Australian economy, employing around 45 per cent of all Australians and accounting for approximately 35 per cent of our economic output. What is often true of a small business is that they will not have a dedicated HR professional working for them on a day-to-day basis. Rather, many owner-operators will simply be working as hard as they possibly can to build the most successful business they can to provide not only for their own families but for the families that their employees support. And herein lies the rub. Looking at the bill before us, it is a large piece of legislation which, if enacted in its entirety, claims to aim to protect worker entitlements, promote gender equality and improve fairness. But, I can't help but wonder about the fact that, while its ambitions may be sincere and admirable, how much of this revised legislation will actually ultimately help make the lives of small- to medium-sized business owners easier. The bill seeks to drive change via six key undertakings. The first one is clarifying that a breach of the Migration Act would not affect the validity of a worker's employment contract. The second one is increasing the flexibility of unpaid parental leave to 100 days over 24 months, including allowing pregnant employees to take a portion of their unpaid leave in the six weeks prior to the birth of their child, removing restrictions on married and de facto couples taking more than eight weeks unpaid leave at the same time, and allowing each parent to take up to 12 months unpaid parental leave and request an extension of a further 12 months. The third one is to include a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards. The fourth one is to clarify that the enterprise agreement will not continue to apply when the Fair Work Commission makes a replacement workplace determination in relation to the same employment. The fifth one is to permit employees to authorise employers to make regular deductions for amounts that vary from time to time. The final one is enabling casual employees in the coal mining industry to ensure they are not treated less favourably than permanent employees in terms of calculating and accessing long service leave. By any measure, this bill is an omnibus. As I mentioned before, while there is much to welcome, I am also concerned about a number of elements that I feel will be particularly difficult for the 98 per cent of businesses I have previously spoken about to not only get their heads around but to actually manage. While I have no issue with either schedule 1 and 4 of this bill, which respectively relate to introducing new provisions in the Fair Work Act to clarify that a migrant worker in Australia is entitled to the benefit of the Fair Work Act regardless of their migration status whilst also facilitating minor amendments to confirm the common understanding of how workplace determinations and enterprise agreements interact, I do have concerns around schedules 2, 3 and 5. Specifically, schedule 5 makes changes to the flexible nature of unpaid parental leave to make them consistent with the changes made to paid parental leave earlier this year. While these changes are to be welcomed, as someone who has had specific experience in trying to manage the staffing requirements of a small- to medium-sized business, when you have people both wishing to succeed professionally while also wanting to balance family commitments it is imperative that any change introduced here work equally and fairly for both employee and employer. In this context, I believe this legislation would be improved by ensuring there is greater onus placed on the employee to provide as much notice and specificity around their parental leave plans to their employer as soon as is practically possible to allow both the employee and the business to plan to manage workload appropriately. As we are all very aware in this place, we have not seen such a tight employment market in this country for years. With many business now reporting significant delays in terms of time taken to find suitable staff, I fear for small and medium businesses that, while this flexibility will undoubtedly be incredibly good for families, it may, in some circumstances, literally challenge the very viability of a small business going forward. The truth is you cannot simply lose an employee in the space of a month and hope to find a replacement to cover for them for an indefinite period of time in this current market. For this reason, why I applaud the government for thinking big and shooting for the best-case scenario, I would also urge it to consider the very real economic circumstances businesses are currently facing. In doing so, I believe the government would find that there is a need to temper the enthusiasm they have shown in this first iteration of the legislation. Similarly, given the nature of this reform, I would encourage the government to specifically build in a formal review of the unpaid parental leave provision within the first six months of the implementation of the legislation to ensure government is fully aware of the real-world impact of this change. For any upside delivered by this reform for families, it will all be to no avail if a significant number of small- to medium-sized businesses subsequently fail as families enjoying leave can only return to a healthy employer, and that is the balance we must get right. In schedule 3 then, my key concern is that yet again we have a piece of legislation that is expanding the responsibilities of the Fair Work Act and, consequently, the commission, with no clear understanding of how this expansion won't just add a additional layer to bureaucracy for businesses. As it currently stands, employees can pursue unpaid superannuation through the Australian Taxation Office, an entity which already has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with superannuation guarantee and associated obligations. In this way, the ATO already has access to the relevant superannuation information, and it has extensive enforcement powers to effectively address noncompliance. My concern in this instance, then, is that seeking to include superannuation in the National Employment Standards will mean employees covered by the Fair Work Act will now have an additional enforceable right to superannuation through the Fair Work Commission. 'So what,' you might say. Well, as well-meaning as that sounds, as it currently stands, a business could find itself facing a claim from both the ATO and the Fair Work Commission, leaving business unsure of which direction they actually need to be facing. My concerns in this area again would be overcome should the government be open to considering some amendments to the bill. Those amendments would include ensuring employers are not exposed to competing enforcement activity from two different regulators over the same matter, protecting employers that rely on ATO guidance, limiting the capacity of the ATO to pursue matters aired in the workplace system and limiting the capacity of the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes over the operation of superannuation legislation. Ultimately, any amendment in this schedule must again seek to get the balance right—a balance where both employee and the employer can be as successful and have a clear pathway to negotiating or finding a suitable solution to a dispute. Finally, we come to schedule 5, which provides details regarding proposed amendments to the legislation which would allow for amounts, varied from time to time, to be removed from an employee's pay packet without additional approval. In effect, this would mean it would be possible that an employee who may have previously granted approval for a deduction from the salary could quite literally find themselves taking home a smaller pay packet in any given month, with little to no notice regarding the change and no specific safeguard having been in place to ensure that an additional or increased payment didn't simply go through without scrutiny. By removing the requirement for an employee to ultimately stipulate exactly what money they are happy to have removed from their salary and under what circumstances, this legislation is removing the safety barrier that is an employee's right to query a change or an increased price prior to accepting it. Some will argue that, once given, an approval should be taken for granted regardless of the dollar amount, as long as that deduction is still being acquired for the primary purposes in which the employee originally granted it. But, as someone who is very mindful that there are many out there who are literally counting every cent they earn, I do not believe it is in either the employee or the employer's best interests to cut a blank cheque for anyone. In this context, I believe this legislation should be altered to ensure employees require notification of any price variance by the service provider, be that up or down, and only with specific approval from an employee should that variation to the deduction be possible. For many years now, Australia has maintained an enviable reputation as the land of the fair go, where people who aspire to create and build a better future for themselves and their families can succeed and were small and medium-size businesses are not just the backbone of our economy but are literally the lifeblood of our communities. For this reason, while, as I've said, there is much in this legislation to aspire to, I finish today by urging the government: please step back. Look at each element of this proposed bill critically to truly assess its potential impact on small to medium-size businesses. Please then come back to us with an amended piece of legislation that will ensure not only that workers can continue to thrive in our country but that they can do so because they continue to be employed by successful, productive small to medium-size enterprises. A big-business approach will not fit all, and it is imperative that this government refrain from trying to make it so. 12:48 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. As a refugee who settled in south-west Sydney in the 1970s, at a time when migrant worker exploitation was rife and far more the norm than it is today, I'm glad to see more awareness for newly arrived migrants. In the past year, we have seen continued commitments to improving the employment law space specifically in reference to the enactment of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. These legislative amendments have brought about a paradigm change across the area of workplace bargaining and the approval processes involved therein. The protecting worker entitlements bill seeks to address a range of areas: migrant workers, unpaid parental leave, superannuation contributions, workplace determinations, employer authorised deductions and the coalmining long service leave scheme. As you are aware, Fowler is a diverse electorate, with 52 per cent of the community having been born overseas. Australia will welcome a further 650,000 migrants this financial year, with conversations that Fowler will likely be the majority's place of settlement. This expected migration boom naturally leads to questions of vacancy, lack of infrastructure, living costs and employment, which our Fairfield City Council has previously raised. I raise these figures due to their correlation with the proposed amendments put forward by the government. It's my understanding that this bill seeks to achieve three major things on a policy level: (1) relieve the fear of uncertainty for migrants seeking employment or in employment on where they stand in the Australian employment law system, (2) reduce the exploitation of migrant workers and (3) result in a positive impact for migrant workers. According to the explanatory memorandum, irrespective of their immigration status, migrant workers would be entitled to access the benefits enshrined in the Fair Work Act. I perceive this as a significant and positive outcome for migrant workers within Fowler, and I welcome this development. For those who have gained the right to work, you can appreciate that there may be difficulty in navigating a new culture and understanding their rights and obligations, particularly what exploitation could look like. The sad reality is that migrant workers may not recognise workplace exploitation when faced with such experiences, as everything in a new country would feel foreign to them. Exploitation could be in the form of underpayment of wages, working ridiculous hours, unsafe working environments and discrimination, bullying and harassment. It would not be obvious to migrant workers what workplace practices are legally acceptable or unacceptable. In the Migrant Justice Institute's submission on this bill, they note that their 2016 survey of over 4,000 temporary visa holders found that at least a third were earning less than $12 an hour. An ABC report published today revealed the disturbing data within a report by the Grattan Institute that between five per cent and 16 per cent of employed recently arrived migrants are paid below the national minimum wage of $21.38. The Grattan Institute report published on 7 May 2023 further revealed that young migrant workers between 20 and 30 years old are more than six times more likely than 30- to 40-year-olds to be underpaid by more than $3 per hour vis-a-vis the minimum wage. To put this into perspective, these individuals could be your son, daughter, brother or sister who are being underpaid. This is literally wage theft. How are these acceptable employment standards in Australia? If Australia is opening its doors to migrant workers, we have a duty to ensure there are adequate facilities, infrastructure and measures for the protection of their rights. A case that received media coverage in 2021 surrounded a cheesecake business chain with a shop located in the Fowler electorate. The owners were accused of human trafficking and slavery, with alleged threats of exploitation made to an employee being detained to work illegally. It was reported that the individual, who worked at the cake shop between 2015 and 2017, was unpaid. When this story was released, it was a major shock to our electorate that such an atrocity could occur within our neighbourhood in this day and age. This begs the question: how could Australian laws have protected him better? Now, this is an isolated and sensationalised case; I understand that. But often, like I said before, enough data about migrant workers' exploitation will not be readily available. That is why it's scary to think about. A further concern is this: what about migrants without appropriate working rights and their risk of getting exploited in the workplace? I'm talking about individual asylum seekers in Australia holding short-term bridging visas, pending an outcome, such as those who are on temporary protection visas. Today, migrant workers within the Fowler electorate include individuals holding temporary protection visas who are of diverse linguistic backgrounds. The Albanese government has since introduced a subclass 851 resolution-of-status visa to convert a temporary protection visa to one for permanent residency. There are also migrant workers on skilled visas. While the government has sought to amend this, as flagged by the Western Sydney Migrant Resource Centre it's not a guarantee that all TPV holders will definitely be accepted into this new stream. Acting CEO Mohan Gunasekara told our office that there are still inconsistencies on the ground with the TPV visa, with not all its holders having working rights. He said that it depends on the circumstances, and the circumstances are not clear. While these migrants live in limbo they are at greater risk of exploitation. This is because their visa does not give them working rights. These individuals may feel pressure to work undocumented to have a means of income. This practice would push them to the edge for employment that is not 'on the books'. We've had a number of constituents call into our office to seek assistance on whether their bridging visas will allow them to work. Time and time again, they were disappointed that they do not have a lawful right to work. Of course, I could not be of any further assistance to them in this regard. As you can imagine, these individuals' hands are tied until they have been processed by the Australian government. Fowler is and always will be a settlement city, and we are always welcoming of migrants. Our roots began post World War II, with German and Italian communities settling here. We then had the Southeast Asian wave in the seventies and eighties, followed by the Latino and eastern European communities in the 1990s and 2000s, and today we welcome those from Africa and the Middle East. We are a multicultural melting pot. Naturally, I'm concerned with the adequacy of the legislative measure to address potential workplace exploitation. I iterate that if more migrant workers are to settle in Australia, particularly within the Fowler electorate, it is our duty to ensure that they are properly protected. Whilst I've raised concerns on the exploitation of migrant workers, I acknowledge that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 is a step forward. This legislative amendment sends a strong message. Migrant workers are to be treated as normal Australians with parallel working rights. Exploitation is not acceptable, and things must change. But we can do so much more. I invite the government to consider the broader implications to best protect migrant workers. One, does this bill address the blurred lines of migrants without working rights and their risk of exploitation? Where do they stand in this interplay of the Fair Work Act and the Migration Act? Two, will there be a correlating amendment to the Migration Act 1958 to address these issues? The government should consider a legislative amendment within the Migration Act 1958 to clearly stipulate that a migrant worker's visa will not be in jeopardy of being cancelled if they are exploited by their employer to work unlawful hours beyond their working rights. Three, will there be greater resources, like employment opportunities and infrastructure, to support the influx of migrant workers? Four, in cases where migrant workers have appropriate working rights, will there be amendments to accompanying labour law frameworks outside the Fair Work Act to protect them? This was specifically raised in the submission by the Migrant Justice Institute. Five, are we doing the absolute most we can to set up our migrants for success, such as offering social services, English classes and trauma counselling for those who have fled war or humanitarian crises? It is an absolute necessity to ensure we nurture and help them in settling into their new life in Australia. I acknowledge that the above suggestions will be part of an ongoing commitment and look forward to the government's response to them. This will not be an overnight job. However, I propose that greater certainty be provided in the proposed provision to bring the objective of allowing migrant workers to enjoy the benefits of the Fair Work Act to fruition. Accordingly, I propose that an additional statement be inserted at the end of subsection 40B, becoming subsection 40B(2). To avoid doubt, this subsection would ensure that a breach under the Migration Act 1958 or an instrument made under it does not affect the validity of a contract of employment for a migrant worker under the Fair Work Act 2009 and that the migrant worker will be entitled to the rights governed by the Fair Work Act. I trust that the amendment proposed above will more greatly serve the mission of protecting migrant workers in Australia and open new doors for people like them—like me. Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:0 1 16:01 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. In particular I acknowledge the contributions of the members for Bradfield, Chisholm, Sturt, Fowler and North Sydney. I also make mention of the Senate committee for their tabled report and recommendations from their inquiry. The committee recommended that the bill be passed. This bill delivers on the government's commitment to protect migrant workers from exploitation. It provides stronger access to unpaid parental leave so families can share work and caring responsibilities. It implements the government's election commitment to insert a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards. It clarifies the operation of the Fair Work Commission workplace determinations and enterprise agreements. It streamlines employee-authorised deductions, to reduce the administrative burden on employers and employees. It ensures casual employees working in the black coal mining industry are treated no less favourably than permanent employees for the purposes of accrual, reporting and payment of long service leave entitlements within the coalmining long service leave scheme. I note that a number of issues were raised in the debate. The member for North Sydney discussed the issue of notice periods for unpaid parental leave. The government gave serious consideration to what appropriate notice periods should be in developing the bill. We heard submissions from stakeholders who wanted to lengthen notice periods and from others who wished to shorten them. The government considers that the existing notice requirements that are preserved by this measure strike the right balance between stability and certainty for employers and flexibility for employees. The member for North Sydney also noted some concerns about how the entitlement to superannuation and the National Employment Standards would interact with the functions of the Australian Taxation Office. The government carefully consulted a wide range of stakeholders when drafting these provisions. The government considers that these provisions strike the right balance between empowering workers to pursue their own unpaid superannuation and ensuring that they do not interfere with the Australian Taxation Office's important regulatory functions. I note the important contribution of the member for Fowler about the rights of migrant workers. The government agrees that it is essential to put in place appropriate protections for migrant workers. This bill is an important step in ensuring worker protections apply to migrant workers. Further tranches of reform throughout 2023 and 2024 will further strengthen protections for migrant workers. I note the member for Sturt's contribution regarding amendments allowing variable deductions. The member for North Sydney expressed similar concerns. I can reassure both members that this measure is intended to allow employers and employees to flexibly agree arrangements that suit each and will have appropriate safeguards in place to protect employees. This bill builds on the strong foundation of the reforms in Secure Jobs, Better Pay to help deliver a fairer and more equitable workplace relations system. Once again, the government thanks all members for their engagement on the important reforms in this bill. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 125 16:05 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield By leave—I move amendments (1), (5), (6), (9) to (11) circulated in my name together: (1) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of unpaid parental leave amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2 to this Act. (3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 6 months after the commencement of Schedule 2. (4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. (5) Schedule 3, item 2, page 19 (after line 19), at the end of Division 10A, add: 116F Pecuniary penalty orders A court must not make a pecuniary penalty order against an employer for a contravention of a civil penalty provision that relates to a contravention of this Division if the conduct constituting the contravention was in accordance with binding advice given by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxation. (6) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 19 (after line 19), at the end of the Part, add: 2A Subsection 546(1) (before the note) Insert: Note 1: Pecuniary penalty orders cannot be made in relation to certain conduct that contravenes Division 10A of Part 2-2 (see section 116F). 2B Subsection 546(1) (note) Omit "Note:", substitute "Note 2:". (4) If the deductions are for amounts as varied from time to time, any variation that increases the amount of one or more of the deductions must be authorised in writing by the employee. (9) Schedule 6, item 9, page 26 (line 28), omit "and bonuses", substitute ", bonuses and casual loading but excluding any other monetary allowance, loading or other separately identifiable amount". (10) Schedule 6, item 13, page 27 (line 26), omit "and bonuses", substitute ", bonuses and casual loading but excluding any other monetary allowance, loading or other separately identifiable amount". (11) Schedule 8, item 1, page 32 (line 7), omit "or (4B)". For the benefit of members, I will briefly summarise the effect of these amendments. Amendment (1) will insert into the bill a review of schedule 2 of the bill, which relates to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, which must start after a period of six months of operation of the schedule. Amendments (5) and (6) operate to guarantee that employers who are found to underpay super as a result of an administrative binding order or other arrangement provided by the Australian Taxation Office will not receive a pecuniary penalty from a court. Amendments (9) and (10) together have the effect of clarifying what in fact would constitute eligible wages for the purposes of the long service leave levy and will accordingly make it clearer for employers and employees as to what would constitute eligible wages. Amendment (11) would address the notice period required for flexible unpaid parental. I commend these amendments to the chamber. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House. 16:07 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name: (2) Schedule 2, item 49, page 11 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute: 49 Subsection 74(3C) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3C) If any of the leave covered by the notice is to be taken under section 72A, the notice must specify: (a) the total number of days (flexible days) of flexible unpaid parental leave that the employee intends to take in relation to the child; and (b) the intended start and end dates of the leave, or each period of the leave. For the benefit of members, I explain that the effect of amendment (2) along with amendments (4), (3) and (11) would be to expand the notice period required for flexible unpaid parental leave to include the start and end dates and the number of days at the 10-week point of notice. 16:08 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The government opposes this amendment on the basis that it would prevent employees from taking flexible unpaid parental leave if they have not given at least 10 weeks notice of the exact dates of their intended leave. Such a notification requirement would remove the flexibility that is intended to be provided and would limit the ability of employees to access payments under the government Paid Parental Leave scheme because unpaid parental leave entitlements under the Fair Work Act facilitates employees taking the time off work necessary to access government parental leave payments. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House. 16:09 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name: (3) Schedule 2, item 51, page 11 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute: 51 Subsection 74(4) (heading) Omit "72", substitute "72A". I inform members that the effect of this amendment, working together with amendments (2), (4) and (11), would be to expand the notice period required for flexible unpaid parental leave to include the start and end dates and the number of days at the 10-week point of notice. 16:09 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The government will not be supporting this amendment on the grounds that it would create confusion for employers. An employee who has given notice of their period of flexible unpaid leave 10 weeks in advance would then be able to change their period of flexible unpaid leave with four weeks notice. The 10-week notice requirement for flexible unpaid leave, amendment (2), imposes an onerous procedural requirement on employees without necessarily giving employers any greater certainty about the exact leave that will ultimately be taken. That would lock employees into taking the flexible unpaid leave for which notice has been given by removing the ability of an employer to agree to a further change request, even if they would have been willing to accommodate the request. It would also remove an employee's ability to give the second notice of flexible unpaid leave after the leave has started if that is the soonest notice can be given—for example, in the case of an unexpected medical emergency. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill. 16:11 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move amendment (4) as circulated in my name: (4) Schedule 2, items 53 to 56, page 11 (line 23) to page 12 (line 8), omit the items, substitute: 53 Subsection 74(4) Omit "72", substitute "72A". 54 At the end of subsection 74(4) Add: Note: Whether or not it is practicable for the employee to advise the employer of any changes to the intended start and end dates of the leave will depend on the employee's personal and family circumstances. For example, it may not be practicable for the employee to advise the employer of any changes to the intended start and end dates of the leave where the employee experiences a health issue, a pregnancy complication or an unexpected change in the employee's child care arrangements. 55 Subsections 74(4A) to (4C) Repeal the subsections. This amendment would operate alongside amendments (2) and (11) and would have the effect of expanding the notice period required for flexible unpaid parental leave to include the start and end dates and the number of days at the 10-week point of notice. 16:11 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner My earlier remarks covered why the government will not be supporting this amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill. 16:12 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move amendment (7) as circulated in my name: (7) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add: 7 After subsection 739(2) Insert: (2A) The FWC must not deal with a dispute to the extent that the dispute is about the operation of a Commonwealth Act or instrument relating to superannuation. The effect of this amendment would be to ensure the Australian Taxation Office would remain the administrator of superannuation legislation and legislative instruments, and the Fair Work Commission would not be able to deal with a dispute about the operation of those instruments. 16:12 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The government will not be supporting this amendment on the grounds that the Fair Work Commission provides an efficient, low-cost option for resolving disputes, and excluding this would be inconsistent with the underlying intention of the act to provide additional pathways for workers to recover unpaid superannuation. The amendment proposed by the opposition would prevent the Fair Work Commission from dealing with terms of the enterprise agreement regarding superannuation and not just disputes relating to the National Employment Standards entitlement to superannuation. It would also limit dispute resolution mechanisms previously agreed to by the parties and would inhibit resolution of disputes regarding existing enterprise agreement terms relating to superannuation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on this bill. 16:14 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move amendment (8) as circulated in my name: (8) Schedule 5, page 22 (after line 25), at the end of the Schedule, add: 4 At the end of section 324 Add: (4) If the deductions are for amounts as varied from time to time, any variation that increases the amount of one or more of the deductions must be authorised in writing by the employee. The effect of this amendment would be to protect workers from being put into a position where higher payments could be automatically deducted without their knowledge and would instead require the employee to specify in writing if the employee agreed to an increase, before the increase was deducted. It is somewhat mystifying that the government has chosen to put into this bill a provision that would essentially allow unions to charge higher fees without a member of the union giving express agreement to that. It is sadly consistent with the usual approach of this government in dancing to the tune of its union masters, which is no doubt closely related to the fact that almost all of the Labor members of the House of Representatives are in a position where their preselection depends very closely on maintaining the continued approval and support of union officials. That is why they have produced in this bill a provision which so disgracefully advances the interests of unions and seriously compromises the interests and financial positions of employees. 16:15 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The government will not be supporting the opposition's amendment. The Labor Party is indeed a party which has a long history of standing up for workers' rights, but it is beneath the opposition member to somehow suggest that members on this side of the House are beholden to trade unions. We engage with the community sector, business groups and community groups. The Liberal Party of Australia once used to believe that unions had a role to play in public life, but it has sadly eroded to the point where its main aim seems to be to drive unions out of existence even as the union membership share falls to just below one in eight employees. To go to the specifics of the amendment, the amendment is unnecessary and will defeat the purpose of the legislative changes, which is to allow authorisations to remain in place when the amount of an authorised deduction changes, not only when it decreases. Requiring employers to seek new authorisations when the amount of an authorised deduction increases would not decrease the current administrative burden on employees. The schedule 5 provisions are permissive rather than mandatory. Employers can still choose to offer deductions only for fixed amounts or even not to make salary deductions at all. Employees will still be able to authorise deductions for a specific amount only. Employees who do choose to authorise deductions will have protections provided by the government's amendment as well as the general law, such as consumer protection laws. 16:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'll take a moment just to respond to the assistant minister's rhetorical flourish. An eminent former professor of economics as he is would know very well about the principles set out in the excellent book Nudge about behavioural economics. The simple reality is that these kinds of default arrangement are typically not paid much attention to by employees and so there is the very real risk that they could find the contributions they are making through the union fee that is being charged to them in every pay period increasing without them paying any attention to it. That's highly undesirable. I well recollect my own experience of being forced to join the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association or union when I was a part-time shop assistant at university. I was never given a choice about whether I wanted to join. The assistant minister airily assures us: 'Don't worry. These provisions are permissive, not mandatory.' We know what happens. There are cosy arrangements struck by union officials because it suits them, and businesses find themselves in a position where it is in their interests to agree if they do not want there to be trouble, if they don't want there to be unnecessary difficulties and if they don't want to have a visit from the CFMMEU carrying some baseball bats to engage in a bit of industrial-style persuasion. That's the kind of thing that goes on. This is just another example of this government finding every opportunity to slip into legislation provisions to advance the interests of the union movement notwithstanding the fact that only eight per cent of Australians in the private sector workforce are members of a union. Let's be in no doubt. The opposition absolutely accepts that unions have a legitimate and appropriate role in our economy and society. So let's not have this misleading strawman attack, a rhetorical technique which is, frankly, below the assistant minister. Let's deal with precision the issue which is before the House this afternoon. I have to say with some disappointment that what the assistant minister has said is no satisfactory answer to the very real concern that we have raised, and that is why we think this amendment is absolutely necessary. 16:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The trade union movements didn't just bring us the eight-hour day and public holidays. They didn't just bring us annual leave and worker safety laws. They also contributed to better pay and conditions. Unionised workers are more likely to go home safe to their families at the end of the day. Unionised workers are more likely to earn more. If the shadow minister's best argument in favour of his amendment is his experience in the 1980s with closed-shop laws that were repealed 30 years ago, I think that says it all for the coalition's position on industrial relations. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with an unresolved question. Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 129

Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023

Second Reading 129 16:21 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie We are here today thanks to the Liberal-National coalition's groundbreaking work in establishing the AUKUS program. Without the work of the previous Minister for Defence and now Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP, we would not be here to progress the national building AUKUS program and the subsequent conversation around nuclear power. Let me be clear: the coalition stands with the Labor government and is committed to the establishment of nuclear powered submarines as a crucial part of our national defence strategy. The reality is that without the coalition leading the way we wouldn't be here today. Labor likes to stand as the hero of AUKUS when really they are riding on our visionary coat-tails. Back in March 2021 the now Leader of the Opposition was sworn in as the Minister for Defence. I congratulated him at that time and spoke to him about the possibility of acquiring nuclear powered submarines, and I spoke to him again in June 2021. Less than two years ago there was nothing on the table at all. There was nothing to do with AUKUS. Nuclear power was not an option. Labor were still in the current reality of where they sit in relation to nuclear power based on land, which is that it's never going to happen and they'll never support it. But as soon as they saw former Prime Minister Morrison, along with their hero President Biden and the UK Prime Minister, they were quick to say: 'Us too! We'll get on board now!' The reality is that they never supported it. It's good that, in coming to government, they have continued with the coalition's AUKUS plan. The capability of the AUKUS nuclear powered submarines will change the face of our naval fleet, with considerable performance advantages over conventional submarines. This multigenerational legacy project will not only deliver enhanced defence capabilities; it has the potential to boost defence industry innovation, manufacturing and jobs around Australia. But potential can only translate into reality with bold, ambitious and optimistic leadership. Sadly, the Albanese government is found wanting when it comes to being prepared to tackle some of the well-recognised hurdles that AUKUS presents. There are nuclear-industry related hurdles that must be addressed and overcome if we are to get to the finish line and deliver conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine capability as early as the 2030s. The truth is that Labor and the Greens have made 'nuclear' a dirty word, along with anything related to it. We only have to look at this week's actions of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and his social media posts, which were quickly pulled down when he realised that he was embarrassing the government. The reality is that for a long time the Labor party has considered nuclear a dirty word and this has left Australia starved of a foundation on which we can build our nuclear industry. Defence industry tells me they have significant concerns about the government's lack of clarity, planning or policy that will build and support the nuclear industry, workforce and skill base needed. They go even further: they have significant concerns around defence industry in general for the next five years, mainly because of a lack of new funding in the DSR, which the minister so rightly likes to come into question time and talk about. Unfortunately, a continued campaign from the left in the Labor party to harvest fear and misinformation around nuclear energy has led to hesitation from our workforce and industry to invest into this viable option for our future. With no baseline experience, we are and will continue to be found wanting for experts, a workforce and even an industry baseline awareness needed to work out the practicalities from this bill. It is predicted that we will require 200 subject matter experts in Australia to make top-level decisions regarding the eight new SSN-AUKUS subs, with at least 20 years experience in nuclear technology each. Australia faces a significant hurdle in acquiring these experts, with virtually nobody in Australia having the required experience. As a shadow minister, I say the coalition wishes the government well. We want to see them get this experience, but there are some real concerns. Additionally, we will require a workforce that includes senior scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers, technical managers, reactor operators and even health physicists. This workforce will ideally require between seven and 10 years experience each. When you add that 4,000-plus workers will need to be trained up in nuclear awareness to help to maintain the AUKUS submarines, it is clear that we are under-resourced at every level. With only one nuclear reactor plant in operation in the whole of Australia—the Lucas Heights facility in Sydney, which is used to produce nuclear medicine and deliver neutrons for a suite of scientific instruments used in research, opportunities for hands-on experience and training at a nuclear-aware level are limited. These are real issues that the Labor government, the Albanese government, has failed to address or provide a plan for, so I ask today: how does this government plan to recruit and upskill our own people to that level in time? There is a whole chain of events that needs to come into play to satisfy our workforce and industry needs, and the simple reality is that we don't have enough people or the skills training basis. We currently don't have the infrastructure, compliance requirements, logistics strategy, native capability, educational base or legislative allowances to satisfy the nuclear industry, and with all of these the government is failing to unpack and clarify. Words in this chamber cannot build what we need. We need a plan, clarity and leadership. However, nuclear power is pivotal not only to the future of our defence and AUKUS submarines but for the future of Australia's energy supply. If only the Labor government's energy policy had the staying power of a nuclear submarine. The advantages of nuclear propulsion powering our submarines echo the benefits to be found through use of nuclear power to revolutionise the energy supply base of our nation. In the second reading of this bill, the minister took the opportunity to clarify Labor's position of not supporting a nuclear energy base for our future. Let me take this opportunity to restate the bold leadership from the opposition in the coalition's consideration of next-generation, emission-free, small modular nuclear technology. We're not afraid of the conversation. The technologies are safe, reliable and cost-effective. Unlike Labor, who lead through fear, we lead through vision, and we have new leadership now under Peter Dutton and vision that reflects what we now know Australians want. In fact, Labor and the Greens espouse that they are representing the views of their constituents and supporters but conveniently fail to mention that, according to several recent polls, they are off the mark, with 53 per cent of Australians agreeing with the statement 'Australia should build nuclear power plant to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions as we move towards 2050.' This included 52 per cent of Labor voters and 44 per cent of Greens voters supporting construction. Yet those opposite refuse to have the mature conversation. Just as they were led to this vision, history will find them being led to visions by the coalition around emissions-free nuclear power. The truth is that Labor continues to deceive the Australian people with its contradictory energy policy. On one hand, they stand in this House and promote nuclear power propulsion in their defence strategy, whilst at the same time demonising the benefits of transitioning to low-emissions use of nuclear power as an alternative energy source to get us to net zero emissions by 2050. Instead of informing Australians about the advantages that small modular emissions-free nuclear power could offer, they prefer to trade a viable energy alternative for political votes, harvested on a scare campaign, refusing to consider the benefits of onshore small and micromodular options. By doing so, Australia is left behind the rest of the world, as 50 countries are exploring or investing in next-generation technology, with 32 countries, including Canada, China, France, the United States and the United Kingdom, using zero-emissions nuclear power today, including to firm up renewables. Reducing carbon emissions is our responsibility to this nation, and there is no debating that we all want to see emissions go down. The 2050 policy has bipartisan support. But the cutting of emissions cannot come at the expense of cutting energy supply, reliability and affordability. The coalition prioritised this, and between 2013 and 2021 cut Australia's emissions by 17 per cent while growing the economy and creating jobs. We must boldly invest in and commit to long-term reliable and safe energy alternatives. And whilst billions of dollars have been invested in alternatives like wind and solar, they're still generating only 12 per cent, and the cost around their high transmission lines will run into tens of billions of dollars, not to mention the environmental impact. The scientific reality is that we must firm up the energy grid, and with the government against coal and nuclear, What remains? To distribute renewable energy, more than $100 billion will need to be spent on 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, and these poles and wires will run through everywhere—a fact the Labor government failed to mention when singing the environmental virtues of their plan. The reality exposed by other countries that have failed to consider nuclear options should provide us with warning. People in countries like Germany, Italy and Denmark are now paying a heavy price, paying nearly double the electricity costs of Australia and six times the costs of Canada, which is using nuclear power as an alternative, as the member for Hinkler would know. At a time when cost of living is becoming the No. 1 issue for Australians under the Albanese government, there is no excuse for this government, who continue to use fear and misinformation to secure their political position, rather than present viable options to address the real impact of energy costs. Every dollar that the Albanese government continue to spend on their renewable energy plan is being passed on to the people in my electorate and other parts of Australia in the form of higher electricity bills. This week Prime Minister Albanese and his government presented the opportunity to Australia to be an energy superpower, and on this we agree. We do and always have had the potential to be a major player on the world stage when it comes to energy supply. However, we need to make choices and set priorities to get the best result. However, sadly, under this government, instead of becoming an energy superpower, we are watching our opportunities fade as this government continues to neglect our own industry and innovation potential in favour of reliance on overseas imports and supply chains. As I said before, there is not a dollar extra in the DSR over the next four years, and defence industry are screaming for orders; they want to be fed. But we know that they won't be fed under the Albanese government. In addition, as states like Queensland place more and more limitations on our ability to mine natural resources like uranium, we will remain behind the eight ball when it truly comes to being an energy superpower. Our own wind and solar capabilities are dependent on import markets—cheap solar panel imports from China, cheap imports from China for wind farms. And these are the very countries it is not in our national interest to be funding. We simply cannot continue to play games with our defence policy, nor our energy policy. Just like we are investing in nuclear power propulsion for our Defence Force capability, we must consider nuclear power as a viable option for the nation's energy capability. How can the government face the Australian people when it stands here today promoting the value of emissions-free nuclear powered submarines and yet fails to address the shared benefits that this energy source could provide in their everyday lives? The challenge around base-load power is one that is well recognised across the world, and many other countries have responded sensibly and seriously with a zero-emissions nuclear energy policy. That's why we will continue to lead the discussion not only on nuclear propulsion for our submarines—we did so when we signed the AUKUS agreement under the former Prime Minister and the former defence minister—but also on next-generation zero-emissions small and micro nuclear technologies as a viable answer to Australia's energy needs Our aspiration must be achievable and focused on the type of Australia we want our children to inherit mid-century: a nation that is cleaner and healthier but also richer, stronger and independent. The words of the Leader of the Opposition, 'That is policy pragmatism,' are true. 16:36 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. Of course the coalition will be supporting this bill; after all, the AUKUS arrangement is a coalition arrangement. It's an agreement that we struck when in government. It is the right decision, and I'm very pleased to see that the federal Labor government continues to support what is an absolutely essential addition to our defence capability. As the Minister for Defence said in the second reading speech, Australia will now become one of only seven nations to operate nuclear powered submarines in the world—just seven. And yet we see that there are more than 32 that utilise this technology to deliver base-load electricity in their countries, and some 50 are already exploring investment in that same technology for the same purpose—but more on that as I continue this speech. So what is it that we need to deliver these systems, these submarines, this defence capability, in our country? As the minister said, we need to develop 'the full suite of skills, facilities and institutions along with an appropriate regulatory and legislative architecture to be nuclear stewards'. We have been nuclear stewards for decades. The Lucas Heights reactor is a critical part of this country, particularly in the production of nuclear medicine isotopes. In fact, some 12,000 to 14,000 every single week are produced and utilised in this country for the purpose of saving people's lives—for PET scans, to identify cancers, for treatment. That use produces waste, and that waste has to be dealt with. As we all know, under nonproliferation and other treaties, each individual nation has to themselves deal with the waste from reactors, and we have done. The good people of Kimba in South Australia, in the majority, have accepted a facility to deal with that low-level radioactive waste, and it's the right decision, the right location and the right community. It needs to be done, and I'm very pleased that it's continuing, even though I believe it's back before the courts again, which is a great shame. This bill lifts the moratorium on civil nuclear power because we are building these submarines in Adelaide. And guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters? If you're going to build a reactor, whether it's in a submarine or otherwise, you need to avoid the existing moratoriums in this country. But it's only for these submarines, not for anything else; apparently, it's only for submarines! We are going to build nuclear capacity because we are going to build nuclear submarines. We're going to build a nuclear industry, we are going to have a domestic nuclear industry in this country, because there is no other outcome. If we are going to build submarines with reactors, then we will have civilians who are trained specialists, whether they are physicists or engineers or others, who will be assisting Defence, and they will be based in this country, and we will build that capacity. Any other idea is just blatantly wrong—that nothing else will happen apart from this. The government itself has said there will be some 10,000 people required for building this capacity all around nuclear technology, all around an industry which is already well established around the world. It is incredibly safe. There are so very few incidents in nuclear reactors, it is just astounding. When you compare it to other risk environments, it is very low. As I have said, this is the right decision. If we look at what we need for the nuclear industry, we need to build nuclear capability, we have to lift the moratorium, we have to make sure we have the right people and we have to use the right technology, which of course comes as part of the AUKUS arrangements with the United States and England. These are advanced reactors. To give those who might be listening to this broadcast some context—I am told this is not top secret; it is in the public arena already—the reactor in the Virginia class submarine, for example, is around the size of a 44-gallon drum. To give people some context if they are watching on the video, that is roughly the height of one of the chairs in the Federation Chamber. It is about the same width. It is a circular drum. That is not very big but it powers the entire submarine, makes it comfortable for submariners and it runs for 30 years before it needs to be replaced. And guess what? It will produce high-level radioactive waste which has to be dealt with by this country, in this country, by the government of the day. So we will have an industry which is building civilian, technical and military capability and capacity. We are building reactors in Adelaide. We are dealing with high-level radioactive waste. We will utilise these facilities for many years. They will run for 30 years. Our power station will run for 80 years. In fact, it could run much longer if it is reconditioned and set again. So the idea that we can do this in Australia but we can't develop nuclear capacity to deliver electricity, baseload power, that will run for the 80 years with the same people. The shadow of hypocrisy follows federal Labor around and around. If we look at what has happened in recent years, I am very pleased that Labor has changed its mind. Genuinely, I am, because this is the right decision for our nation and our future. But when the energy minister at the time, former Minister Taylor, in 2019 said the coalition has an open mind, the Labor Party went ballistic. We saw that. Even the current Treasurer now in the state of Queensland, Minister Dick, said 'How good is Queensland—beautiful one day, radioactive the next.' This was the type of reaction that is typical for Labor. Where is it going to be—Robina, Wide Bay? Even the now Prime Minister, Prime Minister Albanese, in 2019, said, 'If these people are serious they should be upfront with every single Australian about where they think these power plants should go.' In 2019 the now Prime Minister said 'Beautiful one day, nuclear the next.' Well, guess what? We're going to have nuclear-powered submarines and they will be in Adelaide and Brisbane and Sydney and Perth and Darwin. They will be around the country. The hypocrisy of Labor to say that you can't utilise it for the benefit of all Australians is just ridiculous. At the same time that Minister Dick was making the sorts of silly comments—Simpsons-like comments—guess what? There was a ship called the USS Ronald Reagan parked at Brisbane port. It has more than one nuclear reactor. It has multiple nuclear reactors. It was about 10 kilometres from where Minister Dick was making these comments. If you want politics to be a circus, keep sending the clowns. That is what I say. There is an opportunity here that Australia desperately needs. I mean, points have been made by the member for Petrie. If the federal Labor government seriously thinks that they will build 28,000 kilometres of transmission in this country with all of the easements that are required, with all of the things that will go to court, with all the native title and environmental approvals by 2030, they're kidding yourselves. It will not happen. It simply will not happen. The power generation that could potentially be utilised from nuclear is established around the world. The technology continues to advance whether it is small modular reactors or others, because that is what this is. It is a small modular reactor that fits in a very sophisticated tin can that will go 200 metres under the surface for the Australian submariners defending our nation, running for 30 years without being refuelled, but you can't put one on a block of concrete in one of the most stable countries in the world to use it to generate electricity? That is just farcical, absolutely farcical. The Leader of the Opposition has stated unequivocally that we support the nuclear industry in this country, that we support AUKUS, that we support the building of these submarines for utilisation for our nation and in our interests because it is the right decision. But you won't utilise the same technology and the same group of people and the same issue across the country to generate electricity. This is how simple it is: a nuclear reactor boils water to create steam; that steam runs a turbine; that turbine turns a generator to create electricity. It's exactly the same, whether it's coal-fired power or it's run on chook manure or you stick in wood—whatever. You are simply boiling water to generate electricity in a traditional generator, and the big advantage of those generators compared to what's proposed by federal Labor is that they have inherent characteristics which you have to pay for in intermittent wind and solar. They have system strength, and that is incredibly important to maintaining the network and its stability. They are in one place, so you can hook them up with big transmission lines and distribute it through transmission and out to people's houses. If you add that on to what Labor is proposing around electric vehicles, for example, even AEMO has said you could need a 60 per cent increase in generation capacity, transmission and distribution. So, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, think about your house—and I'm not picking on you; it's everybody's houses. You will have to upgrade every single supply point, from your switchboard. and even from your garage for the fast-charge generator, all the way back to the substation, and all the way back to the generator. It is an enormous undertaking. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Or you can build a baseload power station using technology that federal Labor now has to deliver and has committed to. It is no different. It's exactly the same. It can be done. The only thing that needs to be determined is where you put them. In my view, and this is just my view, it has to go to a community that supports it. Do I think that there are communities out there that want a $10 billion facility and potentially want to get free electricity for everyone who lives in sight of that nuclear reactor and power generation plant and want a high-paying job? Absolutely, I do. They will be out there, and they will be available, and they'll want to use it. Look at existing coal-fired power stations. As they come to the end of their natural lives—that's what happens with equipment if you don't maintain it and replace it; that's just nature—they already have enormous storages of water for their ash systems, they already have connections for transmission, they have existing easements and they already have existing approvals. They are brownfield sites. Now, clearly, there will need to be assessments of whether they are earthquake prone or pose any other risk, but those risks can be assessed. Those locations can be identified. There are communities that would welcome those types of investment with open arms. I can tell you now that those who don't have open arms are the people of regional Australia who are being told that literally millions of hectares of the land that they utilise, particularly to generate food, will be covered with solar panels that last 20 years, assuming they don't get hit by a cyclone and they don't get hit by hail. You may think that's unlikely. There's a facility at Gympie, in the member for Wide Bay's electorate, that wasn't even connected. In one hailstorm 20 per cent of the facility was lost. A hundred thousand panels were destroyed before they even got put on. That brings me to waste. As we've already outlined, federal Labor has to deliver a high-level radioactive waste facility because, when these submarines come to their end of life, it is a necessity for that to be dealt with; it's that simple. For all those people in Australia who think this isn't going to happen, it has to, because the decision has been made: Australia is getting a nuclear industry. It is very, very straightforward. You can look at the United States. From memory, this is on the United States Department of Energy's website. They provide electricity from nuclear facilities to around 70 million people. Each year, to provide power to 70 million people, those facilities—keep in mind that this is older technology that has been in place for some decades—deliver approximately half an Olympic-sized swimming pool of waste. It is so dense. There is so little of it to produce so much energy. By comparison—this is from the Parliamentary Library—if we look at wind turbines, the estimate is that by 2050 there will be 43 million tonnes of wind turbine blade waste alone. That is just turbine blades. That is 43 million tonnes that can't be recycled. They are made of a composite, which is a carbon-fibre composite combined with a pile of other things, that is stuck on very high towers. That has to be dealt with. It costs a fortune. There will be 43 million tonnes of it. Or you can utilise technology that this nation has to have as part of this arrangement for things that have to be put in place because they are necessary to having nuclear powered submarines run by Australia, defending our country. Every single stage of the cycle will now be addressed, because they must be as part of this agreement. There are no other options. The comparisons are endless. Every single wind turbine needs about 50 acres of footprint and 600 tonnes of concrete in the base, and they are still intermittent and you still have to build another entire system which backs it up 100 per cent because a wind turbine runs roughly 33 per cent of the time and solar panel utilisation is about 22 per cent of the time. So covering this country in a tarpaulin of something which is intermittent and making it so that we will rely on the weather for the security of our country, our businesses, our homes and the things that we need at a time when we need this country to be strong is the wrong decision. 2050 is a very long way away. We need to make sure we are keeping manufacturing in this country, not having it leave and go international because companies simply cannot afford to be here. If they are not internationally competitive, they are not competitive. If they don't have affordable gas, don't have affordable electricity, don't have an available workforce and can't utilise those things in this country, they will leave. It is that simple. I will go back to where I started. The coalition supports this legislation. The coalition supports the AUKUS agreement. It is one that we struck. It is the right decision for our nation. It is the right decision for our national security. But not using this technology for the benefit of all Australia is the wrong decision. I think we see hypocrisy from people like the minister here and what the former Prime Minister said. I reckon the South Australian Premier had it right. He got his finger slapped, but he had it right. We should be utilising this for all Australians. 16:51 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 is a very important bill and it has my full support. It makes amendments to the ARPANS Act and the EPBC Act. Why is this being done? People in my electorate and around the country want to know what this is all about. Basically, we have agreed to become owner-operators of nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines. That triggered the need for a lot of new regulatory processes. Those which are currently in place prevent any nuclear power plants operating in this country. So the bill amends these two acts which have specific provisions preventing the building and construction of a nuclear power plant, a nuclear enrichment plant, a fabrication plant and a reprocessing plant. But we are already a nuclear nation and we are 80 per cent of the way there. We could so rapidly transfer to having a civil nuclear industry which will make this whole AUKUS endeavour feasible. It would cut the time in half. It would actually allow it to happen. I will just outline some of the details of the legislation. Basically, section 10 of the ARPANS Act and sections 37, 140, 146 and 305 of the EPBC Act have those provisions preventing all those things that we need to support this. Any nation that is going to run nuclear subs needs a civil nuclear industry. Not only would we be the only country in the OECD not running civil nuclear plants; we would then have the distinct qualification of running nuclear subs but having nothing behind them. It is quite schizoid to think that we are going to embark on this endeavour with these provisions in place. Everyone in the country, pretty much, supports AUKUS. There is a small minority that don't. People were worried about the announcement. It was off the news pages in two days. Australia is ready for nuclear. I give talks all around the country and people turn up in droves. They want to know more. They are not afraid of it unless they have been through years and years of indoctrination, with unrealistic fears equating nuclear power plants with glowing, red-hot sources of massive amounts of radiation and that waste is this huge, massive problem that no-one knows what to do about. That is not the case. There are hundreds of power plants around the world that are operating safely. There have been bad experiences in the past. Chernobyl was a Russian RBMK reactor, a very unstable reactor design from the late fifties and early sixties. It was poorly maintained and run by political diktat. Surprise, surprise: it had a meltdown. It was a disaster for those people there. Fukushima was a disaster but not because of any isotopes that were spread by the physical explosion of hydrogen gas inside the reactor vessel. Because there was intense heat from the meltdown because there was no cooling water, it formed hydrogen in the reactor vessel and blew up. It was a hydrogen gas explosion, and the people who died did at Fukushima not die from isotopes and radiation; they died from the tsunami. But I go back to this issue. We support the AUKUS program. It was initiated by the former coalition government. We have to meet deadlines to get Rotational Force-West up and running along with the facilities at Stirling, and this bit of legislation is the most appropriate quick thing to do. In both the former Turnbull and Morrison governments for a good period of time, I used to oversee ARPANSA, which is the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. It's full of very complex regulations for our nuclear medicine sites dotted around the country, which no-one is afraid of, because they go there to get their cancer cured. We have all the systems in place for nuclear powered ships and subs to visit here already, but we need a nuclear regulator for the new subs. This will temporarily put ARPANSA in that place until a nuclear-submarine-specific regulation authority is established with separate legislation. It will be housed in the defence department. It's obviously a good system because that's how America has done it. They have had their regulator inside the defence establishment since the 1950s. The other thing is that we are doing this because we know it will make us much more safe. It will make the Indo Pacific safer because this will give our defence capability strength. The reach of our forward capabilities will make us much more secure. But the irony of it is that it is just limiting these changes to allow them only in the defence space. What we need for our nation to be strong is sovereignty in our energy system, which we are throwing away and spending trillions of dollars to do. We are turning our energy system into a brittle, weather dependent, randomly generated, complex and variable system that needs rebuilding constantly from now on and ever after, because the renewable-alone energy transition is not feasible. We are not the first-of-its-kind country to do this transition, but, sadly for Australia, we are now the only-of-its-kind country that persists with this mirage that it's possible. Billions of euros have been spent in Europe trying to transition countries to a renewable based system. Trillions of English pounds, trillions of US dollars have been spent, and they have all come to a screaming halt with unaffordable electricity and blackouts, like in California. One used to think that everything worked in California, but they have had regular blackouts because they got rid of their power stations. You know how woke California is and how Democrat and green focused it was. In the last lot of legislative settings the year before, California voted—157-3, I think the vote was—to actually fire up and continue operating their Diabolo Canyon nuclear reactor because they couldn't live with the blackouts anymore. There are windfarms lying idle in California because they realised they're not affordable. Having a weather-dependent renewable energy system, which is what AEMO's plan is, is turning our system into a weather-dependent system. It's also dependent on the day-night cycle. The plans that are in AEMO's plan will cost far more than what they say. Many engineers, many bodies, including the University of Melbourne, Princeton University and the University of Queensland, have analysed what would be required for net zero using renewables and batteries alone. Well, let me tell you, it's going to cost us between seven and eight per cent of our GDP every year, forever. That is an enormous amount of money. Depending on the cost of batteries, it might be $5 trillion or up to $7 trillion. Other studies have been released by the University of Queensland. There are not enough mines and critical minerals in the world to even allow the deployment of renewables, either in wind turbines or in solar panels, in the first iteration up to 2030. In fact, from some of the figures that I read last night, we would have to use 7,000 years of mineral deposits to get all these renewables built, and the batteries. It's incredible, but we are doing it. As I said, we are already a nuclear nation. We have run three nuclear reactors in Lucas Heights. Nuclear isotopes are developed and delivered around the South Pacific and even into the west coast of America from Lucas Heights. When the facility is up and running it supplies 27 per cent of the world's medical isotopes. Other reactors like that are now being planned for Korea and other parts of Asia. But we have huge expertise in this. We have over 1,200 scientists—or at least until some research cuts we did—working for ANSTO. We have a great regulator, ARPANSA. We have universities with engineering faculties that deliver world-class training. And nuclear power plants don't require specific nuclear physics engineers to run them, although you do have to have some. Even in the recent Emirates build of four large nuclear reactors, in the space of time that I've been in this parliament—yes, I saw sand dunes that had bulldozers building the walls and the sites, after I got into this building—since 2013 they have built four large 1,400-megawatt reactors. And the Koreans built them. They know what to do. They hadn't stopped building nuclear reactors like America and the UK had. They have a supply chain, They have all this technology happening all the time. And do you know what? It cost them $22 billion. There was a cost overrun. There was a delay because of COVID and the GFC. But they have built four big reactors—almost the same as all the energy in New South Wales, the baseload energy—from 2013 to now, in the space of 10 years. They started from nothing in 2009. They didn't have any history of nuclear energy. Their universities didn't have the depth and the experience we have. We have a huge diaspora of people around the world who would come back and be involved in this. We know what to do with waste management. We recycle ours, and we have agreements in place for it. We have earmarked places for final repositories. And we could become like Canada. They have 76,000 people working in their nuclear industry. They've been involved since the fifties, and 46 per cent of those jobs are high-paying jobs. But what does it allow? It allows Canada to have electricity which, when I was there, was a third of the cost that we are paying in Australia—a third—and they don't have blackouts, because they have huge amounts of baseload. They also have huge amounts of hydro. But in Ontario they have 65 per cent of their energy coming from nuclear power plants. They're like France. So I really think the government needs to have a change in their attitude. Unfortunately, they've been misinformed, with their Rewiring the Nation and their transition plans. They got documents like the GenCost report. They got a lot of AEMO documents which I feel have led them up the garden path, given them this false idea that you could seriously do what everyone else has tried and failed. All our highly trained engineers are saying: 'You are trying to turn a variable frequency and voltage direct current, inverting it into alternating current, but at various frequencies and voltages that make the machines and all the systems that get attached to them go faulty, trigger blackouts and be weather dependent.' We're going to spend trillions of dollars. We will need to build not just Snowy Hydro 2.0 but also 14 others to backup what is being planned, and that is randomly variable. The cost of the batteries alone will be trillions of dollars and—wait for it—the plan that AEMO has put out is relying on your batteries in your house to be sucked back in. We really need to be mature and say, 'We've been given bad advice, let's reassess this.' This bill is fine. We will supported to the hilt. We need it for the defence of the nation. But we really need an electricity grid and reliable and affordable energy to get manufacturing and a vibrant industrial base back in this country, otherwise cities and businesses will fail and cities will blackout. We'll be like Adelaide eventually—if we keep on going with this madness, that is the eventual result. Our competitors, opponents and people who have expansionary plans are laughing all the way to the bank. We sell them all our minerals wholesale at cheap prices and they send us expensive stuff that works for 10, 15 or 20 years, destroys our competitiveness and leaves businesses overseas. We really need to reconsider. To defend the nation, we need electricity and a grid that's cheap and reliable. (Time expired) 17:07 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. There's no greater responsibility that a government has than to defend its people—to defend Australians. I was and still am very proud to have been part of a government that delivered—that created AUKUS. I want to particularly single out former prime minister Scott Morrison, former defence minister Peter Dutton, now opposition leader, and the former former defence minister, Senator Linda Reynolds. This was an arrangement that so much work had gone into to create. It was absolutely vital that it was done in a secretive way. I know that it upset the French, and that's regrettable, but AUKUS is a vitally important arrangement—a trilateral arrangement between Australia, the US and the UK. Its principal pillar is that of the supply of as many as eight nuclear powered submarines to Australia. Why is that important? It's a $368 billion project. In all fairness, I will give credit where credit is due to the current Prime Minister. He could have baulked at this and said. 'We don't want a bar of this.' I'm conscious and cognisant of the Labor Party's extreme reticence in relation to nuclear energy. He didn't. He played team Australia, as he should have as the opposition leader at the time. He didn't have to, but he did a good thing. This $368 billion project is the single largest defence expenditure ever undertaken by our country. I'm reluctant to say it will probably be one of the largest ever, but who knows what will happen in the future? In relation to the nuclear powered submarines, a lot of Australians I've talked to about this issue have a not unusual reticence when they hear that figure of $368 billion. It is a significant sum of money. Many Australians say: why do we need to spend that sort of money? Nuclear powered submarines are the apex predator of defence military equipment. I want to single out the hardworking men and women of the Royal Australian Navy. Those of you who are submariners who are working on shore, you may be listening to this. If you're at sea and you are submerged, you won't be listening to this, but I do want to single you out for your service. I have had the immense privilege of going to sea for three days on HMAS Collins, so I got a bit of a look at the work that you do. It was incredibly insightful for me to see the incredible work that you do in what are pretty trying and austere conditions. I want you to know that, as the now deputy chair of the defence committee, I have an immense degree of pride in the work that you do. Our Collins class submarines—all six of them—really got a bad rap over decades. But, to the credit of the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy, we have turned them into very, very effective pieces of equipment. In fact, it is said that they are in the top two conventionally powered submarines in the world. It's a toss-up between Japan's conventionally powered submarines and the Collins class across the world, no doubt because of the great work that's done by our men and women of the Royal Australian Navy. Thank you for your service. There's a lot of work to be done to prepare you and your future comrades to be able to effectively crew the new nuclear powered submarines. Why are nuclear powered submarines so important? One of the greatest limitations around diesel electric submarines is that, depending on how fast you're going, every 12 to 24 hours, those submarines need to surface—to snort—in order to recharge their batteries. Of course, when they snort, they're firing up their diesel engines and you might as well be playing a brass band. It is then when they are at their most vulnerable. Of course, we want to ensure that our submariners of the Royal Australian Navy have the best equipment to enable them to do the incredible work that they do. It is beyond doubt that the best kit we could put them in—the best kit that we can give them to ensure stability in the Indo-Pacific and to give pause for thought—is nuclear powered submarines. Modern nuclear powered submarines like the Virginia class and the Astute class have an enclosed nuclear reactor which will last the lifetime of that boat. We will get eight nuclear powered submarines—three Virginia class and potentially another two, with the rest to be the new AUKUS class. These new nuclear powered submarines can go to sea for indefinite periods. The only thing that will prevent them from doing so and will require them to come back to shore is for food for the crew, for the sanity of the crew and for armament replacement. Effectively, a nuclear powered submarine can go to sea and stay at sea, submerged, for six months if the crew can last that long. That is the power of a nuclear powered submarine. It is the apex predator of the world's military equipment. And why is that important? When you look at, for instance, the People's Liberation Army Navy of China, they have as many as around 80 submarines and hundreds of surface fleet. We saw in the Falkland Islands war that, effectively, the Royal Navy was able to keep the Argentine Navy within the ports because they didn't want to risk losing another surface ship. That is the power of a submarine. That is the power of a nuclear powered submarine that can stay submerged for long periods of time, essentially undetected. Our adversaries will not know where they are. And, yes, whilst our adversaries' boats far outweigh and outnumber the boats that we will have and the surface vessels that we have, we have to give those who might seek to do us harm pause for thought: 'Is it worth us committing an asset to a particular area if there is a risk of an Australian nuclear powered submarine being there?' It's that pause for thought which assists us as a country to keep our country safe. There would not be person in this building who would want to see this country at war with any other country, least of all with China—not a person in this building. But we have to understand that we live in very dangerous times. Who would have thought just 18 months ago that Europe would be at war? The expansion of the People's Liberation Army of China is very, very significant—and of their navy. They now reputedly have one of the largest, if not the largest, navy surface fleet in the world. They are growing their military at an unprecedented rate in an unexplained way. They will not say why, yet they still do it. And they still say that China seeks peace. That's all well and good, and I hope they do seek peace. The reality is that Australia needs to be in a position to be able to defend itself. One of the things I have learned in this role is that sovereign capability is increasingly important. We are an island nation a long way from anywhere and we need to be investing in our own ability to defend ourselves. This bill will enable us to do the preparatory work. It will enable ARPANSA to perform its vital work as the nuclear regulator in the initial stages of getting these AUKUS boats into the water. There's a lot of water to go under the bridge, if you'll pardon the pun, but we have to start. There is no time like the present. There is a great degree of urgency. The Collins-class submarines, as effective as they are, are not getting any younger. We need to replace them, and this is a massive, massive project—a project that is like a moonshot for Australia. We are so incredibly fortunate in this country to have two very close allies like the United States and the United Kingdom, with the United States sharing its crown jewels: its nuclear powered propulsion technology for submarines. This had only ever been done once before for another country, and that was in the United Kingdom in around 1959. The United States had not shared that technology with any other country. We'd asked them plenty of times, and the answer had always been no. But as time change, people change and perceptions change, and the United States and the United Kingdom now recognise that it is in their best interests and the best interests of the security of the Indo-Pacific to ensure that Australia has these nuclear powered submarines. So to those Australians who, rightly, are concerned about our spending $368 billion: I get that. It's trite to say it's a lot of money. But at what cost is our democracy? At what cost is the freedom and liberty of 25 million Australians? Clearly $368 million is a king's ransom, but the lives, the freedom and the democratic principles of this great country require us to defend those 25 million people, and having these submarines in our military kit will enable us to do just that. 17:22 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt When God was giving out continents, not many countries got one to themselves, and we're very lucky to be this great, vast island nation. But it underscores the very important challenge of defending such great abundance, particularly as we have no land border with another nation. The capability of the Royal Australian Navy is at the front line of that and is absolutely vital to our national security interests. That doesn't only include the circumstance—hopefully never eventuating—of conflict with another nation but also the proper management of our maritime borders and all the other search-and-rescue capabilities and many other capabilities that the armed forces of our nation, underpinned by the Royal Australian Navy, task and perform. Most importantly, the submarine capability is one that transforms the potency of the Royal Australian Navy and the ability for us to, first and foremost, defend our nation, because it puts an unbelievable capability, in an undetected form, hundreds if not thousands of kilometres from the Australian coastline. That dramatically changes the dynamic with any potential adversary looking at Australia with any form of aggression. Being from Adelaide, I of course followed the submarine debate for a long time. The Collins program, which we're very proud of, was conceived around the time of my birth—I'm 40 now—and those six submarines were constructed in Adelaide. There were the naysayers, of course, around that decision to develop a sovereign submarine construction capability through the Collins, which replaced the Oberon class, which of course was built in the United Kingdom. And the submarines before the Collins were all really linked to acquisition opportunities from the United Kingdom. So, the Collins demonstrated the great capability that Australian defence industry could develop and has developed and maintained to produce the most complicated maritime capability, which is that of a submarine. Of course, back in the Rudd-Gillard era, the identification of the need to replace the Collins fleet and decision to do that were, regrettably, obfuscated. When the Abbot government was elected in 2013, it became very clear that some rapid decision-making was required, because, of course, the Collins, which is an excellent, capable, conventional diesel electric hunter-killer submarine, has, like any maritime asset, a useful life from a technological point of view and from a maintenance point of view. It was constructed in Adelaide, and the full-cycle docking occurs in South Australia as well, so each boat comes out every 10 years for about two years. The pressure hull is opened up, and really the submarine is completely rebuilt in the shipyards in South Australia. We did indeed intend to go down the path of acquiring a new, sovereign designed and constructed, conventional diesel electric submarine in Adelaide when that was the only technological option for us. Much has been said and written about the relationship with the French government and DCNS, who became Naval Group, but, were it not for the opportunity of nuclear technology, that would have been an excellent program that would have provided an excellent capability. The best conventional submarine capability available to any Navy in the world would have been built in Adelaide by the partnership with Naval Group. But the former prime minister, Scott Morrison, is to be commended for absolutely transforming the capability options of our Navy through discussions with the United States and the United Kingdom, culminating in the September 2021 announcement of the new AUKUS partnership and AUKUS framework—which, by the way, is way more than just nuclear propulsion technology for the Royal Australian Navy. Nonetheless, the absolute centrepiece of it, from our point of view, is being given access to nuclear propulsion technology, which is, effectively, the most closely guarded piece of defence technology that the United States possesses. Of course, only one other nation, the United Kingdom, had this technology shared with them, and that was way back in the 1950s. Some 70 years later, we are being welcomed into a very trusted partnership and framework with the United States and with the United Kingdom to give us the capability of eight submarines with this nuclear propulsion technology. The member for Fisher very eloquently outlined what the strategic value of nuclear propulsion is, and it is absolutely transformative, particularly for our vast continent with, currently, a Collins submarine fleet based in Western Australia. That is a long way from potential areas of action and activity—and that's a good thing; it's nice to come back to a home port that is relatively remote from potential aggression. But it also means that, particularly for Australia, our submarines use a lot of their resources, a lot of their diesel fuel, getting to the places they want to be and coming back home from them. The unbelievable element of nuclear power is the almost infinite power source that it provides. As the member for Fisher mentioned, the limitation on a submarine's range suddenly becomes that of human endurance, human mental health considerations, the ability to take provisions for the sustainment of human life or the amount of missiles and torpedoes that can be accommodated—and, hopefully, not used very regularly, if at all, apart from in testing and exercises. So it dramatically changes the capability. We are very grateful for that. I think, of all the great things that our recent period in government delivered, that will be at least the equal best part of the legacy of those years that we leave to this nation, particularly from a national security point of view. This bill is about providing the legislative change that is necessary to accommodate the first stages of this AUKUS opportunity. We know that dramatic upgrades in Western Australia are necessary to sustain nuclear powered submarines that will be on rotation from the United States and the United Kingdom while we work through the ultimate objective of the Royal Australian Navy. That objective is acquiring submarines and, most importantly to me as an Adelaide MP, having submarines that we build in Australia. In Adelaide they will be built at the Osborne shipyard complex. It is important that we build them here and sustain them here so we have a sovereign capability that underpins our ability to defend ourselves without relying on anyone else. We all understand that a lot of other legislation will need to be considered into the future to allow us to achieve that potential. It's very important that as a parliament we appropriately scrutinise but also move at an appropriate pace through those changes so that this capability is in no way delayed for the Royal Australian Navy, in the interests of defending our nation. Moving this bill through the parliament is something we very much support and will be as cooperative as possible on. In conclusion, I will say that this demonstrates that we can embrace nuclear well beyond the propulsion of submarines. This is a very expensive capability that we're acquiring, and some of the costs include putting in place the necessary oversight, regulatory framework and independent statutory agency capability to oversee nuclear reactors going into the bellies of submarines at some point in the future. There is also potential for these same small nuclear reactors to provide other benefits to our nation, in the economy and in power generation point. I commend Premier Peter Malinauskas in my home state of South Australia, who has been very open-minded and very contradictory of some of the scaremongering around nuclear from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Jay Weatherill was a very prominent Labor left politician who became South Australian premier. A bit like Nixon in China, maybe he was the only one that could put on the table the open-minded approach to nuclear that resulted in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. That royal commission was undertaken by former rear admiral Kevin Scarce, who is also the former Governor of South Australia. It looked at all the parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. In South Australia we have the largest uranium deposits on the planet. We effectively send that relatively unprocessed uranium immediately off for export. The royal commission looked at other ways of potentially being further involved in the supply chain fuel cycle and, of course, opportunities for the storage of nuclear waste, which the Weatherill Labor government sought to embrace. Defence Minister Marles has indicated that, within the next 12 months or so, the government will identify a site for the storage of nuclear waste from the eight reactors that we're acquiring as part of this AUKUS program that we will be responsible for, which will produce nuclear waste. It will be interesting to learn the site of that facility, which we are told will be on defence land. I suspect there is a good chance that it will be in the state of South Australia, particularly thanks to Jay Weatherill's Labor government bragging about South Australia's capability to host half the world's nuclear waste, which was the proposition in that royal commission. So Labor in South Australia have done the hard work of advertising South Australia's suitability for nuclear waste, so that might have helped the government make a decision in that direction. We will find out in due course but that underpins one of the spurious criticisms that is often thrown up about management of nuclear waste. We will need to manage the nuclear waste from the bellies of these submarines, and those submarines will be lashed to the wharves of Port Adelaide while they are undertaking their final fit out and sea trials and all the rest, when they come in for complex maintenance, just like when they come into the wharves in Fremantle, and potentially if there is a fleet base east for nuclear submarines to be determined in the near future as well. Apparently, cities can safely have nuclear submarines docked, but we equally have a government that is rubbishing the opportunity of nuclear in other areas, particularly around generation. In my state of South Australia, the likely location of nuclear reactors for the generation of electricity purposes would probably be where the previous coal-fired power plant was in Port Augusta, around 45 kilometres north of metropolitan Adelaide. The transmission lines are in place; the land obviously exists. As we debate and pass legislation like this, it demonstrates that we can embrace the opportunity of properly considering how nuclear can deliver for this nation, not just through a dramatic enhancement of the capability of our Royal Australian Navy submarine force but perhaps also in other ways as we address challenges like getting to net zero by 2050. With that contribution, I commend the bill to the House. 17:36 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. At the outset, I'd like to commend the speeches of both the honourable member for Fisher and the honourable member for Sturt on this same bill. This bill represents the first of many legislative reforms required to implement the commitment of the former coalition Morrison government, adopted by the Labor government as part of the AUKUS security partnership between Australia and our good friends, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. I commend this government for continuing the work initiated by the former coalition government on the AUKUS partnership for the defence and national security of Australia. By way of background, the AUKUS partnership was announced in September 2021 to promote 'a free and open Indo Pacific that is secure and stable'. The joint statement released by Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom in March of this year provided as follows: For more than a century, our three nations have stood shoulder to shoulder, along with other allies and partners, to help sustain peace, stability, and prosperity around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific. We believe in a world that protects freedom and respects human rights, the rule of law, the independence of sovereign states, and the rules-based international order. The steps we are announcing today will help us to advance these mutually beneficial objectives in the decades to come. The first major initiative of AUKUS was the historic trilateral decision to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, which are generally referred to as SSNs. This involves the manufacture of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines to be built in Adelaide. Australia must be sovereign-ready before it can operate a nuclear-powered submarine. This means Australia must achieve the capacity to be a sovereign owner, operator, maintainer and regulator of this game-changing capability. A series of steps will be required throughout the next decade, with the support of the United Kingdom and United States, to achieve this as early as possible. Australia's target date for achieving the sovereign-ready milestone is the early 2030s. The Minister for Defence, Minister Marles, described this bill as the first legislative step or tranche in the acquisition of the SSNs. By way of operation, the bill seeks to amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, as well as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, to clarify that the current moratorium on civil nuclear power does not prevent the relevant regulators under that other legislation from exercising their regulatory powers and performing functions in respect of conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines. In other words, amendments will not disrupt Australia's moratorium on civil nuclear power, and, as my friend the honourable member for Sturt has mentioned, I will have something more to say about that towards the end. This bill is in the nation's best interests. It concerns the future of our national security and reflects the AUKUS partnership. The one issue that has been raised clearly is the issue of nuclear waste. The AUKUS nuclear power submarine pathway, in its recent report, said: Australia's nuclear-powered submarines will generate a small amount of low-level radioactive waste, such as personal protective equipment, as part of routine maintenance and operations. There could also be a small amount of intermediate-level radioactive waste generated during these activities. Australia will manage all operational waste from its own submarines … Developing Australia's workforce and know-how to manage radioactive waste from nuclear-powered submarines is an important part of building Australia's stewardship credentials. I am proud of the role that my electorate will play in assisting the government to deliver the AUKUS arrangements—that is, the role that ANSTO in Lucas Heights, with its demonstrated expertise in nuclear research, science and technology, will play to support the federal government to deliver the nuclear-powered submarines. Referred to as 'nuclear stewardship' is the responsible planning, operation, application, management and leadership of nuclear facilities and technologies to ensure that the highest levels of safety, security, safeguards and sustainability are achieved to maximise utilisation, benefit and assurance for the people of Australia. For more than 60 years, ANSTO has managed a nuclear reactor and applied nuclear science and technology to benefit Australia. Today, ANSTO operates Australia's only nuclear reactor, known as the OPAL, which is a multipurpose reactor, one of the most advanced reactors in the world. ANSTO has ensured the safe management of Australia's nuclear facilities, which enable leading research, the advanced manufacturing of nuclear medicines and irradiation of silicon ingots for industry globally. Through ANSTO, Australia is highly regarded, with international networks, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and its already well-established research partnerships within both the UK and the USA. Over the next 18 months, ANSTO will work with the submarine task force project to determine the optimal pathway for the delivery of a nuclear-powered submarine capability for Australia. This will involve working with our partners in the United Kingdom and the United States to intensively examine the requirements that underpin nuclear stewardship. The United Kingdom and the United States have set and maintained exemplary safety records in the operation of naval nuclear reactors for decades. Australia will leverage this experience and our own expertise in safely operating nuclear research reactors at Lucas Heights over more than 60 years to further build on that safety record. In terms of nuclear waste, ANSTO is already storing nuclear waste—safely. I've had the privilege of touring ANSTO and have witnessed the storage capacity. For those on the opposite side who have intractably and irresponsibly refused to countenance investigating nuclear technology, I would, with respect, suggest that they take the opportunity to tour the ANSTO facilities to actually understand the work that is being performed there with some of the leading nuclear scientists and technical experts in the world. The potential that nuclear technology has to solve many of our current climate and energy issues must be properly investigated. We have the opportunity in this place—indeed, as members of parliament we have the obligation—to consider every possible avenue available to us, in 2023, to safeguard Australians' futures. It is what we have been elected to do. I still fail to understand why, on the other side, from the Prime Minister down, there is a mule-headed type of stubbornness towards investigating what nuclear technology could mean for us in reaching net zero by 2050 and for us to address our current energy crisis. In conclusion, for all the reasons I've outlined, I commend this bill to the House. 17:45 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I rise to make a contribution to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. This is undoubtedly the first of many bills that will come before this parliament to enable the introduction of nuclear propelled submarines into the Australian fleet as part of the AUKUS arrangement between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. AUKUS is a coalition legacy, and I say that with great pride. It is the biggest military program Australia has embarked upon since the Second World War as well as the biggest and most complex manufacturing program we've ever embarked upon as a nation, surpassing even the postwar automotive program and the Snowy scheme. AUKUS must succeed. Indeed, the future of our nation and the stability and security of our region depend on it. I also want to credit the now Labor government for supporting the AUKUS arrangement and for carrying it forward. The coalition stands with them to facilitate the passage of this bill through the parliament. The bill itself will amend provisions of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, known as ARPANSA, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, known as the EPBCA. These amendments to ARPANSA and the EPBCA will ensure that the relevant regulators can exercise their power if and when required in relation to Australia's nuclear propelled submarines without the risk of litigation. The coalition wants to see work begin without delay, especially in South Australia and Western Australia, to prepare our nation for the arrival of nuclear submarines. So it should come as no surprise that the coalition is offering bipartisan support for this bill, and I join with my colleagues, including the shadow minister for defence, in calling on all members of this legislature to support this bill and to do so on one simple premise: that it's in our country's best interest. I also support the shadow minister for defence in his call for a statutory parliamentary joint committee for AUKUS that has similar secrecy provisions to that of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. AUKUS is a multigenerational venture that will span many parliaments, and the formation of such a committee would provide a forum for debate, hearings and discussions behind closed doors, beyond the ears and eyes of our strategic adversaries, while also protecting AUKUS from unnecessary changes at times when the government of Australia changes. There are additional points I would like to make, and they relate to the prospect of Australia introducing next-generation zero-emissions nuclear energy and how doing so would complement the AUKUS arrangement. Zero-emissions nuclear energy is of course typically discussed in the context of energy, and for good reason. But what the Albanese government has thus far failed to grasp is that a civil nuclear program offers benefits beyond providing cleaner, greener, cheaper and more secure energy—benefits that would assist a nuclear submarine program such as that which is to be delivered under AUKUS. Put more plainly, a civil nuclear program in Australia would benefit AUKUS and our plans to introduce a sovereign fleet of nuclear propelled submarines. Let me put this in context. Australia will become one of only seven nations to operate nuclear propelled submarines, as a result of the AUKUS deal. This means that we join heavyweights such as the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and India. However, there's one enormous difference between those countries and ours. They all have civil nuclear energy industries. Australia does not. These nations operate 273 nuclear power reactors between them, and they are busily constructing 39 new reactors. The size of their workforces ranges from as few as 64½ thousand in the case of the UK to as many as 200,000 in the case of France. The presence of vibrant civil nuclear industries in these six nations that also operate nuclear propelled submarines isn't some historical footnote; rather, it has proven to be an important ingredient in the formula for maintaining well-functioning nuclear ecosystems in these countries. You see, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, the nuclear reactors that are installed in submarines are basically smaller versions of reactors in power plants, and so it's not hard to appreciate that there is synergy between them. Foundational skills in engineering, physics and mathematics are required, regardless of whether one works in the field of nuclear energy or nuclear submarines. Earlier this year I visited the US and travelled from east to west discussing next-generation clean energy, and that included nuclear. Having met countless people from the civil nuclear industry in the States, I was blown away by the number of people who were former submariners. For them, having both a civil nuclear industry and a nuclear submarine industry has allowed them to have lifelong careers. The civil nuclear industry allows for post-service job opportunities for submariners and other technicians, all of whom are highly trained and skilled in nuclear technology. When it comes to Australia and our need to attract and train our own workforce for our own sovereign submarines, there's a need for speed. We will be receiving our first Virginia-class nuclear propelled submarines within the decade. The Royal Australian Navy is already short of submariners for its six Collins-class boats, each of which requires a crew of around 58. Compare that to the Virginia class, which demands a crew of around 132. This is one of the reasons we need this bill passed quickly. We need to get moving. Australia will need to build a committed and capable workforce to operate its own fleet of nuclear propelled submarines. I believe that task will be made all the more difficult in the absence of a civil nuclear industry because it limits the value proposition to entice potential submariners, who need only look to other countries to see that they offer an expanded array of lifelong career paths by virtue of their civil nuclear industries. But of course it's not all about the submariners. Making AUKUS a success will also require an expansion of Australian industry and skill, especially with the hundreds of thousands of components needed for building and maintaining the nuclear submarines. We will need industrial assistance from our AUKUS partners, of course, but we also need to enhance our own sovereign manufacturing capability, and this will be made easier if such a task is not for the purpose of just the procurement and maintenance of submarines alone but for a broader set of industries that will leverage next-generation nuclear technologies for generations to come. How the government will maximise the success of AUKUS without a civil nuclear industry will be a matter that the Prime Minister will have to explain. It is unfortunate for Australia, but Prime Minister Albanese has a longstanding ideological opposition to Australia embracing zero-emissions nuclear energy. I suspect the hardheads of the Australian Labor Party know such a position is simply not sustainable. This is for several reasons, and AUKUS is one. But it is looking unlikely for now. As AUKUS moves into its implementation phase, the Prime Minister looks as though he will not be prioritising pragmatism over ideology. And it's not just the Prime Minister who is refusing to take off the ideological goggles. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, believe it or not, is worse. This minister sits on Australia's peak national security decision-making body. That is cabinet's national security committee, the NSC. And yet, despite him sitting on NSC, on 12 May, nearly two weeks ago, that minister released a video arguing that Australia is decades away from developing expertise and capability to manage energy-generating nuclear reactors. But here's the thing. The reactors in nuclear propelled submarines that we need to start managing within a decade are also energy generating. So here we have a member of the NSC not just diminishing Australia's reputation in respect to nuclear technology but openly publishing a view to the world, which includes to the United States and the United Kingdom, our AUKUS partners no less, that Australia is not up to the task. This is an absolute disgrace. Another point that the minister argued was that Australia will struggle to store used nuclear fuel and waste from energy generated in reactors. Again, what message does this send to our AUKUS partners when one of our obligations under the AUKUS arrangement is to manage these reactors? We're not sending the waste offshore. Here again we have this minister, one of the most senior ministers in the Australian government, a member of NSC, publishing views that Australia will struggle to manage nuclear waste. How is that acceptable? How is he still a member of NSC? What message does that send to our AUKUS partners? It is a disgrace. Let me summarise. Does the Coalition support AUKUS? Absolutely we do. We are proud that AUKUS is a coalition legacy and we are genuinely happy that the new Labor government is backing AUKUS and carrying it on. That is why we stand with them on this bill to give bipartisan support to ensure the passage of this bill, and that we get on with the job. However, we cannot have this bill debated in this parliament without calling out the rank hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party, including the Prime Minister and, especially, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, when it comes to their views on next-generation nuclear technology. What the minister has published should be retracted, and I question why the Prime Minister is still having that minister a member of the NSC. 18:00 Mr THISTLETH 182468 Kingsford Smith WAITE (—) (): I thank all members who contributed to this important debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. Australia is in one of the most dynamic geostrategic regions in the world. The Defence Strategic Review was a major investigation into our nation's defence posture, force and preparedness. The government's response prompted our Defence Force's first re-tasking in over 35 years. We've also identified six priority areas for response to the Defence Strategic Review, and our first priority area is to develop conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine capabilities. This is a significant undertaking for our nation and the Australian Defence Force, and this bill is an important first step in realising that aim. The bill clarifies that the moratorium on civil nuclear power, as described under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, does not apply to conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. The amendments made by this bill will enable existing regulators to perform their functions and duties, if and when called upon, in support of Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines and their supporting infrastructure. This is a significant undertaking for our nation and it requires leadership and support within this parliament. I thank the opposition for supporting this bill and I recognise the statements made by the shadow minister in his contribution to this debate, particularly his indication that the coalition support this bill in full and without amendment. We look forward to working with the opposition and indeed all members of parliament on this and future tranches of important AUKUS-related legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 142

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Second Reading 142 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 142

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Second Reading 142 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 143

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 143 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 143

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Second Reading 143 18:06 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair It's great that we finally get a chance to speak on this particular bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. This is a responsible budget for a secure future, and for a better future for my electors in Blair. The Albanese Labor government's responsible economic and fiscal management is delivering a stronger and more sustainable fiscal position for our budget, with a budget surplus forecast for 2022-2023 and lower deficits and debt across the forward estimates, returning 87 per cent of the tax upgrades over the past two budgets and 82 per cent in this budget. This budget identifies a further $17.8 billion in spending reprioritisations and restricts average annual real spending growth to just 0.6 per cent over the five years to 2026-2027. These decisions mean the underlying cash balance will be improved by $125.9 billion over the five years to 2026-2027, the biggest fiscal improvement on record. The budget forecasts a small surplus in 2022-2023 of $4.2 billion, or 0.2 per cent of GDP, the first surplus in 15 years and a significant turnaround from the $77.9 billion deficit we inherited from the previous government. In 2023-2024 the underlying cash deficit is now expected to be as low as $13.9 billion. The gross debt will be lower as a share of economy this year and in each of the next four years. By returning the majority of revenue upgrades to the budget, the government is lowering debt and reducing debt interest costs. This improves gross debt by almost $300 billion to 2033-2034, saving $83 billion in interest costs over the 12 years. This compares to the trillion dollars of Liberal and National Party debt we were left with by the former government. Why is this important? It is because the former member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, in opposition, as the Treasury spokesperson for the coalition, said that the coalition would deliver a budget surplus in their first year and every year thereafter and didn't do so, not even once in a nine years of the coalition. I really should have brought those 'back in black' mugs, but I didn't feel I wanted to contribute to the coalition treasuries. I almost regret that now, because this is the first surplus in 15 years. It also delivers targeted cost-of-living relief and it will reduce price pressures in the next year. It makes investments in a stronger economy and, I think, makes room for critical programs and services. The approach is delivering a better financial position for our economy and delivering critical services upon which our people rely. At a local level, I'm pleased the Albanese Labor government has a budget that's delivering for families and businesses in my electorate. Fundamentally, this is a responsible budget that provides that assistance. We announced an energy price relief plan that will provide relief for more than a million households across my home state of Queensland. We're working with the Queensland government to deliver residents and businesses a quarterly rebate of up to $500 from 1 July to help take the sting out of power bills, and around 205,000 small businesses across the state of Queensland will automatically receive bill relief of $650. That's $3 billion of direct energy savings and relief to Australians. It was opposed by those opposite. Who can forget the infamous votes against that last year? They seem to have political amnesia about that when you listen to these spokespersons now in relation to that particular issue. I know this will make a real difference to household budgets and small and medium-sized businesses in my electorate. We will also strengthen Medicare, with the largest one-off increase to bulk-billing incentives ever. Labor built Medicare, designed Medicare and will always protect Medicare. The bulk-billing incentive will triple for the most common consultations with children under the age of 16 years, pensioners and other Commonwealth concession cardholders. The higher bulk-billing incentive will provide immediate relief for around 105,422 eligible patients at 53 medical practices already bulk-billing in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. We're providing cheaper medicines, allowing people to buy two months worth of medications at the pharmacist for the price of a single prescription, which will deliver for 47,719 patients in my electorate savings of up to $180 per year. This change applies to more than 300 PBS medicines for chronic conditions where a GP assesses a patient's condition as stable. From 1 July this year there will be cheaper child care for 8,900 families in Blair who use childcare services, saving many households up to $1,700 a year in childcare fees. Coupled with this, we are expanding the Paid Parental Leave scheme for around 2,500 families in Blair, making it more accessible, more flexible and fairer. Critically, this budget provides support for those in our community who need it most. The government is increasing the base rate of income payments like JobSeeker, Austudy and youth allowance for eligible people. Around 10,505 people in my electorate will benefit by $40 a fortnight. Around 450 people in Blair age 55 to 59 on JobSeeker payments for nine months or more continuous months will benefit from the high rate of JobSeeker already applied to those over 60, meaning an extra $92.10 per fortnight. From September, about 745 eligible single parents in Blair will receive the parenting payments single until their youngest child turns 14, up from eight years old. It's a good decision to reverse a decision made previously. Under this change, eligible single parents will be $176.90 better off each fortnight, receiving a base rate of $922.10 per fortnight compared to the current JobSeeker rate of $745.20. Around 12,595 households in my electorate will also receive the maximum Commonwealth rent assistance rate and will benefit by an extra $31.36 in payments per fortnight from September this year. We are getting wages moving—there's no doubt about that. We're the first government for a long time to support a minimum wage rise. We're also securing another $40 per week for 466,900 workers in Queensland who are employed under a modern award. The budget also funds the Fair Work Commission's interim decision of a 15 per cent increase in minimum wages for many aged-care workers, supporting around 58,700 award aged-care workers in Queensland, including in Blair. That's an $11.3 billion commitment that only a Labor government will deliver. The coalition has never done so and didn't do it in nine years. There was plenty of gratitude but not enough financial support from those opposite. We know many people are struggling with the cost of housing and breaking into the market. That's why we are trying to assist people into homeownership. If only those opposite and the Greens would support the Housing Australia Future Fund, that would help tens of thousands of people. But we are already expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has already helped 2,142 people in Blair, among many other housing initiatives. When it comes to helping those who are most vulnerable, the Albanese Labor government's National Disability Insurance Scheme budget initiatives include $73.4 million to better support participants managing their plans and will help about 6,000 NDIS participants in Blair. I think this reform is absolutely crucial to the NDIS. The Albanese Labor government is also looking after veterans and families, investing $328.1 million in the budget to support more than 340,000 veterans, including 9,161 veterans in Blair accessing services through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the 500 extra full-time public servants processing claims on the front line are absolutely crucial. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide revealed that the coalition had ripped hundreds of millions of dollars in the last year or so out of the veterans' affairs budget, evidence admitted by the secretary of the department and previous veterans' affairs ministers in the royal commission. So there is a lot more that we are doing in this space to help veterans. One of the big issues that we have is a skills shortage across Ipswich and the Somerset region in my electorate. That is why we are working with the Palaszczuk Labor government to provide 70,000 fee-free TAFE places across Queensland. That is very important for TAFE south-west, particularly at the Bundamba campus in my electorate. We are boosting vocational education and training, and tackling these skills shortages. It is great to see people enrolling in TAFE courses in huge numbers in response to this, particularly in priority areas like early childhood education, nursing, aged care, disability support work, cyber security, construction. The extra 200,000 places we're providing on top of the 180,000 fee-free TAFE places are crucial. These come on top of the 20,000 university places, which are absolutely crucial, particularly in regional Australia. We are also supporting local apprentices and tradies with an additional $54.3 million in critical apprenticeship supports to improve completion rates and that assists 2,365 apprentices currently training in Blair. There is help for small business in the budget as well. The government will support 750,000 small businesses in Queensland with a turnover of up to $10 million by temporarily increasing the instant asset write-off threshold up to $20,000. The eligible assets will need to be first-user installed and ready between 1 July this year and 30 June next year. Around 750,000 SMEs in Queensland are eligible to benefit by the smart business energy initiative, helping them to save on their power bills through smarter energy use and by making energy-saving upgrades. The Albanese government's $2.4 billion investment in the NBN in the last budget will see 7,875 premises in Blair have access to faster and more reliable internet. That is absolutely crucial if you are living in regional Queensland, particularly on farms or in country towns in my electorate, and in urban areas around Deebing Heights, Ripley, Flinders View and Central Ipswich. The legacy of those opposite in effectively destroying the NBN as it was first conceived is absolutely appalling. They promised they would have it done by 2020 and look what they did. They just absolutely gutted it. The people in my electorate know it and they know it well because I get that feedback all the time from businesses in places like Wulkuraka, Esk, Toogoolawah and places like that. In my electorate I am very pleased to see the Ipswich City Council getting flood warning infrastructure and a support for the creeks and rivers in our area under our urban rivers program. We are providing $3 million to Ipswich City Council, because in my electorate we have had three major floods since I have been a federal MP—in 2011, 2013 and 2022. Those flood gauges, the geoscience, the riparian repair, the getting rid of noxious weeds are absolutely crucial. As we saw, those early warning systems need to be in place, so I am very pleased to see our commitment of $236 million over 10 years for high-priority flood warning infrastructure, which will complement state and local government upgrades of flood gauges and cameras following the recent floods. I know the Ipswich City Council and the Somerset Regional Council will welcome the government's ongoing commitment for critical local infrastructure through programs including Roads of Strategic Importance, the Black Spot Program, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, the Roads to Recovery Program and the Bridges Renewal Program over the next four years. I have seen the benefit of those programs in opposition and in government. I commend the Somerset Regional Council for the great work they have done. I also thank Ipswich City Council, including councillors like Councillor Jacob Madsen and Councillor Sheila Ireland who have taken the initiative in rural Ipswich. It's absolutely crucial. The budget contains two new programs which will help my local area. Thriving Suburbs and the Urban Precincts and Partnership Program will support infrastructure needs from sport, community and cultural upgrades to new precincts which will transform suburbs. I'm looking forward to working with councils and other stakeholders to apply for funding under these local project programs, and I'm very, very pleased to see that they've been provided and that we're eligible. I'm happy to see the review of infrastructure investment programs. I think those opposite, all too often, did not invest in places like Blair, under the building better regions programs and other types of programs. We did not get the kind of support we needed when we were in opposition. I saw the colour coded spreadsheet arrangements for those opposite, and we saw the egregious way they politicised funding in those areas. It's really a disgrace the way they carried on .It's surprising that now they whinge and whine and wail, but, in fact, when they were in government, they were quite happy to politicise all forms of road funding. They were like the National Party under Bjelke-Petersen of old. They were lacking in transparency and accountability with no idea whatsoever about the fact that they had to actually support all of Queensland. They wouldn't help local councils to support local communities in an efficient and effective way. They were just colour-coding spreadsheets all over the place. After 10 years of mismanagement of the infrastructure pipeline, we need this review, and I'm very pleased to support it. I look forward to supporting the budget and all the initiatives that will help my local electorate. 18:21 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler We've seen the third instalment of 'Jimbo-nomics' in the most recent budget. We saw the first instalment last October. The second instalment of 'Jimbo-nomics', of course, was the treatise that we all saw—some 6,000 words, from memory—that said that the Labor Treasurer is going to change the way that economies works and the way economics works and the way business works. It will be quite an extraordinary effort, to be frank. What we've seen in this latest implementation of the 'Jimbo-nomic' plan from the Labor Treasurer is very, very straightforward. The Reserve Bank of Australia has its foot on the brake of inflation, and the federal Labor Treasurer has his foot on the accelerator. We saw in the most recent budget an increase in expenditure of $185 billion in the forwards. What's one of the fundamental tenets of 'Jimbo-nomics'? It is to take money from those who have earned it and deliver it to those who want it. Quite simply, the people who have got it in the neck in the most recent budget are middle Australia—the taxpayers of this country—and, in my electorate, the ones who desperately need support when we have raging inflation of some seven per cent. We've seen the price of a loaf of bread go up by as much as 70 per cent. People's money is worth substantially less now than it was a year ago. What did those opposite do? The government decided not to deliver the low-income tax offset for 51,000 people in my electorate. There are 51,000 people who will desperately need up to $1,500 when they do their tax return. These are people who are working hard and paying their taxes. Now they've seen increases in their electricity costs, their gas prices, their rates, their food and their fuel. Included in the most recent budget is an increase in the cost of transport—an attack on the cost of fuel for the people who deliver almost everything in this country. No matter whether it's food or white goods or televisions, they arrive on truck transport, and, every time the cost of the transport goes up, it is paid for by the people who purchase those products. So inflation will continue to skyrocket under this government because they simply don't know how to manage it. The Reserve Bank is doing their best, and it is incredibly difficult for mortgage holders because interest rates keep going up because this government can't get a hold of inflation. We see that, in order for the new Treasurer to spruik his wares, they have substantially delayed funding for infrastructure that is critical for productivity and critical for road safety. The coalition's $120 billion plan has been stalled for two reasons. The first reason is that they do not want it in the budget and they've pushed it out into the outlier years. The second reason is that many, many programs are now under review, including programs like Roads to Recovery, the bridges program, black spots and the national heavy vehicle road safety program. In the regions I come from, these programs are relied upon by local government in particular, because it's the way they actually fix this infrastructure. And guess what? If they don't have that money, that work still needs to be done, and it will be worn by the ratepayers of those local government areas. My two major councils, the Bundaberg Council and the Fraser Coast Regional Council, got it in the neck in the Queensland state Labor government review for the financial assistance grants that go to those local governments. Those decisions are made by a Queensland Labor government committee. The coalition increased funding by some $70 million, and that funding to these two major councils has now been cut by millions of dollars, to be paid for by ratepayers. It is another increase in taxes for those hardworking individuals. The people I represent do not have readily available cash; they do not. They have one of the lowest per capita incomes in the country. They simply cannot pay these increases in electricity prices, in logistics costs, in food costs. They don't have the available money. Here are the two sides of the Labor Party. I have correspondence from Minister King, in writing, saying that the federal Labor government will honour the existing commitments in the Hinkler regional deal, and I took her at her word. I thought: 'Well, that's good. These are important projects. They're moving through the process. Many of them are contracted. Many of them are underway. Many of them are close to being done.' I thought, well, that's great; that is good for the local people. Imagine my surprise to find that they're on the cut list. We have a number of projects named in the media that have been listed as now under review. When inquiries were made of the minister's office, guess what the response was that came back? That guarantee is a 'starting position' for the Labor government—a starting position. This is incredible. There is correspondence that says you will honour the deal, followed by a statement—I assume from the media adviser in the minister's office—saying that a guarantee is a starting position. Now, I'm pretty sure that if you look up the definition of 'guarantee', whether on Wikipedia or in the MacquarieDictionary, a guarantee is a guarantee; it is not a starting position. The people I represent expect these commitments to be honoured, because they are important. They are incredibly important, if we look at what happens with road infrastructure right now. We have had two lots of fatalities in the region in the past 48 hours—a five-person crash on Goodwood Road and today a fatality on the Bruce Highway, north of my patch, in Gin Gin, in the electorate of the member for Flynn. This, unfortunately, is a regular occurrence. This infrastructure money needs to be spent, not delayed. It needs to be spent. You cannot expect ratepayers to wear the increasing costs for this infrastructure. It is incredible that the government would even look to review it. And then I come to one of the major drivers of my economy, and that is Paradise Dam. We saw a commitment from the Labor government to match the $600 million, and it's guaranteed. Is it the same guarantee we got on the Hinkler regional deal—the one that's a 'starting position'? Or is it a real guarantee? I've asked the minister's office for the profile for funding for Paradise Dam. This is an enormous project. It is critical to agriculture in the region. You cannot grow tree crops, for example, without a guarantee of water, because—guess what?—they die, and they take seven to nine years to get to the point of peak production. That is why it is so important that the federal Labor government actually honours their commitments. If they do not, people will not invest. I have 51,000 people who are missing out on the low-income tax offset. I have an enormous agricultural sector that is relying on Paradise Dam to be rebuilt. Let's place the blame where it should be. The Queensland Labor government built this dam. They built it to a price, not a standard, and it failed. It is the biggest infrastructure failure in this country's history. It is incredible that we are at this point. The dam basically has to be rebuilt. But the water that is in there is critical to investment in my region, because no-one invests without water security and water reliability. People have spent an enormous amount of time and money over the past decade putting in place avocado plantations and macadamia nut plantations. We're the biggest producers of macadamia nuts in the country. It's a major export crop. It goes to countries like China and everywhere else. They cannot have a guarantee not being met on a commitment of funding for Paradise Dam. I say again to the minister: what is your word worth? What is a guarantee worth? What is something in writing worth? It's pretty clear at the moment that it's absolutely nothing. What is it that we delivered for my local electorate? We delivered important connecting infrastructure that builds our economy, not things that look it around, not increases in electricity prices, not increases in gas prices, not interventions in markets. If we look at something like the common user infrastructure of the Port of Bundaberg, a project that was originally scheduled to cost $10 million, we see that, through years of Labor delays in Queensland, it's now $17.7 million. I secured that money in the last budget for the coalition. It's underway, and guess who did the sod-turning. It was the local state Labor member, who was opposed. They didn't want to build this. We see now that we have organisations and businesses that are looking to utilise this infrastructure for exports and imports into the Bundaberg port, a port which is, unfortunately, terribly underutilised. We have a sugar industry which is in decline. It was the major user. We now have an opportunity for other organisations to be able to load at the port in a way that is competitive with the international markets and that is competitive in terms of pricing, which means they will invest in the local port because it's the right thing to do. It's close to their facilities. It's a benefit for all. We saw the Palaszczuk government declare the Port of Bundaberg a state development area, would you believe, in February 2017. That conveyor is under construction right now. It took years for the approval. The delays have been quite incredible. For another project, the Pacific Marine Base at the Bundaberg port, we secured $6 million from the Building Better Regions Fund. It is a roll-on roll-off facility and commercial vessel wharf for the temporary berth of vessels undergoing maintenance, and it has great potential to deliver trade into the Pacific. That is important for my local region because it means they can export their products directly to the Pacific. What a great arrangement. But, once again, it was held up by the Queensland state Labor government for years in terms of signing the agreements and giving approvals. But a similar wharf in Brisbane, would you believe, I understand was approved in 12 weeks. It is 12 weeks if you're in the city and years if you're in Bundaberg and the regions. We have the Torbanlea Pialba Road flood road immunity upgrade under the regional deal underway right now. There was $24 million from the Commonwealth on an 80-20 split. That will ensure that there is an all-weather access road between Hervey Bay and the Bruce Highway. It means that they won't be cut off by floods. They won't lose their access to what is the lifeline for Queensland: the Bruce Highway. It is that critical. If you want to transport product, if you want to get to a hospital by road or if you want to get to services which are not in your town, it is the Bruce Highway that takes you there in coastal Queensland. We have the Boundary Road extension upgrade as part of the Hinkler regional deal, worth $7.7 million. It's a $26.5 million project. It will provide a relief to cross-Hervey Bay traffic with another option, particularly for those who might need access to emergency services. It will get them to the hospital faster. It will be safer and better for all people who live down there. We've had a number of black spot programs over the years, and I'm still astounded that there's even any risk at all that a very longstanding policy which is relied on by nearly every council I can think of right across the country would even have a question mark against it being delivered over the forwards. There is so much traffic build-up. We have enormous increases in terms of the population. Hervey Bay alone is growing, I'm told, some seven per cent a year. That is very high. For upgrades to the Bruce Highway between Maryborough and Torbanlea we have $103 million, once again—guess what—delivered by the coalition government and opened by Queensland Labor government so much so that they didn't even bother to invite us. But the member for Wide Bay and I weren't offended. We held our own opening ceremony. It was very well received, I'm sure! But these are important upgrades. I heard the member for Blair's contribution earlier, and the idea that these things are only applied to coalition electorates—who do they think uses the road? No-one checks to see who you vote for before you go on the Bruce Highway. It is a benefit for all Australians and all Queenslanders. The idea that this infrastructure is for some specific group is absolutely outrageous. The Bruce Highway continues to need upgrades in areas. I'm very pleased to see that the Gympie bypass is coming close to fruition. That is a very strategic upgrade, but, once again, it was one that we committed to in 2016 and took years for the Queensland Labor government to actually deliver. In my own patch, the Royal Flying Doctors Service aviation training facility is another part of the Hinkler Regional Deal. RFDS pilots will come from across Australia to train on the new Beechcraft King Air 360 flight simulator. They all have to sleep somewhere. They all have to eat somewhere. They'll all shop. They'll all utilise the local facilities. With $15 million from the Hinkler Regional Deal, this project is underway. Tilt-up panels are up. Murchie Constructions, a local contractor, won the contract, which I'm very pleased about. It should be ready and open by the end of the year. It complements the RFDS LifeFlight facility, which is right next door. When you think about linking infrastructure to build your economy, this is what it looks like. We have seen cuts to the Entrepreneurship Facilitator Program in the Labor Party's most recent budget. Since 2019 Regional Business HQ has supported 1,300 businesses across the region. They were one year into a three-year contract, and it has been cut by this federal Labor government. Can you imagine what confidence that gives to everyone out there that utilises funding? They engage on the basis that the contracts will be honoured. They make decisions around equipment, infrastructure and staffing based on those three-year contracts. The rug has been pulled out from under them two years early, with an existing contract. It is outrageous—absolutely outrageous. I don't need to bang on about the $275, because it will never be delivered. That will never show up. We have seen 10 interest rate rises under this Labor government. I'll go back to where I started. The RBA has its foot on the brake for inflation and it hurts mortgage holders, but this Labor government has its foot on the inflation accelerator and that is not in the national interest or the interest of our economy. 18:36 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke This budget is indeed a Labor budget. It's a budget that is delivering real cost-of-living relief for people in my community and communities like ours all across Australia. It's a budget that gives more support to those who need it most. It's a budget that strengthens our Medicare system, making it easier to see a doctor and cheaper to get much-needed medicine. It's a budget underpinned by responsible, considered and necessary restraint to lay the foundations of a stronger, more resilient economy for the future. And it's a budget that delivers a modest but important surplus for the first time in 15 years. This budget reflects the priorities and the posture of this government and our Prime Minister. It strikes the right balance between dealing with the immediate challenges we face here at home and setting Australia up for the challenges of the future. It is about targeted cost-of-living relief for families, fixing the mess left by the Liberals opposite in their wasted decade in government, and rebuilding a stronger and fairer economy for all Australians. From Sunbury to Ballan, and in every town and suburb in between, people across my electorate are under pressure. Inflation and interest rate rises driven by disrupted supply chains and Putin's illegal war in Ukraine are having a real impact on household budgets. Despite record job creation and wage rises, after the former Liberal government's deliberate strategy of wage suppression, we still need to ease that pressure on Australian households while keeping downward pressure on inflation. Our budget does just that with targeted cost-of-living relief. In my electorate of Hawke more than 38,000 people will save money because this government is making hundreds of much-needed medicines cheaper and allowing people to buy two months worth of medicine for the class of a single month's prescription. By tripling the bulk billing incentive for 29 GP clinics across our community, nearly 84,000 people will have better access to bulk billed GPs, reducing the out of pocket costs of seeing a doctor in Hawke. Over 10,000 people in Hawke will benefit from our responsible increase in the base rate of JobSeeker and other payments; 8,520 households will benefit from our 15 per cent boost to the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance; and, one of my favourites, our affordable childcare package is helping more than 6,800 families in Hawke save money and enable parents to return to work. Our energy rebates will reduce power bills by an additional $250. These are real and responsible measures that will keep money in the pockets of the people in my community without adding to inflation. This is what a Labor budget looks like. While there is so much to be proud of and is, I'm particularly pleased with its focus on strengthening our Medicare system and making it easier to see a GP. There is not a week that goes by without me or my office hearing from people in our community who are struggling to see a bulk-billed doctor. I've shared examples in this place before—letters from constituents whose GPs are retiring, leaving their patients with no doctor because a clinic cannot find a new one to hire, or stories of GPs so overwhelmed that they simply cannot afford to continue bulk-billing. It is heartbreaking but it is not surprising. After a decade of attacking our healthcare system, the Liberals left Medicare in the worst shape it has ever been. It all started with then health minister and now Leader of the Opposition—who, I might add, was voted the worst health minister in Australia's history by GPs—and his plan to introduce a $7 co-payment for people simply trying to access necessary medical help. That will go down as nothing more than a liberal GP tax forevermore. But that plan didn't work, so what followed from those opposite was more discrete, more covert, more insidious. They are gutted our health system with chronic underfunding and total neglect. As a result, bulk-billing rates are declining, and only 14 per cent of medical graduates now choose to work in general practice compared to the historical benchmark of 50 per cent. This Labor budget begins to fix that. This government—the Albanese government—is investing $3.5 billion to halt the steep decline in bulk-billing with the largest one-off increase to the bulk-billing incentive ever. The incentive will be tripled for the most common consultations, making it easier for 83,888 people—that's nearly 84,000 people—in my electorate alone to see a GP and to be bulk-billed—that is, not pay anything additional. All the while, we are reducing the pressure on local emergency rooms and GP clinics by establishing an urgent care clinic in Sunbury, which will be operational this year, and by implementing two-month prescriptions to halve the number of doctor visits required. This is beneficial for our primary healthcare system, it is beneficial to Medicare and, very importantly, it is beneficial for patients. This budget also provides a much-needed pay rise for a group of workers who deserve it the most: aged-care workers. Aged-care workers are the best among us, and their patient, loving care for some of our most vulnerable Australians is nothing short of incredible. However, their work has been made more difficult owing to the sector's insufficient funding and inadequate pay rates across the sector. For too long, those working in aged care have been asked to work harder or longer without adequate awards, but this budget changes that. It allocates $11.3 billion dollars to fund the Fair Work Commission's interim decision for a 15 per cent increase in minimum wages for many aged-care workers. This will benefit nearly 56,700 award aged-care workers in my state of Victoria, who will earn between $129.20 and $341.24 more per week if they're working more than 38 hours. It represents fairer pay for their hard and important work and creates more opportunities for those working in our care economy. This budget delivers real and targeted cost-of-living relief. It strengthens our Medicare system and helps some of our most deserving Australians with a pay rise. Importantly, it achieves all this while strengthening Australia's finances through restraint and responsible budgetary management. After the 10 long, wasted years of the previous Liberal government, our economy has been left with a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. Those opposite, who delusionally claim the egotistical mantle of being superior economic managers, failed to deliver a single budget surplus, despite what the former member for Kooyong's mugs might have said. They couldn't deliver a surplus because of their rorts, their wastefulness, their unproductive spending and their shameless sandbagging of their own interests. They were motivated by media stunts and press releases, and they forgot that their job was to deliver for the Australian people. This government, the Albanese government, is about more than announcements. We are about responsible governance for every Australian, and so our budget forecasts a modest but important surplus, ahead of most major advanced economies. It also delivers lower deficits and reduced debt over each year of the forward estimates. We are returning 82 per cent of revenue upgrades to the bottom line in this budget, with a total of 87 per cent across this budget and the October budget. We're making a further $17.8 billion in savings and spending reprioritisations, totalling $40 billion across both budgets. We're limiting annual growth in real payments to an average of 0.6 per cent over the next five years. By returning most of these revenue upgrades to the budget, the government is reducing that trillion dollars of Liberal debt and reducing our interest costs. This will provide a stronger and more sustainable fiscal position for Australia. Moreover, we have achieved this while providing responsible cost-of-living relief, investing in a stronger and more secure economy, funding the critical services that Australians rely on and supporting small businesses throughout our country. This is why I was so pleased to have the Treasurer visit John from Keemin electrical in Maddingley, in my electorate of Hawke, last week. There is much to commend about John and the work that he does. But in my opinion there are a couple of things that I think are best. John employs 25 people in Hawke, and they're training three apprentices. Their core business involves helping other small and medium-sized businesses save money by maximising their energy efficiency and reducing waste. This is excellent for local jobs, it's excellent for local business and it's good for our planet. I was proud to bring the Treasurer to meet John, his son Jesse—Jesse's got a pretty impressive haircut; the Treasurer will know what I'm talking about—and the entire team at Keemin so we could inform them about how our budget was assisting businesses like theirs by increasing the instant asset write-off, providing more relief on power bills for small businesses and supporting 3,315 apprentices in Hawke to complete their training. Most importantly for Keemin, this budget supports small and medium-sized businesses in electrifying, improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions, by introducing a small business energy incentive. This is what Labor's budget is all about. It's supporting everyday people and businesses just like John's—businesses and communities all across Australia. It's taking the pressure off families. It's making it easier to see a bulk-billing doctor. It's providing a much-needed pay rise for those who deserve it most. And because it's measured and responsible, this budget is doing all of that while putting Australia's economy on the best possible footing to deliver a better future for everybody in our country. 18:50 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee In my role as the shadow assistant minister for regional health and the member for Mallee, I am pleased to speak about regional Australia and my home electorate of Mallee in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. I am passionate and committed to improving healthcare services for every person living in regional, rural and remote communities, who are too often unable to access even basic health care that people in the cities take for granted. My electorate of Mallee is home to over 155,000 people and covers an area of over 83,500 square kilometres. The electorate covers 36 per cent of Victoria, making it the largest in the state. Yet, despite its size, population and economic significance to the state and the nation, Mallee is plagued by the inadequate provision of health services. Issues faced in Mallee are, sadly, common in a range of regional and rural settings. For example, in a recent health survey I facilitated amongst Mallee residents, to which nearly 2,000 people responded, 30 per cent of respondents said they do not have a regular GP. Forty per cent of respondents put off seeing a GP because it's just too hard to get an appointment. Thirty-three per cent presented to their local hospital because they couldn't see their GP. And that says nothing about the regional communities that are entirely reliant on fly-in fly-out locum services and agency nurses because there is no doctor in their region. A 2022 Grattan Institute report shows that for every 100,000 people there are 123 full-time equivalent GPs in inner metropolitan cities but only 83 per 100,000 people in rural towns. The situation shows no sign of abating, since there are nearly 3,000 GPs needed nationally and a shortage of 100,000 nurses. So, even if Labor had taken measures in their budget to attract healthcare workers to the regions, where they are so badly needed, where would they come from? The minister has failed dismally to address this glaring issue, which is leaving people in precarious states, literally, of life and death. Given this dire situation, you would expect that Labor would have announced a raft of new measures in their May budget aimed at improving access to health care in regional Australia. But, no, there is not one single new measure specifically for regional health services in their budget, apart from a few much-needed measures aimed at improving the health of First Nations people, some of whom live in regional Australia. It seems the government are in denial about the healthcare crisis facing the region, and you can't fix a problem that you are not even willing to acknowledge exists. One simple measure the government could take right now is to reverse the absurd decision to expand the distribution priority areas directing international medical graduates to specific regions. Under the new criteria, metropolitan suburbs are now eligible, and directly compete, with rural and regional areas. This completely undermines the reason for implementing this policy in the first place, because we now have evidence that IMGs, international medical graduates, are choosing to live and work in the outer suburbs rather than in the regional communities where they're so desperately needed. A delegate at the Mildura health summit, which I hosted recently in March, told us that, as soon as the DPAs changed, three of the six international medical graduates in Swan Hill left. As I've heard repeatedly, Swan Hill spent over $40,000 to get an overseas trained doctor—who made a commitment to stay for at least two years—to work in Swan Hill. But as soon as the distribution priority area was expanded, the doctor left and went south towards Melbourne. I have called on the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, to reverse this perverse decision so the DPA can do what it was meant to do—provide healthcare professionals to regional and remote communities that are crying out for them. If he continues to refuse then he needs to tell the nine million people who live and work in the regions what his solution is for our dire health workforce shortages. We now know that the Minister for Health and Aged Care implemented this change to the 60-day medicine dispensing without once consulting the Pharmacy Guild, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia or any other pharmaceutical body. If he had done, he would have learned of the devastating impacts this decision will have on pharmacy businesses, especially in regional communities, where economies of scale will not protect small businesses from the huge losses they face. It seems that Labor are intent on destabilising regional communities and are risking further closures of primary care services. While this policy will halve some dispensing costs, it appears Labor has no ability to join the dots and understand that if regional community pharmacies are forced to shut their doors because they are not financially viable, patients will not be able to access medications at all. How does that help anyone? Consequently, I express my deep concern for the repercussions of this policy that it will have on our small regional pharmacies and the people they serve. Dedicated pharmacists across Mallee fear for the future of their businesses. They have told me they are at risk of closure due to the implementation of this urban-centric policy that fails to appreciate the unique challenges faced by regional communities. Take pharmacist Taren Gill from Maryborough in Mallee, who expects to be insolvent due to losses in excess of half a million dollars when this policy is initiated. She also expects that more than 1,000 of her patients will face medicine shortages due to the measure. Alexander Look, a pharmacist from Ouyen, is concerned with the precarious state of the medication supply chain. There are already shortages of common medications, including those used for infection, diabetes, blood pressure and mental health conditions. This policy will only exacerbate the problem, leading to hoarding, potentially, and an increased risk of overdoses, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children and seniors. Mr Look's pharmacy is the sole provider within a nearly a 100-kilometre radius, making access to basic medications an arduous journey for some of his customers. Where will they go if this business is forced to close down because of this reckless policy? It is not as though regional people can simply drive to the next suburb and find another chemist; it may well be a 200-kilometre round trip. Kobie McIvor from Cohuna shared her concern about the risk of medication mismanagement this policy brings. For vulnerable older Australians who heavily rely on the guidance of support of pharmacist, regular monthly check-ins will not take place, potentially leading to poorer health outcomes. If pharmacies are forced to reduce their hours and staffing levels, the consequences will be dire for the wellbeing of constituents. Natalie Hutchison, a pharmacist from Nhill, proposes an alternative solution—go Natalie!—that prioritises patient safety by reducing the co-payment to $19, and allowing doctors to write prescriptions for 12 months would ensure that patients maintain regular support and contact with their trusted pharmacist. These professionals serve as vital links between patients and comprehensive care, safeguarding the health of regional communities. Let us not overlook the invaluable human connection that local pharmacies provide as a source of support and interaction, particularly for vulnerable older people. The comfort of walking into a pharmacy, your local pharmacy, and asking questions and receiving guidance from a familiar professional face fosters a sense of trust and community that just cannot be replaced. Many people in my electorate wholeheartedly oppose this policy that threatens to sever these essential bonds. A pharmacist from the Riverina wrote to me warning that the changes to dispensing times will burden regional emergency departments when patients inevitably run out of medication due to shortages. The increase from 30 to 60 days for over 300 medications will place additional strain on already stretched healthcare resources. This policy fails to consider the consequences it will have on emergency departments, GPs and other vital services. The Prime Minister and his health minister must address the pending crisis in health care and ensure that medications remain accessible and affordable for all Australians. I call on the government to ensure that the implementation of this policy does not jeopardise the viability of community pharmacies or impede patients' access to essential services. The government must explain to the Australian public how it will prevent stockpiling. How will they guarantee an adequate supply of medications to regional and rural community pharmacies? What policy solutions are they enacting to ensure the viability of those pharmacies, including mitigating the risk of job losses, reduced trading hours and closures? Our regional communities deserve better. I implore the Labor government to reconsider this ill-advised policy and engage in meaningful dialogue with the stakeholders and the experts who understand the unique challenges faced by regional areas. I assure you that I will continue to fight tirelessly for the people of Mallee and advocate for the needs of regional communities across this great nation. It is now up to the Labor Party to step up and demonstrate their commitment to the welfare of all Australians, including regional Australians. I now turn to the related issue of insufficient access to childcare services in regional Australia. As with all services, child care is either non-existent or in short supply in regional communities. This means that parents who could be working in the healthcare system, as we desperately need them to do—such as nurses—are prevented from doing so for the lack of access to child care. It's a perverse situation when you consider how badly these workers are needed. What is the Minister for Early Childhood Education going to do to address the pressing issue of childcare deserts in Australia? Childcare deserts are areas where families face limited or no access to quality childcare services. The Community Child Care Fund was established by the coalition government with the purpose of addressing this very issue, ensuring that families in regional areas have access to the vital support they need so that parents who want to can get back to work. However, the Charlton & District Kindergarten in my electorate of Mallee is not eligible to apply for the fund—who knew? Charlton is a small town of approximately 1,000 residents, with only the Charlton & District Kindergarten to service it. It needs access to this fund to provide child care to the local community so that more parents can get back to work. If Charlton doesn't qualify as a childcare desert then it's hard to imagine which town does. Exacerbating this issue is the absence of alternative childcare options nearby. The next-closest childcare facility would see a gruelling 120-km daily round trip, a journey that is simply unfeasible for parents living in Charlton. As a result, these parents find themselves in a deeply distressing situation in which they are unable to return to work because of the lack of accessible and affordable childcare services. I implore Minister Anne Aly to act on the glaring inequity faced by the parents of Charlton and other regional towns in Mallee, like Donald, Horsham and Nhill, and take swift action to rectify this situation. It is unjust and unacceptable that families in regional communities like Charlton are excluded from accessing the support provided by the Community Child Care Fund. The dearth of accessible childcare options not only affects parents' ability to rejoin the workforce but also hinders the recruitment and retention of essential professionals in regional areas. Without reliable childcare services, healthcare workers—who are already in short supply—are unable to pursue employment opportunities in the regions, where they're desperately needed. We cannot ignore the far-reaching consequences of this injustice. Families are burdened by the inability to access child care, leading to financial strain and diminished career prospects for parents. The time for action is now. I call on the government to urgently review the eligibility criteria of the Community Child Care Fund and ensure that it reflects the pressing needs of regional communities across Australia. We must address disparities in childcare access, with parents being unjustly denied the opportunity to participate in the workforce because they cannot access it. The minister, along with the Prime Minister, have proudly extolled the virtues of childcare subsidies— (Time expired) 19:05 Mr BRIAN 129164 Lyons MITCHELL () (): I thank the member for Mallee for her speech. It's almost like the Liberals and Nationals weren't in government over the last decade. You had the chance, Member for Mallee. One of the biggest challenges which we face and which every Australian is facing at the moment is the cost of living. The message I get loud and clear in my electorate is that the cost of living is biting. There's been an increase in inflation worldwide as we come out of a global pandemic and due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These are issues we can't control, but we are impacted by them. We can't ignore them, and we're facing them head-on. We're targeting the things we can control without increasing inflation further, and that's just what this budget does: it provides cost-of-living relief to those who need it most without putting pressure on inflation. One way that we're addressing cost-of-living pressures is to get wages moving again, helping to counteract inflation with our Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill that went through the parliament last year. And we're proud. We are loud and proud, as the Prime Minister was in question time today, holding up that dollar coin. We are proud to be the party of higher wages. It's in our DNA. From the shearers strike in Queensland all those years ago, the Labor Party was born on the issues of higher wages and better conditions for working Australians. The Albanese Labor government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay act is lifting wages, improving job security and helping close the gender pay gap. For a decade, those opposite were deliberately keeping wages low. You can't say this often enough: it was deliberate. It wasn't an accident. It was actually their policy, which they didn't want to tell Australians initially. Their policy was to keep Australians' wages suppressed. This government has a different agenda. We are supporting higher wages, and we are proud to support higher wages for Australian workers and their families. We've brought in other measures as well. From 1 July, families are set to benefit from the Albanese Labor government's Cheaper Child Care scheme. These changes will cut costs by about $1,700 a year for the average family that earns $120,000 per year and that has a child in care three days a week. Ninety-six per cent of families in the system are better off under Labor's changes, and not one is worse off. I know local families are counting down the days as we look forward to more affordable early education and care in the new financial year. This will bring real cost-of-living relief to many local families and an opportunity for more families to work, grow and thrive in my wonderful electorate, particularly in those growing family suburbs on the margins of my electorate. I've spoken to many of my constituents in recent weeks who are worried about receiving their next quarterly power bill. Rising power prices are indeed amongst the biggest burdens on Australian families and Australian businesses. Around 143,000 households in Tasmania will be eligible to receive rebates on their electricity bills under the Albanese government's Energy Price Relief Plan as announced in the 9 May budget. Households and businesses may be eligible for the rebate of up to $500 off power bills. These rebates will take the sting out of those power price rises in late 2023 and early 2024, when the increases are expected to be the most acute. Pensioners, veterans, seniors and other concession card holders, as well as recipients of the carer allowance, family tax benefit and anyone eligible for existing state and territory electricity concession schemes, will be eligible for the rebate. This is responsible and targeted cost-of-living relief. I know it will make a meaningful difference to the households who need it most and to the businesses in our community. It's got to be said again: in December, we were passing a bill through this parliament to get energy relief for households and businesses, and those opposite, who are the first to the dispatch box every question time to talk about power prices, voted against the energy relief plan. They should hang their heads in shame. At the last election, Labor said that we would strengthen Medicare, and we are delivering on that promise. We created Medicare, we believe in Medicare and we want to make sure that it's here for many years to come. We are strengthening Australia's healthcare system. We are making sure that Australians can access the care they need when they need it most. We heard from previous speakers. The member for Hawke gave a most excellent speech just previously, talking about how, under the former government, Medicare was left to wither on the vine through wilful neglect by those opposite, underfunding and underresourcing. They couldn't kill it stone dead like they really wanted to, so they tried to kill it through death by a thousand cuts, as we saw over their nine years in government. We are committed to restoring Medicare to its rightful place as the universal health system for Australia. We've already saved Australians money through our cheaper medicines policy, which came in on 1 January. Now Labor is taking the hassle out of putting in scripts and is making medicines even cheaper. Patients will no longer be required to attend a pharmacy every month and will now be able to fill a script for two months at a time. That's fewer visits to the doctor each time you need a prescription, fewer visits to pharmacies and fewer fees. In turn, that should hopefully ease the pressure on GPs and patients, who are currently facing long waiting lists for an appointment. It's all part of a holistic approach. We've cut the cost of medicines, we're helping GPs to invest in their practices, we're opening Australia's first endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics and we're opening bulk-billed urgent care clinics across the country. I know we are also looking at extending scope of practice for other health professionals. We are looking at everything we can do to strengthen access to health, particularly in regional areas like my electorate. We are absolutely determined to improve the mess that was left to us after nine long years of those opposite neglecting this issue. I draw your attention to the contribution from the member for Mallee, who talked about the dearth of GPs across the regions. She is absolutely right: there is a dearth. Frankly, it's worldwide. It's Australia-wide, certainly, and no more acute than in the regions, where we are finding it hard to not only recruit GPs but also retain those that we have. This is an issue that hasn't popped up overnight. It hasn't just popped up over the last year. Those opposite had nine years in government to work on this, to find solutions, and they just sat on their hands. It falls to us to fix this problem that we have inherited. Our investment in tripling the bulk-billing incentive for GPs will mean children and concession card holders will find it easier to see a bulk-billing doctor. Mary in Bridgewater recently visited my office to tell me that her doctor is no longer bulk-billing her regular appointments to get her prescriptions filled. We are confident that our increased incentive will give more doctors the option to return to bulk-billing for under-16s and concession card holders. This, in addition to Mary soon being able to collect a 60-day supply of her regular medication, will save her trips to the doctor and pharmacies, allow her to keep more of her money and cause her less inconvenience. The Albanese Labor government is strengthening our healthcare system for all Australians. High demand and limited supply of housing have caused costs to soar. Waiting lists for social and affordable housing are out of control. We have people sofa hopping and vulnerable people unable to leave potentially violent situations and facing an awful reality: does a woman become homeless with her kids and have nowhere to live or does she stay with an abusive partner? That's a choice no-one should have to make. We have people living in tents and families relying on their older parents. Sarah is a single parent who recently contacted me. Not only has she recently moved into an affordable rental home but she will be better off with an increase in her single parent payment and rental assistance. She told me she was one of the lucky ones to get her new home and she has a friend in the area still on the waiting list who is in a vulnerable and volatile situation. Immediate action is required to help these people. We know that the main responsibility for housing provision lies with the states and territories, and I have to say that the Tasmanian Liberal government has absolutely failed the people of Tasmania. The emergency housing list and the public housing list have blown out after nine long years of the Liberals in office in Tasmania. They're just doing nothing. They've got a plan. They've got a target. They're nowhere close to achieving it. Immediate action is required. Of course, the Labor party went to the last federal election, last May, with a well-thought-out plan, the Housing Australia Future Fund and associated issues, and it's still being blocked in the Senate by the Liberals and the Greens. They're both blocking a plan that will deliver 30,000 homes over five years, including 4,000 homes for women and children escaping domestic violence. I understand that the Liberals and Nationals opposite are ideologically opposed to public housing, but the Greens? They once again are allowing their version of what they think is the perfect to be the enemy of the good. They'd rather seem to make no progress at all on the provision of this housing than have some progress. I know the member for Griffith will be here soon for his contribution, and I say to the member for Griffith, who is the housing spokesman for the Greens: just get out of the way. By all means stand and make your speeches. Say Labor should be doing more. You've got every right to do it. But don't stop us providing much-needed housing which will make a material difference to the lives of vulnerable people who need a roof over their heads. It can happen. Once that bill is through this parliament, there's $500 million a year every year for housing. Get out of the way and let it go through. We are not here to play with people's lives. Precious time is being wasted as the housing crisis continues. I implore those opposite and the Greens to put the politics aside for our most vulnerable people and get this bill through the Senate. We're also making it easier for people to get onto the property ladder with our First Home Guarantee, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee for single parents. All of these measures are helping to get people into homes. Whether they are renters or buyers, it helps people get onto the ladder of homeownership or home rental. The Albanese government is also helping more Australians into homeownership sooner through a significant expansion of criteria for the Home Guarantee Scheme. Eligibility criteria have been expanded for all elements of a number of guarantees and schemes, and we are absolutely continuing to address these housing challenges. As I say, this is a matter that's traditionally rested with states and territories, but they've failed abysmally—no more so than in Tasmania—so we have to step in and we are stepping in. From 1 July this year, friends, siblings and other family members will be eligible for joint applications under the First Home Guarantee and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. These had previously been restricted to people who were married or in a de facto relationship in addition to single applicants. The guarantees will also be expanded to non-first-home-buyers who haven't owned a property in Australia in the past 10 years. This will support those who have fallen out of homeownership, often due to financial crisis or relationship breakdown. Modern families come in all sorts of configurations, and the great Australian dream of homeownership should not be out of the grasp of anyone. Our budget on 9 May has delivered $1.5 billion in new investment in agriculture, including a sustainable biosecurity funding model for the very first time in our nation's history. This new funding helps ensure that agriculture is protected from short- and long-term threats such as exotic pests, disease and climate change as well as helps to grow the industry through access to more workers and overseas trade markets. As well as the additional $1 billion for agriculture, funding continues for the rollout of key forestry initiatives, including grants to improve innovation, the National Institute for Forest Products Innovation and plantation establishment grants. Forestry in Tasmania is a sustainable practice. It's vital to supply timber to the national market, and we absolutely need to see it continue. Tasmania already has tough biosecurity measures in place to protect our flora, fauna and agriculture businesses—and it's helped by a nice, big water border—and to make such an investment shows that we are serious about protecting and growing our world-class agriculture. I'm proud to stand here in support of the budget that the Treasurer delivered. It's a good budget. It's a good Labor budget. It delivers cost relief to where it's need most. We're proud of our record over the past year, our first year, but there's no party. We're not popping any champagne corks, and we're certainly not breaking out any cigars. We know there's a lot of work to be done for those who need it most. We stand with the Australian people to make sure that no-one gets left behind, and we'll work so hard for a better future for all Australians. 19:20 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. As always, I've been listening to and talking to people in businesses in my regional and rural electorate of Forrest in WA and simply asking them: 'Are you better off now than you were a year ago when Labor came into government?' These are the hardworking Australians who want to get ahead. There's no doubt that Labor's budget will see inflation stay higher for longer, impacting on every Australian, including those in my electorate. That's every household, every small business, every self-funded retiree and every mortgage holder, who has been paying and will continue to pay more for longer than they should for goods and services. It's a budget built on bracket creep. That's additional taxes paid by hardworking Australians who are just trying to get ahead. Labour promised to lower the cost of living. Well, it has broken that promise, and that's just one of at least 12 promises that Labor has broken. This budget does not support the hardworking Australians who simply want to get ahead and those who are on the front line of the effects of the cost of living, the cost to small businesses and Labor's increased taxes. These are the ones who are clearly now Labor's working poor, and this comes from a Labor government that's presiding over the highest rate of inflation since the target band of two to three per cent was first established in 1993. At the same time that we have this historically high inflation rate, the government is frontloading the spending. Of the $20 billion in spending measures, $12 billion will roll out over the next 12 months. This actually means that inflation will stay higher for longer for Australian families and businesses. It's a big-spending, high-taxing budget that bakes in even greater structural spending. In fact, government spending has increased by $185 billion, but those same hardworking Australians who are just trying to get ahead have been ignored. Compared to the coalition's last budget, over the next five years the tax paid by Australians will increase by more than $300 million. Labor has removed the low- and middle-income tax offset, which means that 10 million Australians who earn under $126,000 will be paying up to $1,500 more a year in tax. This government has sent Australia backwards in its first full year. There is no plan to address inflation, it has failed to deliver on cost-of-living relief, it has failed to deliver the $275 cut to electricity and it has certainly failed to deliver cheaper mortgages. It has failed to bring Australians even closer together as a united and cohesive nation. Instead, we are seeing division created by the government. We know we're desperately short of housing and rentals, so Labor's answer is to bring in 1.5 million people—715,000 of those over the next two years. That's around 6,000 a week. Where on earth are they going to live, and how much will this increase rents, as well as building costs, for Australians? At the same time, they have cut infrastructure in the budget. It's a really contrary approach. The 1.5 million people will add to the pressure on waiting lists in hospitals, schools and childcare centres, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where we already have those childcare deserts. Labor promised to get wages moving, but when paired with seven per cent inflation, real wages have actually gone backwards. At the same time, Labor is actually employing at least 10,000 new public servants. That's on top of the 181,000 already there, and I recently read where they're working on at least a 10.5 per cent wage increase, which is currently under negotiation. There is no doubt that Labor's policies are making it harder and harder for people and business. It's certainly making it harder for small business. I hear about this all the time. Labor's high inflation is increasing every business input cost for pharmacies in rural, regional and remote areas, for farmers, for the truckies and for the transport and logistics sector. Labor is makes life harder for self-funded retirees. And, if you're using electricity, Labor is making it more expensive for you, as well as putting your access to reliable, affordable and available electricity at risk. So Labor is talking not only about a big Australia, with its 1.5 million migrants; it's clearly all about big unions, big business and big government being in charge. We do know that regional Australia is well and truly in Labor's firing line. These are the very people, the businesses and industry in the ag and resources sector, that have supported and propped up the Australian economy through both the global financial crisis and COVID. The terms of trade prove this unequivocally. But both industries are under attack from both federal and state Labor governments, which have no respect for and place no value on these critical sectors, except perhaps as cash cows for their agenda of redistribution of the economic benefits of hard work and the redistribution of wealth. The Labor government is hitting both sectors with higher taxes, market intervention and layer upon layer of regulation and control. Added to the price caps, the minister now has exceptional powers to control the gas industry. There is reduced funding for gas exploration and projects because the government has removed gas infrastructure from the National Reconstruction Fund. But Labor has also provided additional support for activists waging endless lawfare, has introduced a mandatory code of conduct, is applying higher taxes to gas companies, is introducing radical industrial relations laws and is using the safeguard mechanism, which is effectively another carbon tax, to add even greater cost to the sector. Around 36 per cent of the companies affected by Labor's latest carbon tax are in WA. Iluka Resources at Capel processing plant in my electorate is just one of the key producers of critical minerals that is going to suffer—the critical minerals we need in the transition to lower emissions. If Labor is so keen to reduce emissions, why is it that Simcoa in my electorate, the one that produces silicon—another critical mineral used in solar panels—cannot secure the ash it needs in the extractive process because of state Labor's ban on sustainable hardwood logging. Instead, they're going to have to buy coal from Colombia, ship it to the Netherlands to be crushed and washed, and then ship it to the Bunbury port. I don't know how on earth this is a better result for global emissions reduction. They are also affected by the safeguard mechanism—the carbon tax. Of great concern for future generations, as well as for state and federal budgets, is that there will be less—less—long-term investment in the gas sector in WA and the rest of Australia as a result of these measures. As for our trading partners, no wonder the Japanese are worried about sovereign risk and the continuity of critical energy supplies for their country. I see the Prime Minister has been in damage control on this issue. However, time will tell whether Japan will seek alternative suppliers to manage the sovereign risk Labor has created. There is no question that Labor pretends in public to support the gas industry, but its actions, the ones we've seen, speak louder than its words. I'm seriously questioning whether Labor wants agriculture and food production in regional Australia either. Its own budget papers identify rural and regional Australia simply as the host of renewables, instead of the producers of some of the highest quality food in the world for both the Australian people and overseas consumers. We know from recent reports that Labor will not meet its 82 per cent renewables construction targets. It's well behind on its commitments to install the 22,000 solar panels every day that are needed, the 47-megawatt wind turbines every month to 2030, and the 28,000 kilometres of new transmission corridors at $100 billion. WA alone will need 4,000 kilometres of new transmission corridors at at least a million dollars a kilometre. All of this is to be located in regional and rural Australia. So how many communities, how many farms and how much of the food-producing land, the bushland area and the coastlines will be affected, and where? With the majority of those solar panels and wind turbines coming from China, I have serious concerns. These solar panels last only 10 to 15 years. The Labor government is actually undermining our national security by increasing our energy dependence on China. Another part of Labor's budget gift to regional Australia, the area that's producing the wealth that's propping up their budget, is two new taxes. There's a new food and fibre tax on farmers to pay for the biosecurity risk created by international importers—those who actually compete with us in our domestic markets—costing our farmers $153 million. This is, effectively, forcing our fabulous local producers to cover their foreign-owned competitors' biosecurity import costs. I think it was David Littleproud who said, 'Why on earth would any Australian government tax their own farmers to allow foreigners to bring their products into this country?' Farmers are already paying charges on exporting their goods, but the Labor government is going to tax farmers. Add to this the 5.2-cent per litre increase in the heavy vehicle road-user charge, a cost that has to be passed onto people the country. This is the industry that throughout COVID was the backbone: it kept food in our supermarkets, it kept our industries going. It was the fantastic work of not only the truck drivers but also the entire industry that helped get us through some really tough times—and here is your reward: an increase taxes! What's worse is that increases in transport costs disproportionately affect the cost of food and goods and everyday transport for people living in rural, regional and remote Australia. It disproportionately affects those people—us. It will also put up the cost for every small regional business and our farmers, because everything comes on the back of a truck. Many of these can't afford to pass the costs on. They are often pricetakers in their supply-and-value chain. They either have to absorb the costs or go out of business—they're the options. We've also got this government in the process of stopping live sheep exports, such a critical industry in WA. I suspect that once this is done Labor will move to stop live cattle exports as well. In their move to continue to reduce emissions, I'm really concerned about what's next. I don't know why the state government isn't standing up to Canberra on behalf of WA farmers—not only them but also their communities, the local businesses that depend on the sector, the grains industry that will be affected, and the broader WA economy. But it doesn't stop there for regional and rural Australia. The impact of the decisions around pharmacies will most impact our small rural, regional and remote Australian pharmacies. These are not the big chains. These are the local small-business people who have invested. Add to this the fact that in regional Australia the government has extended the designated priority area for foreign doctors to work in peri-urban areas in the cities, away from rural and regional areas. We are desperately short of GPs in regional, rural and remote Australia. We know that 39 have already moved. Doctors have actually left our rural and regional areas to go to the cities as a result of this change. For rural and regional Australia this is a really key issue for us. It doesn't stop there, either. For farmers and small-business owners with farms or premises in super funds, the tax will double for those with $3-million-plus, and the tax is now being applied to unrealised capital gains. How do you go if you've got a property in there and it changes year on year? This is going to be a nightmare. And what's next? I'm just waiting for Labor to introduce a methane tax on cows, sheep, pigs and goats. I read today in the papers that the Labor Party branches are pressuring the government to halve emissions from agriculture. What that says to me is that the methane tax is next. I'm not quite sure how Labor plans to administer it—whether it's asparagopsis or the tablets—to kangaroos, wild pigs and other feral animals, given the vast populations of them. At the same time that Labor's budget surplus is dependent on exports, this is happening to regional and rural Australia. There are a lot of issues that are being faced by rural and regional Australia out of this particular budget. We're going to see increased and permanent structural spending, but I'm really concerned about the broader impacts of Labor's decisions, which really are going to affect rural and regional Australia the most. Increased taxes, the effects on those pharmacies and small businesses, and the disproportionate impact on rural and regional Australia, are, unfortunately, what we are seeing with Labor's budget. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 156 ADJOURNMENT