2023-05-30 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 30 May 2023

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, Creative Australia Bill 2023, Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 1

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023

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

Creative Australia Bill 2023

Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that unless otherwise ordered the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023, and the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the second reading of each bill; and Creative Australia Bill 2023, the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Creative Australia Bill 2023. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee 1 Membership 1 12:02 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into prevention, diagnosis and management of all forms of diabetes and obesity and its effects on the Australian population including prevention, diagnosis and management. 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Mr Perrett be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into prevention, diagnosis and management of all forms of diabetes and obesity, and its effects on the Australian population including prevention, diagnosis and management. Mr Perrett will make a fine member of the committee, and he is also the bass guitarist in my band. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 1

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 12:03 Mr JOYCE e5d New England This is a noncontroversial bill. It works on the back of a lot of things the coalition was already doing. It comes in a range of components. First, it aligns the entitlement of firefighters employed by the Australian Defence Force with civil firefighters in relation to oesophageal cancer and also other cancers such as mesothelioma, cervical cancer, that the qualifying period for employment with the Australian Defence Force will go from 25 years down to 15 years. This is to assist in the process that if you have these ailments and you have a 15-year connection, it will allow you to be an consideration for the support given to people suffering from those elements and those tragic diseases. Second, it allows for payments from specified Commonwealth, state and territory employment programs to be exempt from a veteran's income means testing. This really just brings it in line with other social security requirements that are currently there and makes sure that, as a veteran goes out and tries to avail themself of these employment programs, it doesn't unduly affect them. Third, it's for veterans who are caught overseas. If they have rent assistance, it goes for 26 weeks and then stops. But if they're caught overseas and whilst they're overseas a pandemic breaks out, or there's an industrial dispute or a war—god forbid—then their rental assistance will go beyond 26 weeks. This is something that's been allowed, but this entrenches the discretion to be able to do that. Fourth, and probably most pertinent, it allows grandparents to work in loco parentis to support a child that is a child of a Defence Force member. This is incredibly important, as we know grandparents do often stand, in so many parts of our society, in the role a parent would have otherwise done. The cost of this, in the scheme of things, is not a lot. It's about half a million dollars over the forward estimates. That is going through the three parts of the act, with the DRCA, the MRCA and the VEA. This is basically a non-controversial arrangement that allows us to make sure that how we look after veterans respects the service they have given. There's an interesting thing I'd also like to briefly note. On the weekend, it was the commemoration of the Sandakan Death Marches. The Sandakan Death Marches were at the end of the Second World War. They were where Australian prisoners of war, many from the 2nd 18th Battalion—a lot of them came from around my area—were marched in Borneo from one campsite to the next. Most of them were starved, brutalised and murdered. There were 2,324 allied prisoners of war, with 1,737 Australians. Six escaped—that was above the 1,737. Of the 1,737 that were forced to march, 1,737 died. Some of them were murdered after the end of the war. What happened was, if people became unable to walk, they sat down and they were bludgeoned to death or shot. In some instances, they were worked till they died. This is just another part of the tragic tapestry of why we have to remember those who have served our nation. There's a memorial in Tamworth in my electorate, where so many of the people in the death marches came from. All the way through our history we've had to look after veterans, because if we don't look after veterans then we're not giving true respect to those people who have served our nation. This is yet another example of what we are doing today to work on a bipartisan mechanism. You often hear that we argue all the time—we don't. The vast majority of the bills in this place go through in a bipartisan process. This is to make sure that we quickly and efficiently get these changes through in such a form that we can continue to look after the people who offered their lives when they signed that piece of paper to serve our nation. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 2

Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 2 12:09 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise to discuss the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The opposition, at this stage, will be giving support to some major aspects of this bill, and we are still in discussion with the government on one part of it, on which we are seeking further clarification because we are concerned that, as has happened with other elements of migration under the first 12 months of this government, there could be serious, unintended consequences, and we just want to seek clarification around that. The first parts of this bill are about making it clear when the minister or the government has to contact someone who could be impacted when it comes to the cancellation of a visa. For cancellation related decisions and actions, the amending legislation will make it clear that the person affected must be notified in writing and in the ways specified in the regulations. This is to make clear and to reinforce existing mechanisms which ensure that affected persons have the best chance of actually receiving the relevant documents. We have been advised in briefings that this will help limit the amount of appeals that take place in this area, and that is something that we support. We obviously want to ensure that, when the government or the minister makes a decision, it can't be tied up in knots due to the fact that there are legal arguments about whether documents were or weren't received. We want it very clear that, where all necessary steps have been taken, the government then is obviously able to provide the advice that they want to, always ensuring, of course, that there is natural justice and that there are review rights where necessary. The part of the bill which we are concerned about and seeking clarification on is with regard to those who can avail themselves of protection from a third country but might seek protection in Australia, and we want to ensure that this change does not lead to two things. First, by saying that the department can be the initial decision-maker on this, we want to ensure that this does not lead to an ability for people to avail themselves of judicial rights because the decision has been made by the department rather than the minister. Now, we understand that, ultimately, the minister makes the decision, but by putting in a step process we want to ensure that that does not open up other legal avenues, Ultimately, we want the decision to remain with the minister. If the minister has to do a little bit more work, that would stop the opening up of that ability for people to seek other avenues to appeal, which we think would actually be detrimental to what the government is seeking to do. We understand that nearly half of these cases relate to minors, but we also want some clarification on what it would mean to the other 50 per cent, who are adults, and, with regard to the minors, what it would mean to their parents. We are seeking clarification from the government on that, but at this stage we are of a mind to oppose this section of the bill unless we can get the guarantees and the certainty that we require. What we don't want to do, obviously, is, in one part of this bill, clarify and make it harder for people to use the avenues of the Migration Review Tribunal or the courts on technicalities and then, in the other part of the bill, open up the ability of people to use the Migration Review Tribunal or the courts to seek to undermine the minister's decision. So we will await that further advice and then advise the government of our final position on this bill. On the latter part: the reason we want this further clarification is that, when it comes to immigration, the government, sadly, is resorting to tried and true processes and practices which we think weren't what they took to the Australian people at the last election. I'll just go through a couple of examples of that. First of all, there is their 'big Australia' approach. We now know that the government is seeking, this year and over the next four years, to bring in 1.5 million people to this nation, and yet they have no plan whatsoever to deal with the impact that will have on housing and on rent, when we have a housing and rental crisis. There is no plan when it comes to infrastructure. As a matter of fact, the only plan when it comes to infrastructure is to cut infrastructure in the budget. And all this is taking place when businesses continue to cry out for skills. So their 'big Australia' plan isn't addressing the skills shortages; all it's doing is making a bad situation worse when it comes to housing, to rents and to congestion—especially in our major capital cities—without doing anything to address the skill shortages that businesses are facing. Where in fact they are seeking to address skill shortages—for instance, in the aged-care sector—they are using labour agreements which are designed to do two things. One is to enable easy entry for the unions. That's what the labour agreement actually states—that you have to, if you are running an aged-care business, provide easy access for the unions. So your John Setkas and their equivalents will be marching into your aged-care residence. That's absolutely what it's designed to do. Not only that, but, if the people who run the aged-care facility want to attend the meeting with John Setka or his equivalent, they have to say nice things— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The shadow minister will just pause. Whilst I have given him some latitude, I'm going to ask him to return, basically, to the bill before the House, which doesn't mention any individuals' names. He has had a fairly good go. I will just draw him back—if he could make it relevant to the bill. Mr TEHAN 210911 Thanks, Speaker. Yes, I'm happy to make it relevant to the bill. It's this part of the bill where we're just worried about unintended consequences where, rather than the minister making those final decisions, the department will initially make decisions and then ultimately they would go to the minister, and those unintended consequences we're seeing in other areas, like what the government has been doing with the labour migration agreement that they're putting in place with the aged-care sector, which we think will be detrimental to that sector and we wouldn't like to see the unintended consequences that we're seeing there occurring in this bill. There are other areas also, which I pointed out, where we're seeing unintended consequences as well—for instance, with the 'big Australia' approach which is being taken. So we will await further advice on the last element of this bill. We appreciate the fact that the government has provided us with a briefing on this bill, and we look forward to the second briefing on this specific section of this bill that we have concerns on, and then we will notify the government on what our final position will be with regard to this bill. Debate adjourned. Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 3

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

Second Reading 3 12:20 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa On behalf of the federal coalition, I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. In doing so, I affirm that on this side of the House we are committed to upholding and preserving the highest standards of animal health and welfare while supporting a lawful and sustainable live export trade. The federal coalition is proud of the exemplary animal welfare measures that Australia has within our world-leading live export industry. We appreciate that humane treatment and the wellbeing of animals is an important issue in our communities, our society and the broader agricultural sector and that it is a crucial part of our international reputation as a nation. However, the coalition will not be supporting this legislation before the House on the basis that the measures that it outlines constitute a significant overreach into state and territory responsibilities and would also create duplication of current effort within the life export system and animal welfare regulations. It's vital to recognise that Australia has a live export system that already operates extremely well and is underpinned by the highest standard of animal welfare and record-low mortality rates. This industry makes an enormous contribution to our economy, to our $81 billion agricultural sector and to the social fabric of many communities across regional, rural and remote Australia. The numbers demonstrate its strength. In 2021-22, Australia exported more than 1.1 million livestock, which included 615,000 cattle and nearly 490,000 sheep. Live exports currently have the lowest mortality rate ever. In 2022, for cattle, it was 0.05 per cent and, for sheep, it was 0.14 per cent. This success extends to our export abattoirs. In 2020, just 0.006 per cent of animals sent to these facilities had an animal welfare report raised. In 2021, it was only 0.005 per cent. In government, the federal coalition's approach was to work constructively in partnership and collaboration with the live export industry to deliver improvements in animal welfare outcomes. This was achieved, and it is a legacy we on this side of the House are immensely proud of. In contrast, the legislation before the parliament seeks to interfere with, change and modify a live export industry that simply doesn't need it. Firstly, the bill seeks to deliver a 2022 election commitment by Labor as part of its strengthening animal welfare policy platform. Members will know that this is the same animal welfare platform that pledged to destroy the $85 million live export industry, which I will revisit later. As part of its election commitment, Labor promised to establish an office of an independent inspector-general for animal welfare. This bill will deliver this by expanding the current roles, functions and arrangements of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to now include animal welfare related objectives and having the office rebranded as the Inspector-General for Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, with $4 million committed over four years. It was the former coalition government that established the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports through an act that we passed in 2019. Its role was to review the performance and the exercise of powers by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in regulating livestock exports. Importantly, the inspector-general was a recommendation of the independent Moss review, which affirmed the need for an external watchdog for the department when it comes to this industry. It needs to be noted that, under current constitutional arrangements, state and territory governments are responsible for animal production and welfare laws and their enforcement. The federal government's role is limited to trade issues, including oversight of live animal exports and export meat abattoirs. On this front, the bill will expand the review powers and responsibilities of the inspector-general into the animal welfare obligations of state and territory governments. Under item 6, section 8, of the bill, the act will be amended to expand the office responsibilities and powers of the inspector-general, with the intent to increase its focus on animal welfare. Under item 11 of the bill, a new subsection 10(1) of the act will propose that the review functions of the inspector-general include: … potential non compliance with State and Territory laws relating to animal welfare, as reported to State and Territory Governments. These extensions to the inspector-general's responsibility represent a major overreach, because Australia's domestic animal welfare regulations are set and managed by respective state and territory governments, not the federal government. However, it's not just interference with state and territory governments that is of concern. The bill also seeks to expand the objects in the act to enable monitoring, investigation and reporting on the implementation of animal welfare and live animal exports legislation and standards in relation to live exports. This is already occurring. A review of monitoring and reporting during livestock export voyages is already on the current work program of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. Additionally, the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock—the ASEL—currently undertakes extensive monitoring and reporting requirements. The ASEL is regularly updated, and every six months the Minister for Agriculture must table in parliament a report that includes livestock mortalities on every sea voyage. So, it's clear that the provisions in this bill will unnecessarily duplicate existing efforts when it comes to reviewing and monitoring live exports and animal welfare. It's also telling that prominent agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers' Federation, Wool Producers Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, all oppose this legislation. This bill undermines the reality that the system is already working efficiently, with high animal welfare standards being met as well as record low mortality rates and an ongoing healthy international demand for Australian live export products. So, why do we see such determination from this government to change and interfere with the live export industry? Unfortunately, it appears that this bill fits into the federal Labor government's broader animal welfare and activist agenda, which has Australian farmers, the national agricultural sectors and our exporters extremely concerned. They have every right to question this government's commitment to the live export industry, because we're already witnessing the devastating consequences of the government's move to shut down live sheep exports. The live sheep industry is worth $85 million a year and employs more than 3,000 Western Australians through the supply chain. That includes our hardworking farmers, transporters, veterinarians, shearers, feed suppliers and livestock agents. The Minister for Agriculture has claimed in an interview that ending live sheep exports is based on alleged evidence, but what kind of evidence is he referring to? It's not based on animal welfare outcomes, because the science and evidence clearly demonstrates that since 2018 this industry has delivered major reforms which have been enormously successful. These reforms have included an industry-initiated moratorium on sheep exports during the Northern Hemisphere summer, increased space for animals, improved ventilation requirements, better data collection, temperature monitoring, the presence of independent government observers on deck, and public reporting. These measures have made a real difference and have seen industry move away from a mortality methodology to an animal welfare methodology. The government's decision to end live sheep export also contradicts the proclaimed intent of this bill, which is to strengthen animal welfare. If the live sheep trade is shut, perverse animal welfare outcomes will be the direct result, because our international trading partners will source their sheep from other countries, who do not uphold Australia's high animal welfare standards. As the government continues to push ahead with destroying live sheep exports, other live export industries, such as the live cattle industry, will be worried about whether and when they'll be next on the chopping block. During her second reading speech when she introduced the bill into the parliament last week, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government made an important admission. The minister said that she wanted to ensure that 'Australia's livestock exports continue to be underpinned by high standards and the best available science'. That statement's correct. Australia does have a live export system that is underpinned by high standards and the best available science. This is reflected in the record low mortality rates that we see, the comprehensive reforms that have been made in recent years and the extensive monitoring and reporting that we have throughout the entire system. Overall, the evidence and science demonstrates that the current system is working efficiently. To conclude my remarks: Australia doesn't need the interference and changes outlined in the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. There is no need for this bill, which will add more red tape for the officers of the inspector-general and duplicate existing animal welfare efforts and regulations that we currently have across governments and the entire live export industry. There's no need for this bill, which significantly overreaches the role of the inspector-general into the responsibilities of state and territory governments. There is no need for this bill which attempts to expand the functions of the inspector-general into duties which capture a heavier focus on animal welfare. Rather than change the functions of the inspector-general, the government should be demonstrating real support for the live export industry by immediately reversing its ideological decision to shut down live sheep exports. This is what's actually needed. By introducing this bill into the parliament, the government has shown once again that, when it comes to supporting Australian agriculture and the live export industry, its priorities are all wrong. For these reasons, the federal coalition will be opposing the bill. Debate adjourned. Creative Australia Bill 2023, Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 5

Creative Australia Bill 2023

Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 12:31 Mr L6B Bradfield FLETCHER (—) (): I rise to speak on behalf of the coalition on the Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. By all who believe that what the Australian arts sector needs is more Commonwealth arts officials, this bill will be greeted with delight. The coalition by contrast believes that arts funding should as much as possible go to support artists, performers and arts workers, backstage crew, ushers, front of house—all of the people who work to deliver a great show for those who are there to see it. Whether it's performing arts, visual arts, literature or whatever art form, getting the money to the front line is a good principle and a principle which is almost entirely absent from this bill. These two bills are part of this government's legislative agenda to implement decisions announced as part of its national cultural policy. This government seems very keen on imposing priorities, principles and values upon artistic and cultural activity. Whether that will actually produce better artistic content is highly doubtful. The lessons of history are not encouraging. If programming and curatorial choices are driven by political priorities, you end up with pretty dreadful art. Stalinist Russia with its turgid dramas and operas celebrating heroic workers exceeding their tractor production quotas is but one of many examples. A much better approach might be to leave it to the artists and performers, rather than putting our faith in having many more arts bureaucrats. But these bills, give effect to a rather different set of priorities. So far, we've seen legislation passed which changed the name of the Australia Council to 'Creative Australia'. The Creative Australia Bill 2023 before the House today is the next piece of this legislative agenda. The government tells us that the new Creative Australia entity will have expanded functions and responsibility and a new governance structure as the Creative Australia body replaces the Australia Council body. The associated bill—the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill—will repeal the legislation as it relates to the Australia Council, essentially dissolving the entity of the Australia Council under law. Does this mean the old Australia Council is abolished and replaced by Creative Australia? Apparently it's not quite that simple, because we are also told that Creative Australia will be overseen by a board of people who will now be known as the Australia Council Board. Unlike the old Australia Council, which had 12 people serving on it, this body will have 14. Apparently the reason for this convoluted arrangement is to the honour the Whitlam government which originally established the Australia Council. This does raise the rather obvious question: why not just keep calling the whole thing 'the Australia Council'? We are told that the new body will oversee support for contemporary music and safe and respectful workplaces for artists and arts workers. The bill outlines responsibilities for Music Australia and Creative Workplaces, the two entities which will be established within—or underneath or subject to—Creative Australia, and those two entities will be subject to the internal procedures and rules of Creative Australia. Further, the Creative Australia board—which, as we know, is going to be called 'the Australia Council Board'—may give direction to these two entities. All crystal clear, I think you'll agree, Deputy Speaker Vasta! Several aspects of these new arrangements are troubling. The first is that we are seeing a re-weighting of spending towards more Commonwealth arts officials at the expense of genuine frontline arts activity. According to the budget papers, average staffing levels for the Australia Council will increase by 32 per cent, from an estimated 108 in 2022-23 to 143 in 2023-24. The government has announced funding of $199 million over four years for the new body. At least some of this has been redirected from a number of places, with the current government having cancelled several programs funded under the previous coalition government, including the temporary support fund and the balance of the Location Incentive program. The simple fact is that every dollar which goes to fund more bureaucrats is a dollar that cannot go to artists, performers and all those in the arts and creative sector who deliver actual arts and creative activities that Australians can be informed, entertained, stimulated, provoked and fascinated by. This kind of game playing with arts budgets is an increasingly familiar feature of Burkian arts administration. Consider the perplexing appearance and subsequent disappearance of the minister's Live Performance Support Fund. Announced in the October budget as part of a $38.6 million supporting the arts program, it was supposedly going to deliver funding for plays, concerts and festivals from November 2022 through to February 2023. But then nothing more was heard of it until the recent budget confirmed the unfortunate demise of this program, without a dollar being spent. There is a clear difference in focus between the two parties when it comes to what we want to fund in the arts. The coalition's focus was unapologetically, unashamedly, on stimulating as many new shows, events, festivals and productions as possible and getting them attended by as many Australians as possible all across the 7.7 million square kilometres of this great southern continent—across regional and remote Australia and throughout our suburbs, as well as in the CBDs that are more usually the territory that is familiar to arts ministers. In fact, 541 shows and events all around Australia were funded under our $200 million Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand, or RISE, Fund. We even allocated a further $20 million towards this program in the March 2022 budget. Now, you would think that any incoming arts minister consumed with a passion to stimulate as much arts activity possible would gratefully seize upon $20 million of allocated but unexpended funding towards additional arts activities and would move with alacrity to spread that money across the nation, stimulating yet more shows, festivals, productions and events and giving yet more Australians the opportunity to see outstanding performances and shows and to read outstanding literature. All of that would have been open to the incoming minister, having regard to the availability of that $20 million that was just sitting there, ready to be used. What did this great champion of the arts do? He cancelled it—killed it, chopped it. That was $20 million which could have been put to work as early as May or June last year towards stimulating more arts activities. But, for reasons which remain mysterious—another of the enduring mysteries of Burkian arts administration—that money was never used, never deployed, never take advantage of. I have spoken of the coalition's preferred approach, which is getting money out to frontline arts workers, performers and backstage crews to put on shows and enable more Australians to see them all across our country. The current government has a very different approach. They prefer to spend more money on bureaucrats, more money on Commonwealth arts officials. It may be that the minister's experience as he walks around Australia, as he goes through airports and goes to events, is that constantly approached by people saying, 'Minister, what we need are more Commonwealth arts officials.' It is possible that he has discerned this sentiment is widely held across our land by Australians of all kinds. It is possible. I have to say, in my own time as arts minister, I never discerned such a sentiment. I can confidently say that in three years never once was I approached by any Australian saying to me, 'Minister, do you know what we need? We need more Commonwealth arts officials.' But it may be—I will readily concede this—that I was simply not listening as carefully as the current minister; that is possible. It may also be that the two parties have a very different philosophy when it comes to how arts funding should be deployed. One party is much more interested in getting the money to the front line—more shows, more events, more productions, more artistic and cultural activity—and the other party is much more interested in more bureaucrats. I think the facts speak for themselves. I want to turn to one other aspect of what is before the House today, the complicated arrangements which have been introduced by the minister. There are on the body previously known as the Australia Council 12 members, quite a few of whom were appointed in the last few months of the previous government. I predict that we will see at least some of those members, particularly those perceived as being ideologically tainted because they are perceived to have some kind of association with the coalition, dumped by this minister. And I predict that that decision will occur regardless of whether the people who are dumped, in fact, have proven subject matter expertise when it comes to arts administration. It is true that when he came into government the now Prime Minister claimed he wouldn't play politics. He offered to govern in a fair and consultative way, but I predict we will see that promise broken when it comes to the Australia Council, particularly when it comes to certain members of that body appointed by the previous government. It is a grubby way to operate but, sadly, all too typical of this government. I conclude by observing that, although the coalition will not be opposing these bills, the case has not been made for the changes contained within them, and they are not in the main things we would choose to do, as I think I have made clear. Our funding priorities are quite different—more activity in the front line. We think, frankly, that Australia is already richly served by its current complement of arts bureaucrats. We do not detect that they need more. I conclude by pointing to the historical record, because we hear a lot of misleading rhetoric from the current minister. The simple fact is record arts funding from the Commonwealth government in this nation was achieved in the 2021-22 financial year, when Commonwealth government funding for the arts reached $1 billion. I make the point that that occurred under a Liberal-National government. Record arts funding in this country was delivered under a Liberal-National government and, despite the never-ending rhetoric from the current minister, that fact has not changed. The coalition has always had a clear focus on an appropriate balance between public and private sector spending when it comes to arts and cultural activity. We have also had a clear focus on the economic importance of the arts. I make the point that this is not necessarily a political divide. Indeed, the portfolio under the Victorian government has been known as the creative economy for some time. But the simple fact is that, while the previous government's focus was on stimulating more arts activity, the present government has a different focus—more arts officials is the solution to all our problems! The two bills before the House are reflective of the very different philosophy and very different focus of the current government as compared to the previous government when it comes to how to approach funding for the arts. Debate adjourned. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 7

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 7 12:45 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Again, I want to say how proud I am that the Albanese Labor government is seeking to hold this referendum in taking this incredibly generous invitation from First Nations Australians, as set out in the Uluru statement, to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. I want to begin by again acknowledging as we do each morning when we open in this place the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, land which was never ceded. What a privilege it has been for me to grow up on your country, to live and work and raise my own family on your country. I want to acknowledge the elders of this area. I respect their deep, significant cultural connection to this country that has existed for over 65,000 years, the oldest continuing culture on the planet. Canberra, my home, is named after the Aboriginal word for meeting place, 'Kambera'. Long before it was our capital city, this region was a meeting place for local Indigenous nations. 'Canberra' is a beautiful word, with a beautiful meaning. Canberra is a beautiful place, important to both modern Australia and First Nations Australians. Too often people in this place dismiss this city. In this debate, we hear those opposite mockingly refer to the proposal as the 'Canberra voice'. 'Canberra' is not a dirty word. I am a proud representative of this wonderful city and I am so grateful to experience its rich Indigenous heritage every day. Last night with my ACT colleagues, the member for Fenner, the member for Bean and Senator Katy Gallagher, I hosted a forum for the Canberra public on the Voice. We had over 300 people come in person and another 400 join us online. I want to thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, ANU Vice-President First Nations, Professor Peter Yu AM, and Noah Allan, a brilliant young Ngunnawal man, for joining us and sharing their insights as part of that panel. It was an honour to hear from such a wise and generous panel in what they shared last night. Honestly, I don't know how anyone could have listened to that panel and not wanted to vote 'yes' and get out and campaign for 'yes' to this referendum. We also were welcomed to country by Aunty Violet Sheridan, a leader in our community who works every day. I really want to acknowledge her contribution to the life of our city and community. In her beautiful welcome last night she said: I speak of hope. I speak of the proposed Voice to Parliament, a beacon of empowerment and self-determination. I acknowledge the truth of the pain of an ongoing struggle that many of my people face. Let us commit to dismantling the barriers that divide us and embrace the richness of our shared history.' Aunty Violet's words sum up why this proposal is so important. Every year we hear from the minister about progress on closing the gap. Unfortunately, progress is too often slow or nonexistent. As Aunty Violet said, the Voice will help us dismantle the barriers dividing us. It will help us close the gap. The Voice is about two important concepts: recognition and consultation. It's recognition, long overdue, that we share this vast continent with the oldest continuous culture on the planet. It's recognition that First Nations Australians have been here for over 65,000 years, that their connection to this land is real and meaningful in a way that white Australia can't even comprehend. And it's about consultation, a concept we love to talk about in this place, a concept which at its most fundamental and basic level is about talking to and taking on the views of people who will be impacted by the actions you take. It's a level of basic respect that is owed by this nation to its Indigenous First Peoples. This week is Reconciliation Week, a week in which we mark a few important milestones. First, on 27 May 1967, Australians voted in a referendum to ensure that First Nations Australians were recognised as a part of the Australian population. Second, on 3 June 1992, the High Court handed down the Mabo decision, which abolished terra nullius and recognised the deep connection of Indigenous Australians to their land. This year the Australian people are being asked to vote in a referendum which, if successful, will be the next hugely significant milestone on the path to reconciliation. It is a proposal put not by the Labor government but by First Nations peoples themselves, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This debate is an incredibly important one, but we must not forget the impact it will have on First Nations Australians, and I am concerned at the tone of the debate, particularly from those opposite and from the 'no' camp. Over the past week we've seen some pretty grubby politics from those opposite on this issue. We've seen dog whistles, we've seen furphies and we've seen old tropes re-emerge. I'd like to take a moment to dismantle some of the mistruths uttered by those opposite. The opposition has put forward arguments about the sanctity of the Constitution and that change should not be taken lightly. All of us in this place acknowledge the importance of our Constitution and the need for careful consideration. But on this side of the House we firmly believe that enshrining the Voice in the Constitution is a progressive and positive step forward for our nation—one that will make Australia a fairer place where nobody is left behind. In the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition we heard about the accomplishments of our forefathers and the success of our Constitution. But it is essential that we also recognise that this is a document that was drafted over a century ago, at a time when Indigenous Australians were described by speakers of this very institution in terms that should never be uttered by anyone, especially not elected members, into the Hansard. We cannot deny the historical injustices that remain unaddressed, the history in this country of racism and hurt that remains. Recognising the First People of Australia in the nation's birth certificate is a crucial step towards reconciliation and inclusion. Contrary to the claims made, the proposed changes are not being put forward to divide our country. Rather, they aim to unite us by giving Indigenous Australians a meaningful platform to voice their concerns and contribute to the decisions that affect their lives. It is about recognising their unique heritage and ensuring that their perspectives are taken into account in policymaking processes. We have known through centuries of failure that making policy about First Nations people without First Nations people does not work. Seemingly, the opposition would seek to have us continue along this failed path. We've heard from some in this chamber that the Voice would see 'the end of parliamentary democracy as we know it'. What absolute rubbish! The Voice would be an advisory body that provides recommendations and guidance to the parliament and the executive government. It would not possess legislative power and cannot override the decisions made by the elected representatives of this place. It is simply a mechanism to foster greater consultation, dialogue and understanding, which will ultimately lead to better outcomes for all Australians. Importantly, it is what First Nations Australians have asked for. The claim from the Leader of the Opposition that the Voice will impede our democracy and lead to years of litigation has been debunked by constitutional expert after constitutional expert. Yet the opposition refused to listen. They demanded that the government make public the legal advice provided by the Solicitor-General. When we did, did they accept that advice? Of course they didn't. I have faith that Australians will not dismiss this proposal based on the ridiculous and outlandish hypotheticals and fearmongering from those opposite. The opposition have shown us their inability to engage in constructive debate and work towards practical solutions. We've heard countless coalition members talk about the importance of an egalitarian society, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, true equality means acknowledging and addressing the disparities that exist within our society. We currently do not live in an equal society. Just looking at the gaps—the shameful gaps—in life expectancy between First Nations Australians and other Australians, in health, in educational outcomes, in incarceration rates, and in rates of children in out-of-home care, we do not currently live in an equal society. Professor Yu last night at our forum spoke of the pain his family went through as a result of the policies of successive governments. He said: 'I used to live on an Aboriginal reserve in Broome. We had to be outside of town at the 6 pm curfew. My mother was required to apply—she didn't, but she was required to apply—to get a dock ticket that meant she wasn't allowed to speak her own language or associate with her family, so she could be considered an honorary white and work as a maid for a white family. So, when you think about that history, these are the fundamental premises of the birth of the nation and the denial of our people. So this referendum is not just about the advisory body; it's about reconciling of a key fundamental of the birth of this nation.' And last night in our forum, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, and Professor Yu talked about how they and others of their age actually lived in a country where they were not counted as part of the population. Really, it is very hard to comprehend what that would feel like. And it is shameful that that ever happened. But in 1967 Australians voted to change that, and that is why votes such as that upcoming this year are so important: they do make fundamental changes to the lives of people in this country. The Voice is a step towards achieving a more inclusive and just Australia, yet those opposite would have you believe otherwise. Lastly, I want to emphasise that the proposed changes to the Constitution have not been rushed or taken lightly as the opposition would have you believe. The most extensive consultation and discussion with Indigenous Australians in history took place over many years, culminating in the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, a consensus document calling for three things: voice, treaty and truth. The process was inclusive and consultative, contrary to the claims made. Then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in his response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, broke the heart of Indigenous Australians. I am proud that this government and this Prime Minister won't be swayed by the mistruths spoken by those opposite. We will walk hand in hand with First Nations Australians and grasp the chance of meaningful reconciliation offered by them. We will support the proposal that commands the support of over 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians. And we will campaign and we will win—not for us, but for every Australian in all corners of this wide brown land. I want to conclude by quoting Noah Allan, a young Ngunnawal man who participated in our panel last night. He was asked what the Voice meant to him, and he said: 'We've always had a voice. This will mean our voice will finally be heard.' 12:58 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning This year, millions of Australians will be asked to vote on the constitutional amendment in this bill, Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The choice we make will be the most consequential electoral decision of our time, perhaps since Federation, for it's poised to create a new institution of government, and, of concern to many, it will bring back an old idea, one we thought we had expunged: the idea that there are two kinds of people—two kinds of Australians. This choice will be made by the people. It's important they know what is at stake. So today I want to speak directly to my constituents in Canning. In our community, we are new Australians, we are seventh-generation Australians and we are First Australians. And, together, we all long for a nation where our sons and our daughters know they are equal and know they belong. We are grieved by the moments when we lost our belief in our shared humanity, equality before the law and our common dignity. Perhaps no moment was more shameful than that on 28 October 1834 when Captain James Stirling led a detachment of 24 soldiers and civilians to a bend in the Murray, 23 kilometres south-east of my home, and led a murderous ambush on 80 Bindjareb Noongar men, women, children. At least 15 but perhaps 50 were killed in cold blood, as bad as any atrocity that I've heard of in modern warfare. Stirling later admitted that it was his plan all along not just to punish with decisive severity but to appal the local Aborigines. Some settlers, like Thomas Peel, were delighted by Stirling's actions, receiving title to more than 250,000 acres of land surrounding the massacre site only weeks later. Others were appalled, with one Christian settler calling it 'a shocking slaughter'. The Pinjarra massacre went directly against the instructions given by the Crown as to the treatment of Indigenous people: that we were to 'conciliate their affections, enjoining all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them.' While some, like Captain James Stirling, forgot these directions in 1834, others, like Captain Frederick Irwin, remembered. It was not simply a matter of being a good soldier who followed orders. It was more than that; it was conviction. Captain Irwin was a man of war, make no mistake, and he came down hard on lawbreakers in Western Australia, settler and Aboriginal. He also believe that, while Aboriginal people may not be like him, they were equal to him under the law because they, like him, were subjects of His Majesty and, more to the point, they, like him, were made in the image of God. After the Pinjarra massacre, Irwin used his power and influence to create the Eliza mission where Kings Park is today. It was a safe refuge from frontier violence where Noongar people could come and go freely for shelter, food and medical aid. Who knows how many Indigenous people we wouldn't have with us today if it hadn't been for his actions there? Captain Stirling's and Captain Irwin's are two competing visions of humanity. In my own life as a soldier, I sense I have known both these men. One believes different people have different value and can be dispatched with great violence and without thought. The other believes we have equal value, that we are one blood. As Australian history has unfolded these past two centuries, Frederick Irwin's vision of equal value under law has prevailed over James Stirling's vision of violence at Pinjarra all those years ago. The violence during early British settlement is hard history. It's hard to reconcile with our present moment. But these are the voices from that time that speak to me. I hear the words of the Scottish migrant Robert Lyon. He felt very uncomfortable with the way Stirling was taking conflict with the Noongar people. It takes bravery to speak against the grain of the moment, but he did it. He pled that Aboriginal people were 'guilty of no crime but that of fighting for their country. We call their deeds murder; so might they ours. But the fact was that they had a right to make war after their own manner.' The Noongar people were just like the settlers: people with families, people with rights, including the right to defend themselves, and that principle still challenges us now. It has led us on a journey right through to today. There have been peaks and valleys along the way, with the 1967 referendum being a high point in public sentiment for the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but there is still much to be done as we seek an ongoing reconciliation, and the Pinjarra massacre reminds us of the moral burden that lingers over our national history. And now we consider the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice with this central question: does this Voice create a new risk of making one people more equal than another—or, put another way: can we atone for the inequality of the past with a new kind of inequality? I accept that many people in Canning, who share the same longing for equality between us, have formed opposing opinions on the question before us, and I respect that. But our job in this House is not merely to echo these opinions. The people who sent us here deserve more than that. We, their elected representatives, need to wrestle with history and offer our best judgement. To be direct: I do not support Labor's voice. I think this Voice is a radical departure from our parliamentary system, fundamentally changing the character of Australian governance. One of the great challenges we face in the future is governing fairly for all Australians in a society that is becoming more diverse. The great cultural consensus of the last century has evaporated. The rise of independent and minor parties is proof of that. Our democracy needs to be fair for all Australians regardless of ethnicity, regardless of religion, regardless of gender, regardless of sexuality, regardless of origin. That's why the rule of law is central to our idea of fairness. Everyone, regardless of wealth or privileges, is equal before the law. We now see the challenge of a toxic new politics that divides people into tribes based on their identities, and I reject that politics. Instead, I want to see greater unity, cohesion and fairness in Australia, and, sadly, this Voice, while well-intentioned, will only entrench division. Those opposite argue that the Voice will advance the interests and welfare of Indigenous Australians, but they haven't shown us how. It is vital, though, that we do more for Indigenous Australians. Everyone in this place is agreed on that. That's why we on this side of the House with full hearts support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and the empowerment of local and regional voices across our country. When we consider Labor's Voice, we must also balance it against the interests and welfare of every other Australian, including the many first generation migrants who have chosen Australia as their home. Sadly, I think Labor's voice undermines equality before the law—that very principle which is the great attraction for many migrants to our ancient land. There are a few of the points I'd like to note today. First, the Prime Minister has made a mockery of this referendum process. He has not convened a constitutional convention to build consensus on the amendment or to refine the drafting or to narrow the areas of dispute. He has not sought to build bipartisan consensus across the aisle. He has rushed the parliamentary committee process, cutting short important deliberation. Only six weeks were allocated to receive submissions, hold public hearings around Australia and report back to parliament on the legal effect of the constitutional change. He has not established a yes or a no campaign so that all Australians can easily access and consider the competing arguments. The truth is that Labor has stacked the deck for the 'yes' campaign at every turn. This is not democratic, nor is it respectful of the Australian people. It casts a shadow over the whole referendum, and if this referendum fails, all the ensuring heartache belongs to the Prime Minister. He has not drawn the country together, which is the special task expected of a national leader. Second, this amendment is risky. It poses a massive risk to our democratic system of government. Legal experts have given evidence that the amendment will impose two mandatory duties on the government: a duty to consult the Voice prior to decisions and a duty to consider representations made by the Voice. This will radically change governance in this country. Decisions will be delayed. There will be endless consultation and gridlock. But don't take my word for it. Robert French AC, a retired chief justice of Australia, gave evidence that it would 'make government unworkable'. His evidence was supported by Kenneth Hayne AC, a retired High Court justice, who gave evidence that the Voice 'would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government', so much so that it may 'bring government to a halt'. If you think that those retired justices were exaggerating, take it from one of the most strident advocates of the Voice, Professor Megan Davis, chair of the government's First Nations Referendum Working Group. According to Professor Davis, the Voice will be able to speak to cabinet, public servants and Commonwealth law bodies, among others. As Voice advocate Professor Greg Craven put it, the Voice will have a say 'from submarines to parking tickets'. Australia has enjoyed stable democracy for the last 122 years. Is it imperfect? Yes. But it is unique when considered in the broad sweep of human history. This radical and risky proposition will sever us from that tradition of stability and entrench division and gridlock into our governance. Third, there is no detail on the Voice itself. How will it interact with the parliament and the executive? How will membership be determined? How will members be appointed and for how long? How much will it cost? How will my local Indigenous people, the Bindjareb Noongar people, long-time custodians of Mandjoogoordap and the surrounding lands be represented? Will their voices be heard among the many others from across this land? These questions are fundamental to the consideration of this proposition, and the Australian people can't make an informed decision without answers to these important questions. Fourth, this constitutional amendment will be permanent. It can't be undone. It's final and it's certain. Given all the risk to stable governance, the lack of detail on the Voice itself, the shoddy process and the partisan approach by Labor, we cannot gamble with our unique democracy and hope this radical change will work out from the other side. Had the Prime Minister led a proper consultative process, had the Prime Minister reached out across the aisle in a spirit of unity, had the Prime Minister hammered out the detail, had the Prime Minister engaged with the risks and sought to minimise them, we might be seeing a vastly different approach to this referendum. Instead, the Prime Minister has failed to lead, and I fear his legacy will be one of division and heartbreak, setting the cause of reconciliation back for generations. Finally, I have a word on the debate itself. I have heard some nasty comments from the yes side directed at those who have questions about the Voice, firing off accusations of racism and bigotry and nastiness. I won't repeat them here. I'm sure bad things have been said by the 'no' side as well. But this has to stop. We all must show respect, good faith and tolerance toward one another. So, to my constituents in Canning, I say this: it's okay to vote either way after considering the arguments. And, having considered the arguments, I will be voting no in the best interests of all Australians, to uphold equality before the law and for the future stability of our democratic country. But I won't be standing in the way of this bill, which will enable the referendum to go forward. I say today to the people in Canning: we are all of one blood—one, not two. We are one people, one and free. 13:10 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page In my first speech to this place, when I spoke about the First Australians, I made the comment that they are the guardians of this nation's soul, with a wonderful, rich history, and we are the beneficiaries of the tens of thousands of years of connection they have with this land, this country, this continent. It gives us a rich tapestry and a spiritual connection—and, as I say, they are the guardians of the spiritual connection that we have with this continent. The disruption of colonisation, as we know, was huge, and the stats unfortunately support that. If we look at the statistics for length of life, attendance at school or whatever, our First Australians are either at the top of a list you don't want to be top of or at the bottom of a list you don't want to be at the bottom of. This is especially so in the regional and more remote communities that people live in. Over many decades now, we have been trying to correct that through Closing the Gap and other things. We have a department of Indigenous affairs, which spends much money targeted at different programs and different services trying to close those gaps. We have over 1,100 Indigenous advocacy groups—who are working with communities, trying to get support and money—and different support networks trying to close this gap. Very proudly, we have a record number of Indigenous MPs in this place, who are speaking for those communities and their wider community. But, again, probably the biggest blight on our country is the statistics under Closing the Gap, which, despite many of these programs, still has not done the work that we would want it to do. As a starting point for what the Voice is looking to do, I think there are two distinct points. One is putting the Voice into the Constitution, and many speakers—speakers on both sides, I think—have said this is important because it's about recognition. There would be very few people in this place or outside this place in the wider community that would have any issue with recognition of our First Australians in the Constitution. It's a fact that Terra nullius was not a fact. Recognition of First Australians is not an issue. It's also a fact—and the statistics still say—that as a section of our community they are disadvantaged. No-one is disagreeing with that either. There is disadvantage in the communities, and there's recognition of that. It's factual. But we need to now talk about what the Voice is proposing. The Voice is not just about recognition; it's about forming an entity that has the ability and the right to give advice to executive government. Now, this has raised many questions, and I compliment the member for Canning, who went through some of these earlier: Who is on the Voice? How many people are on the Voice? How are these people chosen to be on the Voice? Again, these people will not be elected by the Australian people. They will not be publicly elected. So how do we choose them? What powers do they have? If they give advice to federal parliament, who are elected officials, and that advice is not taken up by parliament, there is contention around what that means. I don't think it could be negated by anyone that there would be a High Court challenge on that type of stuff. How will the High Court interpret what the Voice's recommendation is on something, relative to what federal parliament says or does? That brings into question many things which we need to have a discussion about before this referendum goes ahead. As a number of speakers on our side have said, there should have been a Constitutional convention on this. We did have a parliamentary committee that looked into it, and that parliamentary committee process was one of the shortest I've ever seen. On a topic as important as this, that particular committee process should have been much longer and much more involved, and a lot of these questions should have been answered, talked out, and a position arrived at before the referendum was put. What this is suggesting, unfortunately, is that because there hasn't been a good convention process or a healthy parliamentary committee process, this is becoming exactly what we don't want it to be. It's okay to disagree on something, but this is now becoming divisive on an issue that we really wouldn't like to be divided on. There are faults on both sides here, but so often now I have heard that if you're saying no, the other side—even last week, in this chamber, I read my colleague the member for Cowper's speech on this issue last week. I thought it was quite a gracious speech. He spoke with great grace about the minister for Indigenous affairs. He spoke quite touchingly about his own father, a GP in Kempsey who was the first GP to start to see Aboriginal people at his clinic. I read the speech because a New South Wales Supreme Court judge called him a racist, simply because he had an opinion that was different. That type of language is completely unacceptable. If you disagree with the Voice and you are voting no on the Voice, you are not a racist. It means you have real concerns that you don't believe have been answered or the process hasn't given you the data that you need to vote yes. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the people who are supporting the no case are scaremongering or being Chicken Littles. That is not leadership. That is not statesmanship. That is dividing us. That type of language from our leader is causing division on this issue because, rather than going to the heart of the debate, it's name-calling people who have real interest, real passion and real concern about it and are asking questions. Some of them are Constitutional experts who are arriving at a place where they are going to say no, and I think a lot of that is because of the process this government has undertaken and, more importantly, a lot of it is because of the process that this government won't undertake as far as this referendum is concerned. That has been very disappointing. The great thing about a referendum is everyone will have their say. That's encouraging. Again, I'm disappointed with the way the government has run and led this process. I say to the people of my community: make your decision in good faith. I respect people of both opinions. For those who are voting no, I respect that opinion, and for those who are voting yes, I respect their opinion. I know many people on both sides of this debate. I will be voting no. In some ways it gives me sadness to vote no. I'm voting no because I think it is a poorly worded Constitutional question. I think it has been really poorly explained—I have questions that I don't have answers to. I think it risks the process of government. I think the power of the Voice, who is on it and how it will work is completely undecided an unresolved, which I think could cause great disruption to a federally elected parliament and raise questions of good governance in this country. It's a disappointing process that has been led by this government, but as this process continues the one thing I ask the government, and especially Prime Minister, is to please not call people names. Please don't call out people who are voting no in any derogatory way, because that helps nobody. 13:19 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I'll be voting no to the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 as well. To be Australian is one of the greatest honours. We are a people of rich history and diverse culture, beliefs and backgrounds. It sees differences that make us one of the greatest nations on Earth. Nowhere else in the world is there a success story like ours—one of Indigenous heritage, of British inheritance and of migration and multicultural success. When I look at my electorate of Petrie I see this richness demonstrated in the diversity of the peoples I represent. Some of the many nations represented in my electorate are India, South Africa, Britain, the Philippines, Nepal, New Zealand and South-East Asia, and people who were born in this country and Indigenous Australians, all in Petrie. It makes us stronger. I feel this way about our Indigenous heritage as well—the Dreamtime stories, the land, the sea, the environment, the peoples. I appreciate everything that makes us Australian, and I was brought up to treat everyone as equal, and have maintained those values in everything that I do. The coalition have a position of 'no' to a Voice in this Constitution. But we do say yes to a number of things. We are facing a critical moment in our country's future, a time when Australians will be asked to vote on a change to the Constitution without adequate detail of risk, process, safeguards or tangible outcomes. Where are the KPIs? There are no KPIs. This is where we stand as a coalition: yes to making a tangible and real change to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, who deserve better; yes to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; and yes to empowering grassroots local and regional advisory bodies to improve safety, health, and educational outcomes and for vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, including women and children. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are Australian, and we believe that the Constitution should recognise this. Our values as a coalition have always and will always be in small government and for change to affect the lives of everyday people—Indigenous people as well, particularly those in remote communities. We must not tie up real action in more bureaucratic Canberra based power, which a Voice in the Constitution will do. The Albanese Labor government's Canberra based Voice bureaucracy model is just that: a bureaucratic model that many grassroots Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and leaders have told us they do not want. We believe that the most powerful place that Indigenous voices can make a difference is on the ground and in the places that need it the most: the regional and remote communities. It is these voices, with their insight, real-life experience and moral authority, that should be listened to, rather than being spoken to from the Canberra bubble. This is why we are saying yes to constitutional recognition and yes to local and regional advisory bodies, in accordance with the framework provided by the Calma-Langton final report. Our approach ensures that grassroots, local and regional voices are heard and empowered to deliver real and tangible improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including making women and children safer, improving education and health outcomes and allowing Indigenous communities to speak to their own stories. What I and many Australians do not agree with is the undisclosed powers and authorities that the introduction of a Canberra based Voice will inflict on our constitutional system and on the set of rules that have led us to equality and unity since the Constitution was first drafted in 1890—a Constitution that has upheld the stability and sanctity of our nation for over a century. This is why I stand with the coalition and vote no to Labor's race based Voice in the Constitution that will divide Australia and is already dividing Australians; no to a constitutional change without detail and clarity; no to more Canberra based bureaucratic power; and no to politically charged constitutional change based on divide and without transparency and clarity to the Australian people. Later this year Australians will be asked to vote to change our Constitution. This is no small thing, and a permanent change to the Constitution such as this should not be taken lightly. Yet there is an appalling lack of detail and clarity from the Prime Minister, who obviously misjudges the weight of what he is asking Australians by declaring this to be a 'modest proposal'. He is asking Australia to vote on a feeling; he is pleading to the good nature and consciousness of people. Australians deserve better. All Australians deserve to have full and detailed information about exactly what the Voice is and how it will work. Prime Minister Albanese is misrepresenting the vote, and the 'yes' campaign is misrepresenting the vote by failing to mention the constitutional change of the Voice. The bill says it: Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice). But there's nothing in the advertising about a voice in the Constitution. It's all about recognition. That's the only thing they say: 'We deserve recognition.' The Liberal Party also supports recognition. If the Prime Minister split this into two questions and if there was one on recognition, most Australians would just say yes, and it would probably have over 80 per cent support. Instead he wants a constitutionally enshrined Voice in the Constitution, which we're dead against. Right now he could put in a voice to parliament through a legislative process in this House. We're voting no to delays and no to red tape regarding legislation and bigger government. You can imagine how many bills go through this House every year, and those bills will have to put to the Voice. Pretty well every bill that goes through this House affects Indigenous people because we're legislating for people. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about cutting taxes, health care or defence, it impacts Indigenous people as well. So a voice in the Constitution will absolutely make government bigger. It will slow down the legislation process even further. Recognition should be a separate question in this referendum, and people like me would support that. We would vote yes to recognition. Instead, they're tying it up into one question and only talking about recognition. They're not talking about the Voice at all. Why is the Prime Minister hiding that? Why is the 'yes' campaign hiding that? This is why the Leader of the Opposition has put forward 15 questions that could potentially help Australians to make a better and more informed decision when it comes time to cast their vote in the referendum later this year. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General can't agree on what the scope of the Voice will be. The current wording of the Voice could open a legal can of worms and distract the moment in political wokeness, rather than making a tangible and lasting difference to the Australians who deserve it and need it. Under the current wording, the government can't guarantee that its powers won't lead to intervention by an activist High Court, nor that it won't significantly disrupt or delay effective decision-making by governments. MP Hogan who spoke before me mentioned the New South Wales Supreme Court judge who wrote to a member of this House with disgusting language, saying that he was basically racist. He didn't even live in the MP's electorate. This judge just decided, after listening to the MP's speech, that he would intervene, jump in and have a go at the member. Was it the member for Parkes? No, it wasn't the member for Parkes. Anyway, it was a disgrace. This is what we'll see more of if a 'yes' vote is put up in the Constitution. We don't support that at all. In my own due diligence as the federal member for Petrie, I have listened to feedback from both sides of the campaign, but I must say that the overwhelming response I get is more questions and confusion about what the Voice really means. This is what a few of my constituents have said. John Dempsey from Kippa-Ring said: 'How can we support the 'yes' vote when it won't represent all Aboriginals? Having spent time in remote communities, I know that this will just be another waste of time with high-profile city based First Nations people being elected. As an Australian, all I see is money being spent on Aboriginal this and that. When are non-Indigenous Australians going to be treated the same as them? It's just another divisive measure.' Kerry Walsh, from Redcliffe, said: 'While all of us agree with some sort of recognition of Indigenous people in our Constitution, this version of the Voice will only serve to divide us by race, and it will not stop there. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Budget 14 13:30 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It's a great opportunity to stand on the floor the House, which I have served for 13 years, and share with the great Australian public that the largest contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture. Lockyer Valley is one of the seventh most fertile valleys in the world. We produce product that is not only ending up on the plates of Australian families in the way of vegetables but we have a reputation of clean and green product that goes all around the world. My growers are sophisticated in their farming practices, to say the least. My growers have an efficiency rating with their water utilisation to the point where we have invested telematics at their pumping station, so, on any given day, we can go in remotely and understand with absolute clarity what the groundwater levels are. So we work extremely hard to ensure that our growers are given a platform to be able to compete globally on the stage. It was disappointing in the budget the other day to see my growers slugged with an unreasonable $153 million tax, not for their product that will end up going overseas but on the biosecurity measures will be for imports coming into the country. It's absolutely outrageous. When in government, we'll reverse this poor decision. Gilmore Electorate: Schools Upgrade Fund 14 13:31 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Last Thursday was Public Education Day, and what better time is there to talk about the funding that we've delivered to schools on the South Coast. The Schools Upgrade Fund will see $233,810 invested into 10 local schools for items such as laptops and tablets, air conditioners and improved outdoor learning areas. Mogo Public School is receiving $25,000 to purchase and upgrade ICT equipment and to provide flexible learning arrangements for students. Bomaderry High School is receiving $25,000 to build new outdoor learning spaces, and Batemans Bay High School is also receiving $25,000 to refurbish classrooms. Jamberoo Public School will receive $25,000 to purchase and install air purifiers. Sanctuary Point Public School and Moruya Public School will each receive $25,000, and Milton Public School will receive $19,910 for upgrading and improving existing outdoor learning spaces. Terara Public School will receive $25,000, and Shoalhaven Heads Public School will receive $15,000 for installing and improving shade structures. Shoalhaven River College will receive $23,900 to upgrade and improve existing outdoor learning spaces, install and upgrade shade structures and to purchase and upgrade ICT equipment. I'm proud to deliver for our local schools and provide safer classrooms, playgrounds and facilities. Budget: Defence 15 13:33 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert The Deputy Prime Minister must come clean to this House and Townsville's Australian Defence Force members about the future of a number of units at Lavarack Barracks. The Deputy Prime Minister, the part-time defence minister, has sent a shockwave through the 3rd Brigade after the announcement to cut the infantry fighting vehicle from 450 to 129. While we currently have three mechanised battalions in the ADF, 129 IFVs are barely enough for one. This bombshell was dropped the day before ANZAC Day during Kapyong Day commemorations at the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, the very unit that is most likely to be affected. Since then I've been fielding messages from members around the nation. One said: 'So much time invested into capability we can't use. So many discharges just because we have lost our identity.' Another said: 'What is the value that the defence minister places on an infantry soldier's life? He's denying them and those in a combined arms environment the protection they deserve.' This is a perfect example of what we suspected would happen when this Labor government announced a defence strategic review. We know Labor governments love gutting our Defence Force. They needed a smokescreen to hide behind. This cut to capability even goes against the Chief of Army who said the vehicles were needed to help troops survive. Hodgens, Ms Marie 15 13:34 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I rise to pay tribute to Marie Hodgens, an extraordinary local activist in Chisholm who impacted the lives of so many as a loving mother, a wife to Howard, grandmother, great-grandmother, a dedicated advocate for the community and of course an ALP member. Marie's steadfast dedication to environmental preservation was evident through her active participation in the Friends of Wattle Park group, which she participated in for an impressive 30 years. Her commitment to young people was clear, as she generously served on the school council for the former Burwood High School. Marie was someone who was deeply concerned for her community. She served on the board of the directors for Box Hill Hospital and was a member of the humanists society and the Rationalist Association. Marie worked as an electoral officer for a number of members of parliament, including the former member for Chisholm, Helen Mayo. Her service made such a difference to our community. In recognition of her exceptional contributions, Marie was honoured with the prestigious Caroline Chisholm Award in 2005 awarded to her by outstanding former member for Chisholm Anna Burke, which highlighted her invaluable voluntary work. Marie, we express our deepest gratitude for your invaluable contributions to the Australian Labor Party and our community. Vale, Marie Hodgens. Wentworth Electorate: Dementia 15 13:36 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth More than 400,000 Australians currently live with dementia, a condition for which there is no known cure. Over the last few weeks, I have been meeting with people in my electorate who are affected by the disease and seeing first-hand the wonderful work that Wentworth is doing to support them. The Cottage daycare centre is a social group for people diagnosed with dementia but who are still relatively independent and able to participate in activities. The Cottage offers outings, games, music and shared conversation, usually over morning tea or lunch. I was impressed by the courage of participants, making jokes about the challenges of their disease and engaging with each other to stay healthy. A special thank you to their dedicated staff, including Eric and Marta, who are wonderfully supported by the team of bus drivers and committed volunteers. I would also like to acknowledge the many Wentworth locals who took part in a recent Bondi2Barossa Ride to Remember, a nine-day riding college organised by the dementia research community charity based in Sydney's east. I had the pleasure of attending the opening ceremony in Bondi and I'm delighted to say that over $175,000 was raised to fund research into a cure for dementia, and the charity has raised over $1 million since 2016. Congratulations to the co-founders of the charity, Nick, Pierre and James, and the committee members who supported now, who have used their passion for cycling and turned it into support close to their hearts. AUKUS 16 13:37 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The successful delivery of AUKUS, the technology sharing agreement, is of vital national interest and it is only fitting that there be a bipartisan group in this place to support it—an AUKUS caucus, if you will. As we know, pillar 1 of AUKUS will see Australia take delivery of three US Virginia class submarines by the 2030s and the first SSN-AUKUS built in Australia delivered in the early 2040s. To launch the AUKUS caucus this evening we will have a decorated Australian Navy submariner, Commodore Peter Scott (Retired), who will speak with us about his journey through the Australian submarine force and his work with the British submarine force and the American submarine force. Over a decorated 34-year career, Commodore Scott served in 10 submarines. He commanded three of them. He passed the most demanding military commanding course in the world and served as the head of the profession of the Royal Australian Navy elite, which is the submarine arm. During that time, his character was forged by the challenges of naval service, success and failure as a leader and life-threatening traumas. Along the way he also endured personal battles with self-doubt, addiction, depression and anxiety. That is a leader—somebody who tells their story about the submarine force. Petition: Eating Disorders 16 13:39 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise to table a petition with almost 7,000 signatures which has been considered by the petitions committee and found to be an order. It was initiated by one of my constituents Alissa Booth to draw attention to eating disorders, poor treatment pathways and the need for finding to support families, trained clinicians and fund the national strategy for the adoption of an integrated model of care. Eating disorders have spiked since the start of the pandemic. Monash Medical Centre, which caters to my electorate of Goldstein, has seen inpatient numbers increase by 85 per cent. There are children in my electorate as young as 11 who have had dozens of trauma-inducing hospital admissions. Some with eating disorders do not survive this most deadly of mental illnesses, including 15-year-old Olivia, whose story reflecting the failure of the system has been made public this week. I acknowledge the health minister and the minister for mental health and suicide prevention for their listening and action so far, with grants for prevention and education. There is much more to do, especially on appropriate treatment. Next, I'm proposing a bill to amend the Online Safety Act to prevent the social media Hunger Games where people are competing for thinness. I tabled this petition for Olivia and all of those who have contacted me over the last year. Werriwa Electorate: Sewa Australia 16 13:40 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa This year marks the 25th anniversary of Sewa Australia, a volunteer-led, not-for-profit organisation that operates in south-west Sydney and the electorate of Werriwa. Sewa began in 1997 with a small group of individuals who wanted to make a difference. They started supporting six families in need and participating in Clean Up Australia Day. Since then, the organisation has branched out considerably. They now provide support to migrant families, with family therapy services and job information sessions to help them begin building roots in our community. Sewa engages in activities that strengthen and support our community, like blood donation drives, tree-planting and seniors-empowerment initiatives. They also support communities across Australia during difficult times, raising funds for disaster relief in the New South Wales and Queensland fires and during the COVID pandemic. It was an honour to be invited to their Silver Jubilee celebrations on 16 April, to celebrate their achievements over 25 years, and to enjoy a night that was filled with performances, music and food. Thank you to President Dakshin, New South Wales Secretary Rao, and everyone involved in putting together the event for their warm welcome and hospitality. It was such a beautiful night. I look forward to seeing Sewa grow so they can provide amazing services for our community. Mobile Black Spot Program 16 13:42 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks In December 2021 the now Prime Minister said: Taxpayers deserve better than to have their funds funnelled into marginal electorates on the basis of a political whim. But what did the Prime Minister do? He did exactly that in round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, the notorious program under which the minister for communications directed that 74 per cent of funding go to Labor electorates, and in New South Wales and Victoria that 30 out of 30 grants be provided to Labor electorates. It is an absolute outrage, and the outrage is compounded by the fact that just in the last couple of weeks, in response to a Freedom of Information request about this extraordinarily inappropriate program, the minister's response was not to provide a limited number of documents but to provide not one document. It's a shameful disgrace and a very poor reflection on this minister. That decision has been appealed with the Information Commissioner. The Auditor-General says there is merit in a potential audit of this program, and I look forward to that being confirmed when he provides his work program in July, because this is an absolute scandal. The Prime Minister made very clear comments about this before the election—not providing funding on the basis of marginal seats—but that's exactly what he has done, and it is a disgrace. Premier of Western Australia 17 13:43 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to recognise the Premier of Western Australia, Mark McGowan, who yesterday announced that he will be resigning as premier and as the member for Rockingham. Mark's energy, enthusiasm and commitment to WA started when he got in his Corolla and drove from the eastern states to what I believe is the best place in the world, Western Australia. He successfully stood for office in decision-making roles in both local and state government. His steely determination to look after WA was steadfast and he did not let us down. Actions speak louder than words, and WA's economy and resource sector is in a better place than it was when he first became premier—and he worked incredibly hard to achieve this. WA became known as the safest place on the planet during the COVID pandemic. I sat with him on the COVID taskforce, the State Recovery Advisory Group. I saw firsthand the angst and research behind the decision-making to close our borders, and the understanding of the impact that this would have on communities, families and businesses. Mark McGowan stood strong. He clearly articulated that WA was his priority, and he demonstrated that. Regular radio and TV interviews took place, and nobody was left guessing about what was happening. He was a daily voice in households and businesses. He listened, he acted and he absorbed the stress to help others cope with the significant changes to lifestyles. Mark McGowan, we salute you and we thank you for all that you have done for Western Australia. I'm sure your beautiful wife, Sarah, your children and your fur baby will be very happy to spend more time with you. Cowper Electorate: National Volunteer Week 17 13:45 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I missed the chance to speak during National Volunteer Week earlier this month, so I'd like to take the opportunity now to thank each and every volunteer on the mid-north coast for their tireless contributions to our community. From the RFS, SES, Marine Rescue and surf lifesavers, who keep us safe, to our neighbourhood centres and charity groups, who keep us connected, every volunteer is a thread that makes the fabric of our community stronger and brighter. They are volunteers like 75-year-old Helen Mears, who has dedicated four decades to saving lives at the Coffs Harbour Health Campus. Rather than donning a white coat and surgical scrubs, Helen is the president of the Coffs Harbour Pink Ladies, the group responsible for garnering donations of more than $3 million in equipment for Coffs Harbour hospital since its establishment over 30 years ago. She also volunteers in a special-care nursery, provides a monthly home-made morning tea for mental health and caters for regular meetings at Shearwater Lodge, an accommodation centre for cancer patients. Helen has been awarded Senior Volunteer of the Year, New South Wales Health Volunteer of Year and, most recently, a well-deserved OAM to add to her name. Thank you, Helen and all the Pink Ladies volunteers. Your dedication to regional health is outstanding and very much appreciated. Bendigo Electorate: Defence Equipment 17 13:46 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Last week I shared with the House the great news that the Albanese Labor government had secured the jobs at Bendigo Thales with a new contract to manufacture Bushmasters in our electorate. There will be an extra 78 to replenish the Army and make sure that they maintain the high level of capability that we want them to have. This week I'm proud to say that this contract will also help secure the jobs in the supply chain. Whilst we know that these defence manufacturing jobs aren't make or break for local businesses, they do help to shore work up. The steel that goes into a Bushmaster is Australian made, helping to secure steel jobs. Parts like the mufflers and the exhausts in the Bushmasters are Australian made. You go into the factory, and the workers proudly point out to you the origins of the parts that go into a Bushmaster. Believe it or not, there are over 500 welding points in a Bushmaster, demonstrating the skill and the work that go into manufacturing Bushmasters. All of us with defence manufacturing industries are incredibly proud of what our electorates do and how they help ensure that our men and women in the armed services have the equipment that they need. This government is committed to smart, sensible, secure supply-chain jobs in defence manufacturing and securing those defence manufacturing jobs now and into the future. Royal Flying Doctor Service 18 13:48 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Last week, one of the most well-respected and loved organisations in Australia celebrated its 95th birthday. The Royal Flying Doctor Service, set up by Reverend John Flynn all those years ago, has grown into a very large and efficient organisation. I would like to touch on the south-east section, which is in my electorate, with bases at Broken Hill and Dubbo. It was during a visit to Broken Hill in 1954 by the late Queen Elizabeth II that the Flying Doctor Service received its royal title. The south-east section delivers about 85,000 cases of care a year. As well as their core work of retrieval, they are now doing a lot of work in primary health. They do dental health. They're doing telehealth. They have started in the last 12 months managing GP services. The Flying Doctor Service is now managing the practices in Gilgandra and Warren. I'd particularly like to recognise the work that the Royal Flying Doctor Service did during the pandemic. They vaccinated thousands and thousands of people, and I very much appreciate the fact that they actually moved out of their traditional areas of influence up into the northern part of my electorate, to places like Moree and Warialda, and vaccinated people there. Happy birthday, Royal Flying Doctor Service. National Reconciliation Week 18 13:49 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to commend Umina Beach Public School, my former primary school, on a moving Reconciliation Week assembly. Reconciliation Week is a time that we as a nation reflect on our shared history with our First Nations people. It is also a time we continue along the path to reconciliation in Australia. The students at Umina Beach Public School demonstrated their deep understanding of Reconciliation Week through their brilliant traditional First Nations dance presentation and discussing knowledge of First Nations histories, like the 1967 referendum. It was an impressive and informative assembly for students, teachers, parents and carers. I was moved by the beautiful rendition of 'From Little Things Big Things Grow' sung by First Nations students. The students also listened carefully while I provided a description of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags and what the colours meant. This year Australians across our great nation will again have an opportunity to be a part of history. By voting 'yes' to constitutionally enshrine First Nations people, to recognise our First Nations people and to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, you will be contributing to the continuing journey of reconciliation in Australia, bringing us all closer together. I will—and I encourage all Australians to—have an open heart, listen, understand and vote yes. Leichhardt Electorate: Entrepreneurship Facilitators Program 18 13:51 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to shine a light on the government's decision to terminate the Entrepreneurship Facilitators program in their recent budget. This short-sighted decision will have a severe impact in my region, where the program, efficiently led by Tara Diversi, has been instrumental in promoting and growing local small businesses. There's been no consultation or communication around this, and the Albanese government has torn up a recently signed three-year contract with an option of a further two years, leading to the loss of five jobs in Cairns along with a slew of unnecessary financial burdens placed on Tara, with businesses leases and future events now up in the air. The young entrepreneurs project under Tara's leadership has had an undeniable positive influence in our region by providing invaluable resources and guidance to those looking for a start in small business. Since its inception, Tara has facilitated some 8,716 comprehensive client mentoring sessions, conducted 526 small group workshops and served over 14,000 workshop attendees. Tara is not alone. The government has terminated these programs across 22 other locations arounds Australia, with dedicated entrepreneurship facilitators like Tara now left in the lurch from this rash decision. I call on the government to reconsider this decision, allowing the Entrepreneurship Facilitators program to fulfil its full contractual term as originally intended. Premier of Western Australia 18 13:52 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Premier Mark McGowan showed what leadership looks like in a crisis. He unified West Aussies during their darkest days and saved thousands of lives. My community of Swan witnessed this firsthand. In the navy he learned to serve and protect Australians. During the pandemic he served and protected Western Australians. Not once did he think about the politics, unlike former prime minister Scott Morrison. McGowan was everything that Scott was not. Morrison said it wasn't a race—it was a race. Morrison said it was not his job—McGowan stood up and did his job. Morrison stood up for Clive Palmer—McGowan stood up for WA. Leadership is knowing when to call it quits. Morrison's Liberals are starved of talent, and Labor is awash with talented men and women. We in the west see this: in the member for Tangney, a former WA Police Officer of the Year and dolphin trainer; the member for Pearce, a community leader and a mayor for 12 years; the member for Hasluck, a distillery owner who's worked for the UN. Some might think an engineer is needed in parliament. WA Labor is awash with talent, and I know the new WA Labor premier will serve the state with diligence and compassion. I look forward to continuing to be a partner in Canberra and fighting for our fair share of the GST. I'll call it: McGowan is the greatest premier in living history. Lyne Electorate: Community Events 19 13:54 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Congratulations to Midcoast Hearing from Taree, which was recently named champion of Health Improvement Services at the Australian Small Business Champion Awards, the most prestigious national recognition for Australian small businesses. I'd also like to give a great shout-out to Angus Gill, a very talented young Australian country music star who's just completed his Departure and Arrival tour with his final concert in his hometown of Wauchope. Angus has won a Golden Guitar, is one of the youngest Australians to have played at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville and has collaborated with many Grammy Award winning US artists, including Steve Earle, Jim Lauderdale and Jerry Salley. I'd like to wish Angus all the best as he looks to relocate to Nashville to further his recording career. And congratulations to Josh Thompson of Pindimar, who was recently crowned the level 9 under-15 Australian champion at the Australian Gymnastics Championships on the Gold Coast. Josh was sidelined for much of 2022 with a back injury, but he wasted no time in recapturing his form when he returned to training and winning this championship. He also funds his own travelling costs to training and competitions by recycling bottles and cans through the Return and Earn scheme. Well done, Josh, for your determination to succeed against all odds, and all the best for your future. Citizenship 19 13:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong The day my parents became Australian citizens was one of the proudest moments in their lives. Becoming an Australian is an affirmation of belonging, a symbol of unity and a celebration of shared values. Attending citizenship ceremonies is one of my favourite things to do as a public official. Sharing that moment with hundreds of new citizens each month makes my heart sing. It's important, it's special and it's good for our country. That's why I'd like to thank the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs for reducing the citizenship backlog to its lowest level in six years. In the last 12 months, the backlog has been reduced by 30 per cent, with the number of applications now sitting at under 90,000. In the past 12 months alone, over 173,000 people have received Australian citizenship through conferral. That's an increase of 18 per cent on the year before, and our country is better because of it. Average processing times have also undergone a substantial reduction of 42 per cent, with most applications being processed within seven months. Migration and citizenship make Australia great. Those who choose to live here do so because they want to succeed, and they want our country to succeed, just as my family did. In the past few weeks the Liberals and Nationals have spent their time in this place blaming migrants— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon. Mr LAXALE 299174 for the policy failures of the Morrison government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon. Mr LAXALE 299174 On this side of the House, we know that our newest Australians make our community safer, stronger and more prosperous. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon! That's the third time I've asked you, Member for Wannon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Stop interjecting and you will hear. Energy 19 13:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Australians are grappling with a cost-of-living crisis, with households experiencing rising electricity prices and frequent bill shock. The Albanese Labor government promised that Australian households would receive a reduction in their power bills of $275. Labor made this promise not once but 97 times before the election. They've broken this promise, and it's middle Australia that's feeling the pain. We've now seen the default market offer, and it's very grim news for Australian families and households. From 1 July 2023 one million households across Australia will be worse off, by up to $594 a year in New South Wales, $512 a year in South Australia, $402 a year in South East Queensland and $352 a year in Victoria. Over 150,000 small businesses will see their electricity bills increase by up to $1,310 a year. Yet the Prime Minister tells Australians: 'Don't worry that we broke our promise and your bills have gone way up, because we managed to stop them going up even further.' Look by contrast at the coalition's record. Power prices reached their lowest level in eight years. In just two years under our government, power prices fell by eight per cent for households, 10 per cent for small businesses and 12 per cent for large businesses. That's how a competent government deals with energy prices. This government could learn a lot from the previous government. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 20 13:58 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence In 1967, 56 years ago, the people of Australia went to a vote—a vote to give First Nations people the right to be counted in our census. Later this year we will go to another important vote—a vote to give First Nations people a voice to parliament and, very importantly, constitutional recognition. Now, over the weekend I thought that we might come back reinvigorated and in a much better spirit. Unfortunately, over the last hour or so, in the lead-up to questions, the same old, same old comes from those opposite, and it's absolutely abhorrent dog whistling: 'It's okay. We see you First Nations people. We see you, but you do not have a right to be heard. No'—hands over ears—'you will not be heard.' Seriously, take a good look at yourselves in the mirror. At the end of this year, on the back of the leadership of the Prime Minister of Australia leading this country to the most reformative vote in the last 67 years, it will be a time for judgement. And you will be judged. You'll be judged at the next election on the way that you speak in this chamber about this referendum. So just remember that when you take the call later today. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 20 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 20 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today and the Minister for Skills and Training will answer questions on his behalf. I inform the House that the Minister for Resources will be absent from question time this week and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on her behalf. On behalf of, I think, every member of the House of Representatives, we express our condolences to the Minister for Resources on the loss of her dear mother, whose funeral was last Friday. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 20 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday I visited a food manufacturer in the Yarra Valley that has seen its energy bills skyrocket by $200,000 since Labor came to office. This is why Australians are paying more at the checkout. Given that not a cent of the Prime Minister's so-called Energy Bill Relief Fund has gone to a single small business or family, why is Labor ignoring the suffering caused from the ongoing cost-of-living crisis? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. He has the call. 14:01 Mr ALB R36 Grayndler ANESE (—) (): It is, indeed, the one-year anniversary of the member for Hume's decision to hide energy price rises. You acted to hide price rises. We acted to shield families from them. And you voted against it. You voted against shielding families. Mr Sukkar 242515 Then why do they keep going up? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 You voted against shielding small businesses. And Clare Savage, the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, said this about the DMO: 'It's much lower than where we were fearing it could have been last September-October.' Mr Taylor 231027 Prices are going up, Albo. Get it right. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 A lot of what we have seen, in the price increases today, has been driven by unreliable coal plants—so outages—and very high fossil fuel prices. So that transition to clean energy is critical to bringing down prices. Those opposite voted against direct bill relief to those Australians who need it most. They voted against price caps that have already had an impact on price increases. They opposed the safeguard mechanism—their own policy. They took four gigawatts out of the grid and only put one gigawatt back in. They announced 22 energy policies— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 and didn't land a single one. And the louder they yell, the more embarrassed they are by their own performance. We, on this side of the House, gave those opposite an opportunity last December to stand not just with the federal Labor government but with the New South Wales Liberal government and vote for lower prices— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister will pause. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? I give the call— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax. I want to hear from the member for Canberra. Employment: Women 21 14:03 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What impact have the Albanese Labor government's policies had for women wanting to work full time? 14:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Canberra for the question and acknowledge the member for Canberra's strong advocacy, wanting to remove the barriers that make it hard for women who want to work full-time to be able to take up that opportunity. Under the Albanese Labor government, more Australian women are now getting into full-time work than ever, ever before. Our first 12 months of government delivered the strongest jobs growth for any new Australian government—330,000 jobs—but a record high number of women are joining the workforce, too: 163,900 more in the past 12 months. If you look at the total figures of this jobs boom over the past 12 months and think that these figures involve four different categories—men working full time, women working full time, men working part time and women working part time—across that full set, 57 per cent of the new jobs are women working full time. Now, you don't get a change like that through some coincidence; you get a structural shift like that only because there are structural shifts happening in the rules for work in Australia. When it made those changes, this government created the opportunity which allowed more women who wanted to work full time to do so. When it delivered stronger gender pay equity laws it delivered more options for women. We delivered more options for women wanting to work full time when we backed pay increases, including the 15 per cent pay increase in the aged-care sector, a heavily feminised sector; when we stood in last year's annual wage review and this year's annual wage review for a real wage increase for a real wage increase for low-paid workers; and where we have stood against all the arguments and excuses that we dealt with for years and now are in the process of implementing—all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report. This government created more options for women who want to work full time when we passed laws to make child care cheaper and more accessible for 96 per cent of Australian families, when we delivered the biggest boost to paid parental leave since the scheme was introduced by Labor in 2011. When you change the law to remove the barriers, you start to get the figures we're now seeing. When you change the laws to provide flexibility in the workplace you start to find that many women who wanted to work full time, who previously couldn't, now can. And as we work towards legislation later this year where we will remove further loopholes to create a workplace situation that makes it easier for people to get into the workforce, we'll continue to see a change of government meeting a change of opportunity for women wanting to work full time. (Time expired) Energy 21 14:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. On 97 occasions before the last election the Prime Minister promised to reduce every Australian's power bill by $275. But the government's own budget papers say that power prices will rise by 10 per cent, and last week the energy regulator said that on 1 July prices will rise by as much as 25 per cent. Prime Minister, how on Earth can power prices rise by 25 per cent but fall by $275? 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question and I note that the member voted against energy price relief in this chamber. I note also that if you compare what was predicted to be the price rises in the October budget with our budget papers you'll see that our action in putting price caps on coal and gas energy has made a substantial difference—and that's what the experts all say. But I'm asked about cheaper energy, and I have seen a proposal for cheaper energy. I can inform the House that I've seen a proposal for free electricity. The member for New England had this to say about nuclear power: 'How about we do this? If you can see it your power is free!' Do you know what I think a lot of your listeners would do? They'd say, 'Paint it red and put it on a hill so I can have a good line of sight to it.' But it wasn't just a one-off, because the member for Hinkler came in and said: 'In my view—and this is just my view—it has to go to a community that supports it.' The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 We know the big problem with them is that they had this policy. I know the Leader of the Opposition has problems with costing policies, but there is a costing here. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Ms Ley 00AMN It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a tight question: how can power prices rise by 25 per cent but fall by $275? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is being relevant regarding power bills and energy prices. I am listening to his answer carefully. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 This quote is a cracker. It's about how things can cost something but apparently be free. In spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't believe in costing policies, here's one. He said: 'Do I think there are communities out there that want a $10 billion facility'—there's a costing for you; $10 billion for a small nuke plant—'and potentially want to get free electricity for everyone who lives in sight of that nuclear reactor?' There you go. It's going to cost $10 billion, but the energy will be free! Why didn't we think of that? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting and so will the Assistant Treasurer so I can hear from the member for Aston. Economy 22 14:11 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Treasurer. What are the impacts of the global inflation challenge, and how is the Albanese Labor government's budget and economic plan helping address price pressures in our economy? 14:11 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Aston for her question. Also, I thank her community for sending someone of her character and calibre to work with us on their behalf here in the people's house of the parliament. We know that a lot of Australians are under the pump. We know that inflation remains the biggest challenge facing our economy. It is the main focus of the Albanese government's economic plan. That's why we delivered a responsible budget—so that the government isn't adding to inflationary pressures in our economy. That includes returning 87 per cent of revenue upgrades across two budgets to the budget bottom line. It's why we showed spending restraint. It's why we have gone about managing the budget in a responsible way. It's why we have designed our cost-of-living relief—whether it's cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education or energy bill relief—to help people under the pump without adding to the inflation challenge in our economy. Our cost-of-living package will directly reduce the inflation rate by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24 and not add to broader inflationary pressures in our economy. This is the point that the Treasury secretary was making in Senate estimates earlier today. Treasury's advice is that our fiscal policy is working with monetary policy to tackle inflation in the near term. Secretary Kennedy said at the estimates hearing today that fiscal policy was contractionary and that, when it comes to monetary policy, it's important that fiscal policy doesn't make that job any harder. I don't believe it is in this budget. He talked about the net effect of the cost-of-living package to lower headline inflation. Lowering headline inflation is a useful outcome, let alone helping those people who are suffering from those higher prices at this time. So we think the net effect is a downward impact on inflation. He said later on: 'We don't believe the budget as a whole is inflationary or adding to inflationary pressures.' Given the choice between taking the advice of the Treasury secretary or taking the advice of the member for Hume, I think we made the right call. This side of the House understands that the primary causes of the inflation challenge are pressure on our supply chains combined with a war in Ukraine. We know that headline inflation peaked in quarterly terms under those opposite. We know in annual terms it peaked below most major advanced economies, lower than the UK, the US, Italy, Germany and Canada. Tomorrow we receive the monthly CPI indicator from the ABS. We know that this is a volatile measure. It can bounce around from month to month, as the secretary said today. But we know that the peak in inflation is behind us. We have seen some moderation since last year and, while it will be higher than we would like for longer than we would like, it will continue to moderate over the year and years ahead. We take seriously our responsibility to people doing it tough, and the budget reflected that. Migration 23 14:14 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Last year, former Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon was commissioned to investigate Australia's migration system. In your own words, that system is currently being used to facilitate 'some of the worst crimes that can be conducted', such as human trafficking and sex slavery. It was promised that this report would be made public before the last budget. Why hasn't the report been publicly released yet, and when will it be released? 14:15 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I really genuinely thank the member for Mackellar for this question. She's right; there are some absolutely terrible things that we inherited in the immigration system, and there is a very large volume of work occurring on this matter at the moment. If I can just give the parliament a little bit of context, we arrived in government a year ago to find the immigration system in an absolute mess. We had a million unprocessed visas in the system and we had an explosion of low-wage temporary migration that we saw under the Leader of the Opposition, when he was running this portfolio. And, as the member points out, we had clear evidence that this system was being used to facilitate terrible crimes that I don't think anyone in this parliament would defend. The worst of those were instances of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, and this broken migration system was right at the heart of those crimes being committed, right under the nose of the Leader of the Opposition sitting opposite me. There is an enormous amount of work underway at the moment to address these concerns. So it wasn't just the Nixon review, although I'll speak to that in just a second. We asked Australian Border Force to stand up a new task force to address some of these issues, Operation Inglenook. Operation Inglenook has been enormously successful. They have done just over 50 major disruptions of incidents where they believe that some of these issues are present in Australia at the moment. They've stopped people at the border. They have cancelled visas. They've dealt with a number of very shoddy migration agents who we know are at the centre of this problem. So there has been some very good, practical action. But of course the system itself has facilitated this, and that's why I asked Christine Nixon, who is probably the toughest cop that we've seen, certainly in Victoria, to do this review. I'd like to just acknowledge her work. It's been very much of assistance to the government in thinking about how we're going to address these issues. So the government is actively considering the recommendations of the review at the moment. We will release the review and the government's response to that review shortly. I'm very happy to speak to the member in private before the review is released and also afterwards to talk to her about some of these very important issues facing our country. Western Australia 23 14:17 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese government working with the government of Western Australia to deliver real benefits and a better future for Western Australians? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hasluck for her question and for the contribution that she's making to the connections between the federal Labor government and the WA government. Today I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great leader of a great state in my friend Mark McGowan. He has left office as he led: on his own terms, as his own person. He steered Western Australia through an unprecedented time. He did that with courage and with leadership. His conviction and strength in shielding WA made him a target for bad-faith operators. We know about the Clive Palmer lawsuit that occurred and that was backed by the former government of the coalition. I chose to stand with Mark McGowan and did it proudly. The government that I lead will also continue to work constructively with WA to deliver real, lasting benefits to Western Australians. Already we're delivering seven urgent care clinics, including two regional clinics, and we've saved more than $8.6 million from 785,000 prescriptions since 1 January. Our bulk-billing investments will help 1.16 million eligible Western Australians; 111,000 families in WA will benefit from cheaper child care from one month's time; 18,800 fee-free TAFE places have been delivered already, with more to come; 26,500 aged-care workers are getting a pay rise in WA; and 6,700 single parents in WA alone are benefiting from the change that we've made. In WA 79,000 households will receive increased rent assistance; 498,000 households are eligible for a $350 rebate on their energy bills—something opposed by those opposite; $2.8 million has been provided for infrastructure, including the Tonkin Highway, the Pilbara ports and METRONET as well; 132,000 homes in WA alone will benefit from full-fibre NBN access; 380,000 small businesses with an annual turnover of $10 million will increase their instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000; and around 90,000 small businesses will receive bill relief of $650 from 1 July. We will continue to work with the WA government. My government had a full cabinet meeting in Port Hedland and we will have one in coming months in Perth. We understand that, to represent the whole nation, you have to actually deliver for the whole nation, and we are delivering for Western Australia. Cost of Living 24 14:20 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. UBS data shows that in the last month alone the price of Vegemite has increased by eight per cent, peanut butter by nine per cent. Yoghurt has increased by 12 per cent. Having promised to take responsibility, will the Prime Minister apologise to Australians for failing to take the pressure of inflation, meaning Australians will pay more at the checkout? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, there is far too much noise. I am going to ask the member for Hume to restate the question because I couldn't hear it. There was far too much noise on my left. I want to have complete silence so that these questions can be heard. I give the call to the member for Hume, who will be heard in silence. Mr TAYLOR 231027 My question is to the Prime Minister. UBS data shows that in the last month alone, the price of Vegemite has increased by eight per cent, peanut butter by nine per cent, and yoghurt has increased by 12 per cent. Having promised to take responsibility, will the Prime Minister apologise to Australians for failing to take pressure off inflation, meaning Australians will pay more at the checkout? 14:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for the question. He seems incapable of asking a question of the Treasurer. Those opposite, of course, spent their budget estimates last week asking the big questions about what T-shirts people were wearing and all the other nonsense that they carried on with. This is the paradox of the shadow Treasurer—lightweight but dense. He has asked about inflation; well, he should know. The fact is that, when you look at Australia's performance, the CPI jumped 2.1 per cent in the March 2022 quarter on his watch, the largest quarterly rise this century. The notable price rises in the quarter included: automotive fuel, 11 per cent; beef, 7.6 per cent; vegetables, 6.6 per cent; fruit, 4.9 per cent; and nondurable grocery products, 6.7 per cent. That is what occurred. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. He was referring to the prices of goods, which was included in the question about Vegemite, peanut butter and yoghurt. The shadow Treasurer on a point of order? Mr Taylor 231027 I rise on a point of order: relevance. It was a very specific question asking the Prime Minister to take responsibility. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being relevant because the question, at the end, said about Australians paying more at the checkout, and the Prime Minister is giving detailed information about goods and services at the checkout. That is relevant to the question. He could not be more relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 The shadow Treasurer likes to talk about the G7; he thinks we are a member. But when you have a look at the G7 countries and you compare us with them—the fact is I am asked about food—of the G7 countries, this is where they are at: Canada, 10.5; France, 15.6; Germany, 20.4; Italy, 13; UK, 18.1; United States, 9.9. Every single one of those countries has higher food inflation than Australia. You can't be more specific than this. For every single one, Australia's performance has been better. I note that, at the National Press Club, the shadow Treasurer was asked why inflation was something that was out of the coalition's control but is now, as you say, able to be controlled by Labor, especially given the war in Ukraine is still going. His answer said it all. 'The key to answering that question is that we're not in government; Labor is now.' It says it all about this lightweight shadow Treasurer. Mr Taylor 231027 You can't even remember what inflation is. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume, if he continues to interject, will be warned. Energy 25 14:25 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will Australians benefit from the Albanese Labor government's action on energy prices? What has been the response to the government's action, and what actions has the government rejected? 14:26 Mr DZS McMahon BOWEN (—) (): I thank my honourable friend for his question and his leadership on matters of climate change and energy. I'm looking forward to joining his electorate for the forum in a couple of weekends time. In relation to our energy relief plan, I'm happy report to the honourable member that, in our home state of New South Wales, for example, increases of 40 per cent that were predicted have now, for the households which have received our rebates negotiated with the states, changed to an eight per cent reduction. They went from a 40 per cent increase to an eight per cent reduction, which on average, for a family New South Wales, equates to $843. That is the impact of our intervention of relief. We know that this has had a very substantial impact. We've heard from the Secretary to the Treasury that our energy relief package has reduced inflation by three-quarters of one per cent, and half of that percentage is a result of the coal and gas caps which have been opposed by those opposite. We heard from the Australian Energy Regulator last week that the intervention has seen prices change from 50 per cent increases down to around 20 per cent. We've seen also AEMO note the impact of the government's intervention to reduce power price rises. I'm asked if we have rejected any alternative approaches, and we have, such as the approach from the Leader of the Opposition, who said at APIA that he would rip up this intervention, that he would repeal it. Now, why would a leader of the opposition possibly do such a thing? Why would he repeal an intervention which has seen increases of 40 per cent change to reductions of eight per cent? I think I might have worked it out. I think the Leader of the Opposition's been given more advice from his shadow minister. His shadow minister was on Sunday Agenda and he was asked about these price rises, and at first he denied them. He denied the impact of our energy price relief and then he had a different alibi— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause for a moment. The member for Fairfax is warned. If he says one more thing during question time—he simply cannot yell while a minister is speaking. And same with the member for Hume, who has the MPI. He will not be saying another word for the rest of question time, I'm sure. The minister has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr BOWEN DZS The member for Fairfax went on to say, 'There's no evidence here that the intervention itself was the thing that got prices down.' This creates a considerable mystery. What was it? Was it the coronation? Was it the final episode of Succession, perhaps—no spoilers! Was it Sweden winning the Eurovision Song Contest? Was it the honourable member's videos from Fukushima and Hiroshima promoting nuclear energy? What was it that could have got energy prices down over the last months? What possibly could it have been? Perhaps it was the intervention designed to do just that, which honourable members opposite opposed with every bit of energy they could muster, which they would repeal at the first opportunity. Perhaps it is the rebates and the coal and gas price caps which we imposed on the energy markets. Perhaps that's what done it! Perhaps that is what reduced the price rises. (Time expired) Forestry 25 14:29 Mr CH IPZ Gippsland ESTER () (): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his answer in question time last Thursday where he said, 'Through the National Reconstruction Fund, we specifically set aside funding to support the forestry industry.' Prime Minister, how does the National Reconstruction Fund support timber workers and their families in the native hardwood timber industry? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The 53517 The member for Deakin is now warned. 14:30 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I thank the member for Gippsland for the question. Obviously we want to see manufacturing jobs grow, particularly in our regions. That's why in the National Reconstruction Fund—which we're happy to get a question on; it would have been great to get your support for it——we wanted in particular to support a value-add in resources and in ag. Within agriculture, we targeted forestry— Opposition me mbers interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr HUSIC 91219 I'll get to it—patience, patience. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr HUSIC 91219 and we did want to provide for value-adding in those products. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland is on his feet. Mr HUSIC 91219 Forty seconds! The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I'm going to be firm on this. The minister is directly answering the question and mentioning parts of the question. I'm going to hear from the member for Gippsland. Mr Chester IPZ The point of order is on relevance. The question specifically referred to the native hardwood timber industry and the National Reconstruction Fund. I do invite the minister to be relevant to the issue of the native hardwood timber industry, which the Prime Minister indicated last week would benefit from the— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The minister can continue. Mr HUSIC 91219 Again, I come to the point that there will be other products that may be manufactured or produced here in this country using different sources of timber, and we will— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HUSIC 91219 We want to ensure that that manufacturing occurs onshore. It's a bit rich for them to suddenly come in here and ask what the National Reconstruction Fund will be able to do for regional communities when they never ever backed the fund. They were never prepared to back manufacturing and were not prepared to engage in this. From a variety of different sources—native hardwoods through to plantation—if there are products where we want to be able to value-add and produce those products here onshore, we want to support that. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland has asked his question. Mr HUSIC 91219 It would have been nice to get their support. Instead, they want to be able to do what they always do: say no, do nothing and then criticise at the end. Aged Care 26 14:33 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Sport. What has the Albanese Labor government done to address the aged-care crisis it inherited and to lay the foundations for a better sector that delivers the quality care that older Australians deserve? 14:33 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Gilmore for her question, and I was pleased that she was able to deliver the good news of the pay rise for aged-care workers recently with Assistant Minister Kearney at Uniting Osborne House Nowra. Our historic $36 billion aged-care budget proves our commitment to workers, to residents, to care recipients, to their families and to their friends. Our budget included a massive and unprecedented 17 per cent increase to residential aged-care funding through the AN-ACC funding model; an $11.3 billion increase to minimum award rates of dedicated aged-care workers by a much-needed, much-deserved 15 per cent; an additional 9,500 home-care packages to allow people to age at home for longer; $112 million to improve access to GPs for aged-care residents; and much more. In response to our aged-care budget, the CEO of BaptistCare NSW/ACT, Charles Moore, said, 'Investment in the aged-care sector creates value, not just for the individuals receiving care but for their families, for the community and for the economy.' Catholic Health chief executive Pat Garcia described our budget measures to the Australian as a 'game changer' for aged care. Mr Garcia said after this budget that aged-care providers are 'reassessing the once questionable viability of facilities in light of these new numbers' in the aged-care budget. One of my favourite parts of this job is getting out of this building and talking to aged-care residents and workers on the ground. In the last 12 months, I've been to homes in every state and territory. In the week after the budget, I travelled to Cairns, Townsville and Darwin to give the good news to aged-care workers about what this budget contained for them. Let me tell you that those aged-care workers were ecstatic. Finally they feel as if they're being properly recognised for their complex, skilled and critical work. It means that workers like Josie from Palmerston, who has been working for 32 years in aged care and who talks about her residents as her heart and her soul, will be getting a 15 per cent pay rise. We were elected a year ago, and we promised to lift this sector out of crisis. In our first 12 months, we've addressed 69 recommendations of the royal commission—that is almost half—including recommendation 133, more stringent reporting requirements; recommendation 120, a new funding model for residential aged care; recommendations 11 and 115, setting up the new independent pricing authority; recommendation 86, minimum care time standards and 24/7 nurses; and recommendation 77, setting up a new national registration regime. We are taking the action that the coalition refused to take in nine long years, and we are doing the work to lift aged care out of crisis, finally. Energy 27 14:36 Ms 124514 Flinders McKENZIE () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the government's price increase announced last week, the average Victorian will pay a further 25 per cent more for their energy or $532 more for a residential customer. Why are the Prime Minister's broken promises making things so much worse for middle Australia? 14:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question about the impact of the DMO that was announced last week. The first point to make is that the average Victorian household receives a saving of $555 because of the intervention of this side of the House which the honourable member and all her colleagues voted against. Maybe the honourable member has a view about what brought about that price reduction. Maybe she could help the member for Fairfax, who thinks it's a mystery as to how price increases could turn around and become price decreases for those families that have received the rebates negotiated by the Commonwealth and the states. The honourable member referred to an announcement by the government last week. A gentle correction for the honourable member: it was an announcement by the Australian Energy Regulator, as she was required to do under the timing prescribed by the law. The law says it shall be made on 25 May or the nearest business day thereafter. That wasn't always the law. It used to be an earlier date. It used to be a date earlier in May, but there was a change last year. That was in a regulation that was promulgated by the then minister for energy—or one of the then ministers for energy—who changed the regulation. It was a very simple regulation: two lines. The change was to substitute the first business day after 25 May. Now, 25 May comes after 21 May, and 21 May was a key date. The then minister for energy did not want the 20 per cent energy price rises to be made public to the Australian people before 21 May because he knew that the Australian people would have a view about that at the ballot box. So, if honourable members opposite are going to ask this side of the House about energy prices, they might want to have a little word with the member for Hume and ask him why he changed the law of this country to hide price rises before the last election. Why did he do that? I think the answer is pretty obvious. It's because he was embarrassed. He was ashamed. Mr Taylor 231027 The AER recommended it, and you know it! Mr BOWEN DZS Now he says, 'It wasn't my fault!' He signed the regulation. There are two signatures— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. Order! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance. Australians are hurting at the moment, and this minister is trying to tell them that their power bills are going down when they know that they are going up and up and up. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Leader of the Opposition has a lot of latitude, but that is an abuse of the standing order. I'm going to bring the minister back to relevance to the question. He is referring to power prices, and I ask him to continue. Mr BOWEN DZS A DMO was issued last week in accordance with the law—not the law that was changed by this side of the House but the law that was signed by the previous minister. There were only two signatures: his own and the Governor-General's. We don't blame the Governor-General. We blame the previous minister. Now, that is a fact. They hid price rises. They were not honest with the Australian people. We have been clear with the Australian people that energy prices are under pressure around the world. Governments around the world are intervening, including this government, and we're intervening against the wishes of those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 To the member for Hume: I did gently remind him before that if he continues to interject he won't be here, which means the MPI won't continue. I can't be any clearer than that. That means no more interjections for the remainder of question time. Environment 27 14:40 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When questions are being asked of ministers—I have been through this many times—it is not a time to groan, to give comment; it is to be silent so I can hear the question. For some reason, when certain ministers are asked questions, there is always an audible groan. It is not going to continue; otherwise, I'll take action. So we're just going to start it again so I can hear from the member for Fremantle without commentary about who the question is to. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government taking action to deal with the problem of plastic pollution both in Australia and on the world stage? 14:41 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Fremantle for his fantastic question. He is an absolutely committed environmentalist and a very keen recycler as well, I have noticed. Over the weekend, I was at the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and it was terrific to be there with other nations, particularly those sharing our high ambition to end plastic pollution by 2040 globally. Plastic production, of course, is a strong contributor to greenhouse gas pollution. The pollution itself is bad for the environment, and of course it's also bad for human health. And it's a global problem. Pacific nations account for only about 1.3 per cent of plastics use, but there is a floating island of plastic garbage in the Pacific that is about three times the size of France, as the currents wash the rubbish into the ocean. If we don't take action now, the amount of plastic entering the ocean will triple by 2030; and, on one estimate, by 2050 the plastic in the ocean will outweigh fish in the ocean. So, as well as arguing on our own behalf, we were there emphasising the voice of Pacific nations that are very strongly committed to action on plastic pollution. Humans have produced about 8½ billion tonnes of plastic, and about nine per cent of that has been recycled over the years. The rest has been burned, it has gone into landfill or it has escaped into the environment, where it lasts for thousands of years—sometimes into the oceans, filling up the gullets of seabirds, choking animals and starving them or drowning them. But it also has impacts on human health. We're seeing microplastics and the chemicals from plastics turning up in the human bloodstream, in organs, in breast milk and in the placenta. In fact, the average Australian ingests about a credit card's worth of plastic a week. Under the previous government, Australia made an admirable commitment to recycle 70 per cent of our plastic packaging, but we have been stuck at 16 per cent for four years. We have to do better. That's why we're investing in recycling infrastructure. We will almost double our recycling capacity by 2020. We're reforming the regulation of packaging by 2025, with the states and territories. We're backing the CSIRO's program to end plastic waste and we're working with the Chief Scientist on circularity. We're seeing the CEFC and the National Reconstruction Fund investing in recycling and remanufacturing. We're stepping up to get supermarkets to deal with the problem of soft plastics that has so troubled Australians. We're regulating the recycling of solar panels and electronic goods as well. (Time expired) Artificial Intelligence 28 14:44 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Science and Industry. Leading AI experts and industry leaders have warned that unregulated AI development presents profound risks to society and humanity. Last month you said you'd ask the National Science and Technology Council to 'think through what the implications are and how government should respond'. But this is urgent. With every passing month AI becomes more embedded in our economy and harder to regulate. When will we actually see AI development regulated in Australia? 14:45 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Curtin, and I know you take a deep interest in these things and also the application of technology for good, having visited OncoRes with you and seeing the work they're doing on cancer detection and the use of technology in that way to make a difference in people's lives. Clearly we want the safe and inclusive uptake of technology, particularly when it comes to artificial intelligence, which has been in development since the fifties. We've seen accelerated development in the past few years, and when it comes to generative AI, notably around ChatGPT, we've seen versions released from November through to now. That's obviously started to make people think about other impacts that there could be across a range of different fields. The government did, through the Prime Minister, ask the National Science and Technology Council to look at the growth of generative AI, particularly the use of large language models, and that work has been done. The government is also considering across whole of government how we are able to ensure that we get the best out of these technologies while also recognising the risks and curb them where we can. For example, a few weeks ago we released our updated list of critical technologies, which highlighted AI, in the category of providing an uplift for benefit as well as the things that do need to be managed. I will be looking forward to releasing further details around the government's work to start building those guardrails even further and inviting public comment and engagement in the development of that process. We do need to absolutely get this right. We have been consulting widely on that. We're targeting responsible AI development and adoption in this country, particularly through the budget, where we're supporting small and medium enterprises to adopt AI for the first time and to be able to think through how that technology is applied. We're also providing additional funding for the National AI Centre, setting them on a sustainable footing, as well as growing initiatives like the Responsible AI Network—again, bringing business, government and academia together to think through all these issues. There's other work that's being done, by Minister Gallagher as the Minister for the Public Service, working on guidance around generative AI adoption, and by my colleagues Minister Rowland and the Attorney-General, who have important oversight of relationships between generative AI, online harms, privacy and copyright. Again, we're working on these issues, and we'll be announcing further steps very soon. Indigenous Australians 29 14:48 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. During Reconciliation Week, what can Australians do to promote reconciliation? 14:48 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Thank you to the member for Lingiari. I'm sure that like all of us here she saw the beautiful First Nations art projections on the front of Parliament House last night and the Avenue of Flags, with those three flags flying. 'Be a Voice for Generations': that's the theme for this year's Reconciliation Week. It's a call for all of us to be a voice for reconciliation—in intangible ways in our everyday lives—because the defining moments of our history have been when ordinary Australians have put their shoulder to the wheel of history and pushed it forward, and in doing so made Australia a better place: the 1938 Day of Mourning, the '67 referendum, Wave Hill, Mabo, the Apology to the Stolen Generations, the 1997 Reconciliation Convention, the walks over bridges, the Redfern speech and, of course, the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Everyone can make an act of reconciliation—and sometimes it's actually the humble moments that make the biggest difference—by telling the truth of our past, by finally recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and by giving a voice to Indigenous Australians, because the truth of our history is that Indigenous Australians have been left behind. We all know the indicators: the nine-year gap in life expectancy; the widening gap in infant mortality; the lower rates of high school completion; and our young people robbed of their potential, languishing behind bars in a justice system that has let them down. It isn't good enough. Something has to change, and change for the better. In the coming months there will be important conversations around dinner tables, in the pub and on coffee breaks, because this year there will be a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our Constitution through a voice. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by voting yes at the referendum later this year. Australians know in their hearts that the time is now. We want a more united Australia, a more reconciled Australia, and there is no better time than National Reconciliation Week to start having those conversations and for all of us to be a voice for the generations. Now is the time for all Australians to put their shoulder to the wheel. Timber Industry 29 14:51 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his answer last Thursday, when he told the House the National Reconstruction Fund was an example of how his government is supporting timber workers. Given his government did a deal to specifically exclude the native hardwood timber industry from accessing the fund, did the Prime Minister mislead parliament? 14:51 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm pleased to get that question. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They voted against it. In the question the member just asked: are we supporting timber workers? You bet we are. That's why, as part of the National Reconstruction Fund, we have $500 million for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. That's why we have that. Now, the Victorian government have made a decision to end native forest logging, and that is a decision for them. What we are doing is making sure that we provide an avenue for increased investment in forestry through the National Reconstruction Fund. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland will not interject anymore. Mr ALBANESE R36 That is very important, because the member may be unaware but around 90 per cent of our forest products now come from plantation timber. We want to see more plantation forests and we want to see more jobs. We're investing $300 million to grow plantations, modernise our timber manufacturing infrastructure— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Gippsland is now officially warned. He will not interject anymore. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B My point of order is relevance. The question was very specifically about the native hardwood timber industry. Is it supported under the National Reconstruction Fund? That was the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about the National Reconstruction Fund supporting timber workers. The Prime Minister is talking about the issue and also the National Reconstruction Fund, so I'll listen carefully to his answer to make sure he is being relevant, but at this stage he is in order. He has the call to continue for the remaining time. Mr ALBANESE R36 Apparently, according to those opposite, there aren't any timber workers in the sustainable forestry industry. That'd be news to the suppliers of Visy. That'd be news to the workers of Tumbarumba. That'd be news to all those who work in the industry. We on this side of the chamber brought forward a fund of $15 billion. Those opposite, of course, voted against it, like they vote against everything. They don't like being called 'the no-alition', so I won't do that. But the fact is that they vote 'no' to everything, including the National Reconstruction Fund. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the honourable member for— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now officially warned. It applies to both sides of the chamber: when questions are being asked, they're to be heard in silence without interruptions or interjections. I want to hear from the member for Lyons in silence. I give him the call. Employment 30 14:55 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese government working to give Australians the skills and training they need for secure and rewarding employment, and particularly in rural and regional Australia? And what's the response been to the government's policies? 14:55 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I'd like to thank the member for Lyons for his question, and it was great to catch up with the Sorell Council mayor and others in his electorate only a month ago, as we talked about how you supply skills to local economies. These are not just macro decisions; they need to be granulated, and you need to work out ways to do so in local communities. We understood the massive skills deficit we inherited upon election. That's why we responded quickly to announce 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places, 150,000 of which are already filled, I'm happy to say. Of course, when you're making decisions to invest in education and training, you do need to have the right advice. By creating Jobs and Skills Australia, and accompanying Jobs and Skills Australia with 10 tripartite Jobs and Skills Councils, you actually get real-economy insight into what is needed now and into the future. For that reason, that creation of JSA and councils really does provide the advice that government and industry need to invest in education in areas of existing and future demand. As a result of that, I think we are well placed. Today, Jobs and Skills Australia released its latest quarterly market update, which reveals that skill shortages are persistent in regional areas, as people know—and indeed the minister for health and others have talked about these shortages, of doctors and nurses and other care sector workers; essential service workers; retail; hospitality—wherever you look, in fact, across the regional economy, you do see these shortages. Therefore, it's absolutely critical that higher education and the VET sector supply skills to the labour market and that they do so in areas like regions and rural communities. That's why I'm happy to say that, of the 180,000 places, 150,000 are filled and 48,000 of those 150,000 are filled by people in regional and rural communities. And that's absolutely critical. Nearly one-third of all of the 150,000 places are filled by people in regional and rural communities. Now, there is more to be done, but we'll continue to focus with states and territories and with industry to do so. But I just want to make the point that, in the member for Lyons's electorate, a person enrolling in a cert III agricultural course doesn't have to find $2,500 to enrol in that course, because of fee-free TAFE. That's why it's so important that we remove cost barriers to education and training in areas of demand and, in doing so, we provide the skills that workers need, we provide the skills that businesses are crying out for and we provide the skills that our economy demands. Local Government 31 14:58 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Prime Minister, you're a strong supporter of local government. Federal assistance grants used to be distributed to help the most disadvantaged local council communities based on the SEIFA index. Fairfield council in Fowler is rated as No. 1 by the index. However, the previous New South Wales Liberal government changed the definition of 'disadvantage', resulting in funds being diverted to more favourable seats. What will your Labor government do to fix this inequity so that funding is prioritised for disadvantaged communities under SEIFA? The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Prime Minister on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 With respect to the member for Fowler, that would appear to be a question about the actions of the former New South Wales Liberal government, and that is certainly not within my authority to change, nor is it in my authority to speak on behalf of the New South Wales government—the current government. The SPE 53517 I may allow the member for Fowler to rephrase the question under standing order 98. You need to make sure that the question is directly relevant to the Prime Minister's responsibility—i.e. what he's responsible for. If another level of government or government has made a determination, the Prime Minister or minister is not responsible for that decision. I'll allow the member for Fowler to perhaps rephrase the question to make it directly relevant to either the Prime Minister or the minister responsible. Ms 295676 I'll rephrase it. You're a strong supporter of local government. The Federal Assistance Grants used to be distributed to help the most disadvantaged local council communities based on the SEIFA index. Fairfield City Council in Fowler is rated No. 1 by the index. What will the federal government do to ensure that funding will be allocated appropriately to local government, to prioritise disadvantaged communities under SEIFA? The SPEAKER 53517 The question is in order. I call the Prime Minister. 15:00 Mr ALBAN R36 Grayndler ESE (—) (): I thank the member for Fowler for her question. To be frank, I'm not aware of some of the details that she raises with regard to local government funding and changes that were made by, as I think the member suggested, the former New South Wales government. But the member for Fowler is absolutely correct to say that I'm a supporter of local government, and that's why in the coming month there will be a re-meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government where every single mayor and shire president will be meeting with the federal government, including all of my ministers, to make sure that you get that direct engagement involved. I'm a firm believer, as well, in needs-based funding for local government, and the Commonwealth Grants Commission makes assessments based upon equity issues. I'm very conscious that an area such as Liverpool City Council is a disadvantaged area and therefore should receive more support than some other areas that are in a stronger position to raise revenues themselves in their local communities, owing to the factors that Commonwealth Grants Commission—at arm's length—determines for the funding arrangements. In my view—and this is something I've put for a long time—funding for local community infrastructure is best delivered through local government. Local councils know what the priorities of their local communities are, and they also have accountability mechanisms, including auditing and proper processes, to make sure that you don't have funding from government which advantages one private sector operator over another. You've seen that that can create real problems with integrity issues. We saw that with colour-coded spreadsheets under the former government. I believe that those fundings being through local government is very important. This side of the House will always speak up for stronger relations with local government. I met with the local government minister just this morning talking about her local community around Narooma but also talking in general about the Australian Council of Local Government and how it will function. I look forward to participating in that process as Prime Minister. Global Security 31 15:03 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Attorney-General. What money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks does Australia face, and how are these risks made worse by the mess left by the former government? 15:03 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Bean for his question. When we came to government over a year ago we had significant work to do to clean up the mess left by those opposite. One of those messes which has extremely serious consequences for Australia's national security, for the criminal justice system and for the stability of our financial system, is the failure to progress money-laundering reform. Despite knowing for years that reform to Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime was needed to respond to the changing threat environment and evolving international standards, the former government failed to lift a finger to undertake this necessary reform. This means that Australia's financial system has been left vulnerable to criminal exploitation, and it has weakened the overall integrity of Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime. Money laundering funds transnational and serious organised crime. Money laundering funds child exploitation. And money laundering funds terrorism. The failure by the opposition to act to toughen Australia's laws when they were in government has had the most serious of consequences. It's estimated that serious and organised crime costs the Australian community up to $60 billion each financial year. Money laundering affects the safety and wellbeing of Australian communities and exploits and distorts legitimate markets and economic activity. As the rest of the international community has strengthened their regulation of these sectors, Australia has fallen further behind. Since 2015 Australia has failed to comply with 16 out of 40 Financial Action Task Force standards, which include extending the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime to tranche 2 entities. This includes lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, real estate agents, and dealers in precious metals and stones. As a result, Australia now risks being greylisted by the Financial Action Task Force, which could result in significant harm to our economy and threaten our links with international finance. But we are acting to fix this. Last month the Albanese government commenced formal consultation on important and overdue reforms to Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime. The Albanese government is committed to protecting the integrity of this regime and the Australian financial system and ensuring that we are meeting international standards. Unlike the former government— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page is on a warning. Mr DREYFUS HWG we won't tolerate exploitation of the Australian financial system by criminals and terrorists. National Reconstruction Fund 32 15:07 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer, where he continues to mislead native hardwood timber workers and their families and suggests they will share in the National Reconstruction Fund. Prime Minister, that's not true, is it? 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question, and I say to the member—you don't get to verbal someone through a question—that this is directly what I said. Here is the House of Representatives Hansard from last Thursday. This is what I said: That's why we, the Commonwealth government, are investing $300 million to grow plantations, modernise our timber manufacturing infrastructure and build the skills of our forestry workforce. Tick! I note that through the National Reconstruction Fund we specifically set aside funding to support the forestry industry. Tick! But the member for Gippsland voted against it, and everyone here voted against it as well—tick; tick. That is what I said last Thursday, and the member came to this dispatch box and pretended that I said something else. That is the Hansard from last Thursday. I stand by those comments and I stand by the National Reconstruction Fund. I stand by the $15 billion for manufacturing. I stand by the $3 billion for renewables and low-emissions technologies. I stand by the $1½ billion for medical manufacturing. I stand by the billion dollars for value adding— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause for a moment. The member for Gippsland on a point of order? Mr Chester IPZ The point of order is on relevance. I did invite the Prime Minister to address his comments towards the native hardwood timber industry. He doesn't seem to understand— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. No. That is an abuse of standing orders. You asked a question about the Prime Minister's comments in the parliament. He referred directly to those and quoted his own words regarding the question. He cannot be more relevant. If you're asking a question about his words and he says. 'This is what I said' and quotes it to the parliament, obviously that's being relevant to the question. The question was about the National Reconstruction Fund. He's moving to that part of the question now. He's of course being relevant. So, no more points of order about relevance. I give the Prime Minister the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I stand by the fact that we're providing $1 billion for critical technologies. I stand by the fact that $1 billion will be provided for advanced manufacturing and $500 million will be provided for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. I stand by all of that. And I stand by my comment that those opposite voted against every one of those funds. Unfortunately for the member for Gippsland, who I have respect for—he's been here a long time—there's this thing called Hansard and it records what you say. So if you're going to come to the dispatch box and make an allegation that there's been some misleading of parliament, which he did in a question, you don't get to put your own words into my mouth. What you get to do is ask a question and I get to answer it. I answered it very clearly. I answered it completely accurately. If the member doesn't understand that there's a link for all the workers throughout the timber industry then I can't help him. He's beyond help. But the fact is they came here. This is their gotcha moment. This is their big gotcha. The fact is they once again have failed. If he thinks there's been some misleading of parliament, there are appropriate methods for the member to operate— (Time expired) Housing 33 15:11 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its ambitious housing commitments? What obstacles may block further progress? 15:11 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Macnamara for that question. I know that the member for Macnamara wants more social and affordable rental homes in his electorate. He has a large number of renters in his electorate and he has been working hard to deliver more homes for the people who need them most in his electorate. We know that too many Australians are finding it difficult to find a safe, affordable place to call home. But over the last 12 months our government, the Albanese Labor government, has helped more than 50,000 Australians into homeownership. This includes more than 6,000 through our first home buyer guarantee that we brought forward. And, of course, we're making changes in July to expand the criteria for this. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin is on a warning. If he says one more thing, he will leave straightaway. He's particularly interjecting on this minister and it has got to stop now. Ms COLLINS HWM We're making changes on 1 July to expand the program so that more Australians are eligible. We unlocked immediately the $575 million to build more social and affordable rental homes and, indeed, we have homes under construction today because we made that decision. In our first budget, we had the National Housing Accord, which includes funding for another 10,000 affordable rentals, to be matched by the states and territories with another 10,000 affordable rentals. In the most recent budget, we committed an additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable homes and changes to build-to-rent to get more homes on the ground more quickly. We made changes meaning the largest increase in Commonwealth rental assistance in more than 30 years. We're also delivering more than $1.6 billion in a one-year extension to the housing and homelessness agreement. We've also begun work on a national housing and homelessness plan and our help-to-buy equity scheme. We have been making progress, but critical to our housing agenda is the Housing Australia Future Fund, a plan for tens of thousands—30,000 in the first five years of the fund—of social and affordable rental homes. We have had some issues in the Senate, and some of those opposite opposed it in this house. We did get one member to cross the floor. I have an interesting letter that I'd like to read to the House from the member for Dawson. The member for Dawson said: 'I understand that housing is a priority of the government's agenda and I'd like to discuss how the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will provide a specialist response to veterans at risk of homelessness, women and children escaping family violence and Indigenous housing in regional Australia.' I'm very happy to have the conversation with the member for Dawson, and I'd say to the member for Dawson that the senators in his party should support it in the Senate. It's all very well to say that you want to access the fund, but you actually have to vote for it. I also understand there's been a bit of a meeting by some of the others on the other side. The members for Sturt, Menzies and Hughes apparently had a meeting. I thought: 'Maybe they're actually interested in the Housing Australia Future Fund. Perhaps they actually want to get more homes on the ground more quickly.' But, no—it wasn't to be. (Time expired) Forestry 33 15:15 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question is to the Prime Minister. Will native hardwood timber workers receive direct support from your government? 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This is a dry gully that they're stuck in. Having come here and asked a question suggesting that there was a misleading of parliament last Thursday, they're now asking us whether we will intervene over decisions that I said earlier were decisions of the Victorian government, not decisions by us. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister, who is 30 seconds into his answer, pause for a moment so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI This was a very tight question, given your recent and previous rulings. There's no wiggle room or ability for the Prime Minister to have this confected outrage. He needs to answer the question specifically, because it goes to his conduct in this chamber. T 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: I'm not sure how it goes to what the Leader of the Opposition just said, because that wasn't in the question. What was in the question was a question about how money will be expended and how the National Reconstruction Fund money will be used. That's where it went. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about support for timber workers receiving support from your government. The Prime Minister is 30 seconds in. I'm going to listen to him carefully and I'll make sure he is relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I refer the member to my answer of last Thursday that was accurate in every aspect. Included in that—I quote from last Thursday's answer: The Victorian government has a $200 million structural adjustment package in its budget … That is what I said last Thursday. That is the case today. What I have spoken about, as well, is our policy to provide support for the forestry sector through the National Reconstruction Fund, something that those opposite seem completely oblivious to. They come in here, they vote against it and then they say that it's not broad enough. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on relevance. It can't be about that, so what is the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI It goes to the direction you gave the Prime Minister to be relevant. This couldn't have been a tighter question. Surely, if your rulings mean anything to this leader of the government, he should answer it directly. It didn't allow for this ambiguity. It didn't allow for this rant and rave. He needs to answer— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! That is the second time standing orders have been abused by the Leader of the Opposition, but, out of the respect I have for his position—if it were anyone else there would be action taken. I'll ask the Prime Minister to continue his answer regarding support for timber workers from his government. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, it would help if you restated the question. The SPEAKER 53517 No. I know what the question is. I'm trying to listen to the Prime Minister. I'm going to make sure he is relevant to the answer. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. He's very angry. He can't help himself, and I'll give you an example— The SPEAKER 53517 If the member for Gippsland says one more thing he will be directed to leave the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll give you an example of something: a grant that we recently put in through the member for Lyons, a great supporter of the forestry industry. The member for Lyons was there with the agriculture minister, Murray Watt, at Western Junction Sawmill, the recipient of a $1.98 million grant from the program that we have put in place, the Accelerate Adoption of Wood Processing Innovation Program—something that we have done. We will continue to provide support for timber workers across a range of areas. I acknowledge, of course, my answer from last Thursday; once again, I reaffirm everything that I said in that answer. Medicare 34 15:20 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Has there always been uniform support for Medicare bulk-billed GP services, and how is the Albanese Labor government ensuring that Australians continue to have access to Medicare bulk-billed GP services? 15:20 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. She has worked so hard to deliver better health care in her community, particularly with her Hunter Valley-Newcastle colleagues—the member for Shortland, the member for Hunter and the member for Paterson. On the weekend, Labor's Hunter team was able to announce the restoration of the region's nation-leading GP access after-hours service, a fully bulk billed service delivered by the hardworking members of the Hunter GP Association for more than 20 years. Funding cuts in 2020 and 2021 led to those services being reduced right across the region and actually being closed altogether at the Mater hospital in Newcastle on Christmas Eve, of all times, in 2021. But the government's decision to restore funding means that bulk-billed service will reopen this week at the Mater hospital in Newcastle, and operating hours will be extended at the Toronto clinic in the member for Hunter's electorate as well, we can say. After-hours services across the country were scheduled to close at the end of next month, after the former government failed to allocate a single dollar to after-hours services beyond the end of June—not a single dollar across the third, fourth and fifth years of their forward estimates. But our budget three weeks ago provided a lifeline to all of those after-hours services across the country. Good-quality bulk-billed services, particularly after hours, means that patients can get good-quality care when they need it, where they need it, taking pressure of local hospital emergency departments. That's why, in addition to extending after-hours services, a $3.5 billion investment to triple the bulk-billing incentive was the centrepiece of our budget's strengthening Medicare package—because, for Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare. We know that tripling the bulk-billing incentive will be a game changer for general practice. It will certainly be a game changer for towns like Cessnock, in the member for Hunter's region, where the total fee for a standard bulk-billed GP consult will go up by 50 per cent, from $50 to $75. It's a game changer for millions of mums and dads across the country who want the confidence that, when their kids are sick, they can go and see a bulk-billing doctor. It's a game changer for millions of pensioners and concession card holders as well. Labor's approach in strengthening Medicare could not be more different from the approach of those opposite, led as they are today by a man who, after all, tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether and make every single Australian pay—every single time they went to see a doctor—his infamous GP tax. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 35 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER National Reconciliation Week 35 15:23 The SPEAKER 53517 To commemorate National Reconciliation Week, tonight at 5 pm I'll be officially lighting Australia's Parliament House facade in the shapes, colours and landscapes of Central Australia. I'd invite all members to join me on the forecourt to light up the facade and hear from the Luritja artist who has designed the projections, Kayannie Denigan. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 35 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions Without Notice 35 15:24 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, I have a question for you about the rules in relation to relevance. We've asked a series of very tight questions this afternoon. My question to you is: how could questions possibly be tighter? We've seen very tight questions, then the Prime Minister giving all kinds of discursive responses but not being brought back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I call the Leader of the House, on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Under Practice, questions to the Speaker at the end of question time are not meant to be re-litigating individual rulings; they're meant to be on administrative matters only. 15:24 The SPEAKER 53517 I will take the question and get back to the Manager of Opposition Business. STATEMENTS 35 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 35 15:25 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PITT 148150 Most egregiously, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr Pitt 148150 Today in question time, the Prime Minister claimed that I had said: 'Do I think 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?' The Hansard records my contribution to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 as follows: 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. PRIVILEGE 35 PRIVILEGE Economics Committee 35 15:26 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Mr Speaker, I seek leave to raise a matter of privilege. The SPEAKER 53517 You may continue. Dr MULINO 132880 I wish to raise a matter of privilege concerning the House Standing Committee of Economics, of which I am the chair. Two articles published in the Australian Financial Review on 24 and 26 May contain information from a private briefing that the committee had received from the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Philip Lowe, on 24 May. Both articles were clearly the result of the unauthorised disclosure of information from this private briefing. I present to the House copies of these articles by Mr Phil Coorey of the Australian Financial Review. This breach of confidence is a matter of grave concern to me as chair of the committee. Committee members will be aware that, under the standing orders and the Parliamentary Privileges Act, the unauthorised disclosure of committee documents and any proceedings is prohibited. Such unauthorised disclosure may amount to contempt of the House where the disclosure causes, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the work of the House or the committee system. In accordance with the established practice, the committee will investigate this apparent breach in the first instance, and I will report back to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for informing the House on behalf of the committee, and I look forward to the House being informed about anything further relating to this matter. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 36 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 27 of 2023 36 15:27 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Performance Audit Report No. 27 of 2023 entitled National Indigenous Australians Agency's management of provider fraud and noncompliance . Document made a parliamentary paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 36 15:27 The 53517 SPEAKER (): I've 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 address the cost of living crisis and rising energy prices. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:28 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Sadly, sitting through question time today, I felt like I was in some kind of altered reality or some kind of parallel universe, because on multiple occasions during question time today we were lectured to by the Prime Minister and told that Australians have never had it better. Hardwood timber workers have never had it better. Australians with a mortgage have never had it better. Grocery shoppers have never had it better. Energy users have never had it better. I thought I'd get a few facts on this, because we heard from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy as well that we've never had it better. In fact he told us: 'It's all okay when your bill goes up. It's okay because energy prices have gone down.' I'm still trying to work that one out. I don't know whether he thinks energy prices are going up, down or sideways, but I tell you that I know that they're actually going up: in New South Wales, by $594 dollars; in South Australia, by $512; and in South-East Queensland, by $402. They are the facts. This is an energy minister who doesn't like the facts, but they are clear. As for the Prime Minister's altered reality 'Australians have never had it better', during the election campaign he liked to carry his gold coin around, but the sad reality is that coin is worth substantially less than it was a year ago. It's a grab bag of silver coins now, and, in a year's time, it'll be fewer silver coins, because this government has given up the ghost in fighting inflation. The sad reality—and we should deal with realities here, not the fictions from those opposite—is that for a typical Australian family with a mortgage they are paying out extra costs in their household budget of over $25,000 a year compared with a year ago. That's higher energy bills, despite what the energy minister tries to claim in his parallel universe; that's extra mortgage costs and that's extra grocery costs. As for the things Australians love, Vegemite is up eight per cent—not in a year, in a month. They think it's funny. Australians don't think it's funny. Peanut butter soared nine per cent in a month. Yogurt was up 12 per cent in a month. Australians are trying to balance their budgets, and those opposite think it's funny. That's where it's come to. In those rare moments when they admit there's an issue with inflation—rare moments indeed—they go looking for someone to blame. They start with Vladimir Putin. He's always their favourite. They love to go after Vladimir Putin. They love to go after floods or bushfires. They love to go after the gremlin down the bottom of the garden. But the one thing they won't admit is it's the responsibility of a good government to fight inflation. But, when you've got a spin doctor as a Treasurer, rather than a real doctor of economics—there's one over there, the member for Parramatta; he's a real doctor for economics and not a spin doctor, but we've got a spin doctor as a Treasurer, whose PhD was on Paul Keating. It was long and very thick, and there were a few numbers in there—the page numbers and the Newspoll numbers! There wasn't much economics other than that. So this is what we get: we get a government that has given up the ghost. When we look at what economists say about this budget that we've just seen, this is what they say. BetaShares Chief Economist, David Bassanese, says, 'The budget is unambiguously expansionary.' That means pressure on inflation. S&P Global Ratings disputed the government's forecasts saying: 'We expect inflation to be stubbornly higher than the Reserve Bank's target until fiscal 2026. Handouts in today's budget add to inflationary pressures.' Richard Holden said: 'There is no question that energy subsidies or cuts in fuel excise are inflationary. It's not a matter of opinion. It's just an economic fact.' Cherelle Murphy said, 'The cost will be potentially higher interest rates, which households and businesses cannot afford. Bill Evans—who the Treasurer has been keen on quoting, but I think he's less keen now than he was—said, 'By our measure, this is an expansionary budget compared with the 10 budgets proceeding the COVID period.' We do have coming up, in the next week or so, a Reserve Bank decision. There'll be more in the future. Whatever they choose to do in that decision, the sad reality of an expansionary budget is that interest rates will stay stronger for longer and all Australians will pay a price for that. The Prime Minister has shown no interest in this. In fact, he mocks the issue. He thinks it's hilarious, and we heard today from the Treasury Secretary, Steven Kennedy, that the Prime Minister has not even sought any personal briefing from the government's top economic adviser on inflation. If this was this government's No. 1 issue—we know it's Australians' No. 1 issue—you'd reckon he'd asked the top adviser what to do about it. But this is not a prime minister that's interested in solving the problem; this is a prime minister that is all smear and no idea, and we've seen that in this budget. What we know about this budget, apart from the fact it will be inflationary, is it is a big spending budget. It's a big-spending budget that has added, since those opposite got into government, $185 billion of extra spending. We've opposed $45 billion of spending just in recent months, with $18 billion of interest costs attached to it, because those things are inflationary. The other thing we know about this budget it that it's a budget for an unmanaged big Australia. On this side of the place, we are huge supporters of Australia's successful historical immigration program. I grew up in Cooma, one of the great immigrant towns of Australia—flags all around the park for all the nations that came and worked in that region after the Second World War. But an immigration program that doesn't have the infrastructure, that doesn't have the housing and that doesn't have the services that are required to make living in a community great is an immigration program that will fail. Today we got the latest building approval numbers from the ABS. I notice the Minister for Housing was not interested in talking about these numbers, and I wouldn't have been if I were her either, because we saw in those numbers that, in the last month alone—the last data period—total dwelling approvals have dropped by 8.1 per cent. Over the course of the last year, approvals have dropped by 24.1 per cent. If you go into the detail, you see private sector housing is down by 18.6 over the year and other dwellings, which includes units, of course, are down 35.4 per cent. And their answer to this is a Ponzi scheme. They're going to borrow a whole lot of money and gamble it. We're told it's going to be in equity, so I don't think it's going to be on the horses. Who knows? But they're going to gamble it on equities, hope like hell it makes some money and then hope like hell that they can build a couple of houses. But I tell you what: it won't be the houses required for an immigration program of 1.5 million over the next five years. If you want to talk about overall population growth, the expectation is that, in the next two years alone, we're going to see 900,000 additional Australians, and housing approvals are collapsing. I don't know where the government thinks they're going to live or how it thinks they're going to be transported when you've got a budget that is falling in infrastructure over the course of the forwards and since we were in government. We are seeing from those opposite a big-spending, big-taxing, big-government, big-Australia budget that will not serve the needs of Australia. It is adding taxes on income, on farmers, on truckies, on franking credits and on superannuation. We are opposing those things. We're proudly opposing those things. They are our policies because that is the right policy for Australia. Those opposite are delivering the wrong policies for an Australia facing an inflation crisis that needs to be addressed. 15:38 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith At the end of the day, it comes down to the policies. We can move motions and trash-talk each other here in the House, but, at the end of the day, it comes down to the policies. The opposition can't avoid the inescapable fact that they have no policies to help Australians get through this difficult period where they're feeling the pinch of cost of living. The member for Hume had 10 minutes there—10 minutes of feigned outrage—but you didn't hear one policy from the member for Hume. I challenge those that are coming after the member for Hume to outline one policy—just one policy—that they're going to implement that will help Australians get through this difficult period. We all understand that Australians are feeling the pinch, that inflation has eaten into their real incomes. That's something every Labor MP and senator knows. That's why we've been consulting our communities about how we put in place policies to deal with those issues. The government's listened and responded by implementing policies that assist households and small businesses through this difficult period by easing the cost of living. What we don't see from the opposition are any policies to assist Australians with their energy costs or with their costs of living—not one policy. You can yell and scream and move motions, but what matter are the policies. The Albanese government has acted. As soon as we got elected, we moved to ensure that we reduced the impact of electricity prices. After a decade of inaction from those opposite, when it came to a transition to renewable energy the outcome was increasing electricity prices and energy prices. When they were in government, they actually moved to change the law to hide those energy cost increases from the Australian people. They hid them. We didn't do things like that. That's immature. We took a mature approach and, instead of trying to hide those electricity price increases, we came up with policies to help cushion the impacts for households and small businesses. It was in the form of our energy price relief plan. We introduced price caps on electricity and gas prices—a cap of $125 a tonne for coal and a $12-a-gigajoule cap on gas. We partnered with the states to deliver energy bill rebates for households and small businesses. Those rebates begin on 1 July. We introduced a mandatory code of conduct for the east coast gas market to ensure that we were dealing with the supply issues. They are some of the short-term policies that this government has implemented to help Australians during this difficult period. We also have a longer term outlook, ensuring that we're implementing policies to help households and small businesses improve their energy efficiency and energy costs through the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. That was announced in the budget a couple of weeks ago. We're introducing a fuel vehicle emissions standard to ensure that over the longer term we can reduce the motoring costs of Australians by introducing more fuel-efficient vehicles into the Australian market and stopping producers dumping the vehicles that they can't sell in Europe, the United States and Asia but they can sell here in Australia because we don't have a fuel efficiency standard. That's another long-term policy of this government. They're the policies Labor that is implementing to help Australians with their energy costs. What are the policies of the opposition? There aren't any. There are no policies to help Australians with their energy costs. What did the opposition do when Labor introduced these policies into the House? They opposed them and voted against them. They can't escape the fact that they voted against the price caps in energy markets. They voted against the measures that were put in place by the government to reduce the impacts on people's electricity bills. That would be okay and I could understand it if they had an alternative policy. It's okay to vote against our policies. We understand that. But you've got to come up with an alternative. Anyone can vote against something, but when it comes to the alternative that's where they fail. Australians are rightly asking: 'What would you do to assist households and small businesses to get through this difficult period?' Our support for Australians doesn't end with electricity prices. There are other areas outlined in the budget where we are assisting Australian households and small businesses. We're reducing health costs. The largest indictment, in my view, on the previous government was the decimation of Medicare. They underfunded Medicare and it resulted in GPs starting to charge co-payments of their patients. It's been happening across the country for the last four or five years. We have listened to what the Australian people have said, and they're disgusted at the undermining of Medicare. We have acted. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive in the budget to ensure that under 16s and concession card holders can continue to have-bulk-billed consultations with their doctors. That policy is so good that those opposite are supporting it. They're actually supporting our policy, and we welcome that. That's good. That's a good thing. We're also reducing the cost of medicines. We're reducing the co-payment under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We're introducing 60-day dispensing. It doesn't end there. We're helping families as well. Our cheaper childcare policy begins on 1 July, where we will increase the childcare subsidy for most families and remove the cap on the family payment as well. That begins on 1 July. In the budget we outlined our policy to enhance Paid Parental Leave as well. What's been the approach of those opposite? They've opposed those policies. Have they come up with an alternative? I can't hear it. I dare say we're not going to hear it from the rest of them when they speak on this. When it comes to housing, we know that Australians are struggling with the cost, and, again, the government is acting. In the budget we've increased the rate of rent assistance to help some of the most vulnerable Australians to deal with their housing costs. We're reducing the withholding tax on build-to-rent schemes to ensure that there's an incentive for builders to supply more housing to the market. We have a housing future fund from which we propose to build 30,000 additional properties across the country. But guess what? It's opposed by those opposite. Even worse, they've teamed up with the Greens to stop that going through the parliament. Again, what is your alternative? Where is your alternative policy? We'll wait to see if any of them outline it when they speak. We're also ensuring that some of the most vulnerable Australians are not left behind. We're increasing JobSeeker, we're increasing single parent payments and we're increasing support for Australians' incomes. We've supported wage increases in the minimum wage case. We're supporting an increase of aged-care workers. Again, these are all opposed by the opposition. Where is the alternative policy? It's simply not there. At the end of the day it comes down to the policies. We all know that inflation has put pressure on household incomes. We all know that Australians are feeling the pinch, but what Australians want to know is what you are going to do about it. How are you going to assist them? The Albanese government is acting. I've just outlined 15 policies that we have implemented or are in the process of implementing to help Australians get through this difficult period. If you want to be the alternative government, then you've got to outline policies, but you haven't got any. You do a lot of talking, you do a lot of trash talking, you move a lot of motions, but you have no policies. Outline just one. Now, the mover of the motion had 10 minutes. He didn't outline anything. I thought: 'I'll try to do some research to find out if there are any. I haven't heard any from those opposite.' So I went to the Liberal Party website. There's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Do you think I found any policies? There were these big, bold letters there, with a photo of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: 'standing up for hardworking Australians'. I thought: 'Okay, I'll click on this to see if there are any policies and see how they're doing them.' There's nothing there. There's nothing behind it. There's a press release from the Leader of the Opposition. Then I went to Peter Dutton's website. I thought that maybe he would have something. I didn't waste as much time there, only two minutes. Again, there were no policies—not a single policy—but there was a link to his budget reply speech. I thought: 'I'll have a read of this in case I missed something when he delivered it.' They did have two policies in that. One was to allow Australians to raid their super to buy their first home. But guess what? That's not a new policy; that's Morrison's policy, so you're picking up old policies and rehashing those. The 248181 Assistant Minister, you need to use the correct title for the reference that you used for the member. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 The member for Cook. The other one was to pick up and support Labor's policies. They've adopted our bulk-billing incentives and they're expanding the parental payment. You're adopting our policies, but you can't come up with any of your own. At the end of the day it comes down to the policies, and you can't escape the fact that you have none to help Australians. 15:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina There is one policy that we won't be implementing, and that is the policy of misleading the Australian people. It's not that I want to use a prop, but here it is, my mobile phone, where I read: 'An Anthony Albanese, Labor government'— Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 Just outline one. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I'm going to do one, thank you, Assistant Minister for the Republic; just your title probably says it all—'cut power bills by $275 a year.' There's no asterisk. There's no saying that it's going to be by 2025 or during that particular financial year. It just states that they're going to reduce power bills by $275 a year, and those opposite know it was a fib. Here's a policy from the member for Kingsford Smith: 'We will reinstate the money that your government has ripped out of regional Australia.' Regional Australia, which carried— Government members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I was silent while you spoke, so give me due respect by doing the same. You have ripped money out of regional Australia and the country areas which carried the burden during COVID-19 through resources and those things the Treasurer says that we sell overseas. I'll name them. They're gas, coal and iron ore. Labor demonises those industries. Then, of course, there's agriculture. What we will do—and here's a good policy to start with—is reinstate the money that you have stolen out of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. We will restore the Stronger Communities program, which has helped electorates right across this nation, not just in regional areas. Regional areas are particularly doing it tough. I have an anecdote from my own home town of Wagga Wagga, where a charity has been stretched to the limit as more and more people cry out for help amidst the crippling cost-of-living crisis. But don't just take my word for it. It was on the front page of my local paper, the Daily Advertiser, on 20 May. It talks of the Salvation Army's welfare arm, Doorways. It's been inundated with people seeking financial assistance to pay bills and trying to get basic necessities. The lady there, the program coordinator, Jen Cameron, said, 'On a daily basis we're seeing an increase in those who have never received support before.' She said that service providers, including herself, are getting mentally exhausted by the sheer demand at the moment. She quoted people of all ages who are struggling, recalling an 18-year-old woman whom Doorways has recently started working with. She has no transport, no microwave—nothing to even cook with. And of course as the cold winter months are about to set in, this problem is only going to be exacerbated. The recent federal budget was a real missed opportunity for families and businesses right across Australia, particularly in the regions. At a time when cost-of-living pressures are mounting, the budget did nothing to provide relief for those struggling to make ends meet. But, prior to the election— Mr McCORMACK 219646 And Member for Hawke, I know you were a secretary of the labour movement. I'm not quite sure whether you're really in touch with those people who are doing it tough. But let me tell you: 97 times prior to the election the now Prime Minister promised that there would be reduced power bills. Well, he knew in his heart of hearts that that wasn't going to occur, and you all know that it has not occurred. Yet we get the minister for power increases, the member for McMahon, coming to the dispatch box and talking about lowering power prices, when we know that is the complete opposite. These reductions have not occurred, and it is hurting everyday, ordinary Australians. It is hurting small business. More than 150,000 small businesses—and this is just in New South Wales—are going to see their electricity bills go up by $1,310 per year. In the same state, we're going to see households' energy prices go up by nearly $600. How do they find that money? They start taking changes to their lifestyle—they don't take their kids to sport; they don't do the sorts of things that they would normally do, because they have to pay for the increased power costs. When the coalition was in office in our last term, power prices went down by eight per cent for households, 10 per cent of businesses and 12 per cent for industries. But we see those opposite coming in here, talking a big game about manufacturing, talking about producing things here, yet doing the exact opposite. They're sending their emissions offshore, they're sending businesses offshore and they're sending companies broke. And this is happening right across Australia. They're doing nothing about it, yet we hear the 'minister for the republic' asking, 'What's a policy?' Well, I'll you what a policy is: start protecting regional Australia, start sticking up for families, start doing everything you said you were going to do prior to the election but have neglected since. That's what you should start doing, and you should start doing it now. 15:53 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Well, it sounds like those opposite have simply had memories wiped. They've forgotten how they ridiculed Labor when we committed to seeing those on the lowest incomes get a dollar-an-hour pay rise because that would help with cost of living. These are workers who've been denied pay rises. It was an intended policy by those opposite. In government they did have policies, and that was the sort of policy they had. Those opposite have also forgotten that they opposed the caps on wholesale energy markets that we worked very hard to achieve, to make sure that the gas and electricity wholesale prices were not going to go as high as planned. But they've forgotten that they opposed it. They've also forgotten that they voted against the energy relief bill for customers—for people who want to be able to switch on the lights. And they have the nerve to come here day after day—and again today—and pretend that when they were in control they actually did things to help people. Well, they've clearly forgotten that, when inflation was starting to take a hold in the second half of their last full year in government, in 2021, when I was talking about it and highlighting the need for action, they were just gaslighting me—gaslighting me and everybody else who could see the signs that things were not going well. I know they don't like being called 'the no-alition', so I won't call them that, because they don't like that. They're just a group of people who watch things happen, passively—just let them happen. Well, we're not prepared to do that. We're not prepared to just stand here, in government, knowing that things are tough for people, from a combination of inflation, interest rate hikes and electricity price rises—which everybody knows are, in huge part, driven by international forces that we just can't control. We're not prepared to stand here. We're certainly not going to do what they did in government, which was to say: 'Oh, it's not our fault. It's nothing to do with us. We'll take all the upside but none of the downside.' So that's the difference between them and us. When you think about the things that we've done around inflation, and when we've saved money in the budget, finding $40 billion in savings in the last budget—while those opposite found zero in the nearly 10 years they were there; they just kept spending more and more, with so little to show for it—that has put downward pressure on inflation. So has reducing power bills, and cutting medication costs, because you're reducing the amount of money that flows through. So does reducing childcare fees, and our childcare changes for early learning that come in from 1 July will take money out of the system, inasmuch as families won't be forced to pay more. The other thing that puts downward pressure on inflation is lowering the cost of getting to a GP and other health costs. Bit by bit, we've worked methodically and carefully to look at how we can achieve those things. Now I know the word 'policy'—and this is something else the others don't really know how to do—for most people just means taking action. It means having a purpose and having an idea that you then implement—not just talking about it, but actually doing it. And we've done that, around cost of living, without being inflationary. That has been the key thing: doing these things without driving up inflation, because it's very easy to throw money around. They did that quite well on the other side—they just threw it around. But that doesn't help you with inflation. So it does require a much more intelligent approach, and in energy we're seeing the benefits of that. Now, the default market offer—something none of us thought we would talk about ever, in our lives, I think, or most of us! But what it shows in New South Wales is that the steps we've taken on energy alone mean an eight per cent decrease for those who are eligible for the rebates that we've funded along with the state government—that's a decrease in power prices. For those who are not eligible, instead of it being a 40 per cent increase in power prices, it's a 21 per cent increase. So, no, it isn't good enough yet, but it's a start. In one year, we've done more to tackle these issues than I saw from those opposite in a decade. 15:58 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I've tried to make it a practice in this place to compliment you when you deserve it and criticise us when it's warranted. I'd like to lead with this compliment for the other side—and I'll single out the member for Hawke as he leaves the chamber. Mr Rae 300122 Oh, I'll stay for a compliment! Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Yes, I will. The Labor Party are very good at campaigning. You're very good campaigners—not so good at governing. I want to use Victoria as an example, and the member for Hawke—a very effective campaigner in Victoria. And we've heard the hubris from the other side, where they're counting all the other seats they want to take, including mine—though it's not even mine; it's the people's seat, the seat of Menzies. So you're not just happy with the election result; you're counting your chickens before they hatch. Let's look at Victoria, where my seat is. The state of Victoria is not in a good state. The state of Victoria, which has had Labor governments for so long, is now the highest taxing state. The state of Victoria now has higher debt than all of Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania combined. When we think about the different parts of Victoria that are hurting most, I was struck recently by the Commonwealth Bank's assessment of which elements of society are actually feeling it harder than others when it comes to the cost of living. What struck me, when you compare CPI spending from the first quarter of this year to the first quarter of last year, those under 50 are doing it particularly tough. Again, the Labor Party like to bank people who are younger than 50 and say, 'Well, they'll always vote for us.' At the moment, those who are between 25 and 29 are doing it particularly tough. Their spending for the first quarter of this year is down more than any other category when compared to a year ago. So again, when it comes to campaigning, those opposite like to brag and hold on to particular constituencies, including young Australians. But young Australians are finding it harder than ever to save for a house deposit, harder than ever to put food on the table, harder than ever to get ahead. They are now, particularly in the state of Victoria and where I'm from in Melbourne, asking what it is that a Labor government does for them. They can look no further than the state Labor government and ask, 'Is my quality of life better? Is it better than it was a year ago? If I'm going to look ahead the next five to 10 years, maybe I should look at how governance has been conducted in my home state of Victoria.' Melbourne used to be the most liveable city in the world from 2000 to 2017. Since then it has slipped bit by bit and it is now ranked tenth. So people of Victoria are entitled to ask, 'In addition to the highest taxes, in addition to the highest debt, what is it that a Labor government is doing to help me have a better quality of life, spend more time with my family and do the things that make me happy?' The answer is not much except spin and campaigning, the things those opposite like to brag about and probably are good at, but they are not so good at governing. When young Australians looked at this budget, what did they learn? It confirmed a few things that they should be worried about, that real wages are stagnant despite the rhetoric, that the cost of living will continue to rise despite the talking points, that gas and electricity bills will continue to skyrocket. It doesn't matter what the media releases say, it's what those opposite are paying. Those opposite promised a reduction and people are paying more; that is on you. They also note that inflation is remaining stubbornly high. We heard self-serving comparisons, including from the Prime Minister, about where we rank in inflation. The most important measurement of inflation is core inflation because it excludes those items that are more volatile and more sticky. When you exclude those, we have a record that we should not be proud of. The reason we should not be proud of it is because this budget and this government are adding to inflation, therefore, hurting all Australians but particularly younger Australians, who don't have any more spare money to spend. Don't take our word for it. You may say, 'Of course, that's what a Liberal would say. That is what someone on this side would say.' We saw after the budget was delivered Chris Richardson say that this budget raised the chance that those in the RBA will 'swing the baseball bat' again. S&P Global Ratings said, 'Today's budget may add to inflationary pressures,' and BetaShares chief economist, David Bassanese said this was 'unambiguously expansionary'. When we look to the Labor Party, don't just look at the talking points. They may have hubris on campaigning but, for governing, it's not so good. 16:03 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I've been going to the country shows in my electorate, and cost-of-living issues are very, very important to people in my electorate. That's why this budget is providing enormous assistance in bulk-billing incentives, cheaper child care, electricity bill relief and support for jobseeker increases. But, for those who might be listening, this MPI was brought by the opposition. There are four members opposite. Two of them are on duty, no doubt, so they're here. This is such an important issue that those opposite have three people in the chamber now—three people! Where are they? Where is their frontbench? There's not a single person there except the member for Gippsland, who, by the way, had a great question time. There is one person on duty; none of their frontbenchers are here. They think cost of living is a great issue. The previous speaker, I know he knocked off his predecessor in a pre-selection but it was the wrong legislature. He should have been in the Victorian Legislative Assembly. He talked about Victoria, but I hate to tell him: the people of Victoria have re-elected Daniel Andrews again and again. It's just not working. I would have more respect for those opposite if they had voted for our energy price relief plan, but they didn't. I would have more respect for them if they supported our JobSeeker increase, but they won't. I would have more support and respect for them if they supported our Housing Australia Future Fund, providing 30,000 social and community houses, but they will not do so. I would have more support for them if they had actually supported wage increases in the minimum wage increase case, but they didn't, every single time it came up when they were in power for nine years. It's not what you say; it's what you do. They failed. They forgot what they were doing for the last nine years. There's a political amnesia over there: 'Don't look at our record.' They didn't support minimum wage increases. They didn't support the 15 per cent wage increases for the aged-care sector that we're providing for with the $11 billion in this budget. They didn't support that at all for nine years. They didn't support it at all. What about their energy price policies, their great energy reforms, their 20 failed policies? Remember the National Energy Guarantee, the NEG? Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull didn't last 24 hours. They couldn't settle on a way to deal with issues of price relief, so wholesale prices and retail prices went up and up under them. If you're coming to this place and talking about cost-of-living relief, how about you vote for it? How about you sport the policies that will address this issue? How about doing something about it when you were in government? Honestly! We got the Leader of the Opposition who wanted to cut $50 billion out of health and also make you pay a $7 guarantee every time you went to the doctor and end bulk-billing. We're trebling the incentive. There are 105,000 people in my electorate and 53 medical practices who will benefit by this. Those opposite did nothing about it. This is a huge cost-of-living relief in my electorate. What about cheaper child care? We have a situation where 8,900 families in my electorate will get cheaper child care from 1 July this year. Those opposite did nothing about it for nine years. You come in here all hyperbole, all exaggeration and all hypothetical, because those opposite have got no politics. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about some worthy gambling reform in his budget-in-reply speech, but no costings in relation to anything, no policies that will address the cost of living. Today we had about the 19th MPI. Those opposite don't believe the MPIs are actually worthy of debate—if they believed it, they'd be here. None of their frontbenchers are here except the member for Gippsland, who is on duty. So don't come in here and effectively say to us that this is a big issue when you can't put people in the bleachers. There are not even any backbenchers—there are a couple on duty over there. It's simply not good enough to claim that the cost of living is important to you and important to your constituents. We know these issues are important to your constituents, but it isn't to those members. I hope everyone who is listening, in seats all around the country and have a look where their MP is, because they're not in the chamber debating this at the moment. Not at all. 16:08 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Wow. Going by the member for Blair's standards, I don't have to say much to those at home other than: look at the government front bench. It's an opportunity for them to talk about the cost of living, and the only minister here—by the member for Blair's own admission—is forced to be here. We know the cost of living isn't a big issue for this government because actions are very important. When the Prime Minister was asked a question about the cost of living today in question time, and the price of groceries going up, what did those on the backbench and the frontbench do? They laughed. They laughed about the cost of living. We used an example of Vegemite going up eight per cent. That's representative of many products in grocery stores that are going up. We will not be lectured to sanctimoniously about the cost of living because those on the government benches laughed when asked about the cost of living today. That's what they did. They laughed at the Australian people. Because the Australian people are struggling every day to pay bills. This government, in MPIs, spends more time talking about us in the opposition than it does about outlining its policies. The reason its talks about the opposition is that its policies are not working and the Australian people know that. They know that every day when they go to the shops. They know that every time they receive an energy bill. I was out yesterday at Yarra Valley Hilltop, an amazing business in my electorate of Casey. They started just over 20 years ago with a vision to support the agricultural community of Casey. They started from nothing. They now employ over 100 local people, manufacturing food products. One of their best products is their strawberry jam. They bring in all local strawberries. Mr Rae 300122 What is this, condiment week for you? Mr VIOLI 300147 So we're making jokes and interjecting about cost of living. Says it all! Condiments—they're things that people pay for every day. When you're doing it tough, vegemite on toast is probably all you can afford for breakfast. So it is serious. If you want to interject and laugh, that's exactly the point. You don't get it. You don't understand, because you haven't had to live the situation where you have to choose. So condiments are important and strawberry jam is important because the farmers of Casey are able to sell their seconds to that company that can manufacture them. I met with them yesterday. Their energy bills have gone up $200,000 in the last 12 months. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy can sit here and talk about how great he is, but guess what. The policy is not working. It's gone up $200,000 in 12 months. The next bit that's coming for that business is that they'd signed a good contract on gas, and that's about to finish. They're projecting another $200,000 increase in their gas bill. M 300147 So we're interjecting again. It's a laughing matter that businesses are struggling. I'll tell you what. I've worked in food manufacturing. If you don't have gas, you can't make the products. You need gas. It's not an option. You have a to spend that. What happens for these food manufacturers is that raw materials go up. The jars are going up. The finished product is going up, and the Australian people are paying more. And gas prices are going up. There are not any solutions from this government, because they're not working. A government member: There's a war in Ukraine. What do you want us to do? Mr VIOLI 300147 It always comes back to politics with this government. Every time you think of cost of living, the Australian people need to remember the quote from the Australian National Secretary of the ALP, Paul Erickson, when he addressed the ALP party room. Someone was nice enough to leak that to the media. He said, 'You must look like you are responding first and foremost.' That's the devil in the detail: 'look like'. He didn't tell the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the ministers that they should solve Australia's cost-of-living crisis. He said they needed to look like they were solving it. That's what this government is all about. In the 30 seconds I've got left, I say we already know manufacturing is struggling but we also know Australians are struggling with their real wages going backwards in this high-inflation environment that is being fuelled by this government. Bill Evans, the Westpac chief economist, points to this budget as being more expansionary and stimulatory than any of the budgets in the 10 years prior to the pandemic. At a time when budgets should be reducing inflation, this budget is driving inflation and causing the cost of goods to go up. (Time expired) 16:13 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean It's always interesting to hear those opposite talking about our caucus room. You can understand maybe they might want to join us there one day! If the opposition wanted to have any credibility about energy prices, they had an opportunity last year to support our price relief plan, and they voted against that. They try to pretend they didn't. There were a number of speeches in here where you'd think that that was a moment that disappeared from their collective memory. I welcome any opportunity to talk about climate action, energy transition and tackling cost of living under the Albanese Labor government. Just last week, I joined the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Assistant Minister for Climate Change, as well as my ACT colleague, the member for Fenner, down in the suburb of Stirling—a sterling part of the electorate of Bean! We were there on a typically cold Canberra morning—I know that many of you have been experiencing cold Canberra mornings in the last week and a half—to visit the home of a local resident. Todd's family home is the gold-standard for energy efficiency in Australia, with double glazing, insulation and solar panels installed over the last few years. As a consequence, his family's energy bills have fallen substantially. The Albanese government wants to make it easier for households like Todd's and small businesses to access energy savings and upgrades. That's why we're investing $1.6 billion from our recent budget to provide various means of supporting households and businesses to transition to more energy efficient homes and businesses, to convert to electricity where they choose to and to invest in forms of renewable energy and storage. We are facilitating this, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's low-interest loans, directly into social housing through a partnership with the states and territories, and, of course, there are tax concessions for small businesses to do so. We on this side of the house know that when you can save on energy, you save on bills. When the Australian Energy Regulator provided the government with a default market offer forecast late last year, customers were facing price rises of between 40 and 50 per cent, price rises that were untenable. We on this side understood that and we acted. There was no endless press release about what we might do, no lump of coal, no hi-vis—there was action. We brought parliament back urgently, and the legislation was passed before Christmas. Those opposite, as I said before, voted against it. Their Christmas present to the Australian people was to vote against that price relief. The opposition voted for higher energy bills for households and small businesses, yet every day they come back to this chamber and like to pretend that's not what they did. But of course, thanks to that decisive action, the AER has confirmed that power bills are up to $500 less for residential customers than they would have been without the government's intervention and up to $1,300 less than they would have otherwise been for small businesses. I think we know who the real party for small business is. This government's Energy Price Relief Plan has taken the sting out of power prices. Here, in the ACT, we are run on 100 per cent renewables, and, as a result, the impact of power price increases has been a lot less here than in other jurisdictions. We on this side want more of Australia to benefit from long-term, ambitious renewable energy policy. What is the alternative to this government's detailed and deliverable energy policy? Those opposite would have you believe that only they have the solution, and they have gone nuclear. It is The Simpsons answer to energy prices. Their solution is a form of electricity that would be ready to go in almost 10 years, if we're lucky, and we know that the cost of it is prohibitively high. This government is taking real action on energy relief. In the short term, we've intervened to lessen the increase of energy prices despite the global pressure on prices. We are investing in households and small businesses to ensure they can reduce energy usage and save on household bills. We are lowering emissions, we are lowering energy usage and we are lowering prices. 16:18 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I think I heard the last speaker indicate that energy bills were on track to increase by a further $500 than they already have were it not for measures the government put in place last year. In my home state of South Australia, the default market offer has gone up by $500. So the previous speaker is indicating that with the policies they took to the last election—so before they undertook their intervention—the average bill in my home state would have gone up by $1,000 a year when you went to an election saying you would cut bills by $275. You are now admitting that, prior to your purported effective intervention before Christmas, the average power bill in my home state of South Australia would have gone up by more than $1,000. What an absolute disgrace. And now we're being told to be grateful that they've only gone up by more than $500 in South Australia and it could have been a whole lot worse! Another speaker mentioned how, when he's out talking to constituents, they're absolutely raising issues around the cost of living. Well, I'm sure they're satisfied with that answer of 'You should be grateful; it could be even worse than it is right now; you should thank me'! This is like the commissar who doesn't give enough bread to the Soviet family and they complain and say, 'I can't feed my family; there's not enough bread,' and he says, 'You should be grateful you're getting any bread at all.' That is the position of the government. When they went to an election saying they were going to cut people's energy bills, apparently people should now be grateful that their bills, in this one financial year, in the state of South Australia, are 'only' going up by more than $500, because it could have been more than $1,000. Imagine being proud of that. Imagine coming into this chamber and reading out the talking points. Imagine the pollsters saying, 'Just stick with that line—that it could be even worse than it already is; I think that'll get us through this great fraud that's being perpetuated upon the people, during a campaign that said that power prices would be cut.' And now people should be grateful that their bills are 'only' going up with the velocity that they are. It's an appalling circumstance, and there are people doing it particularly tough who are being mocked. Apparently the prices of jam and Vegemite going up is something to laugh about. Well, those people are probably not watching parliament being telecast right now. They can't afford to be sitting at home watching this debate. But if they saw members of this parliament laughing about prices of condiments going up by that amount—nothing could demonstrate being out of touch more than mocking people who struggle to even purchase the basic groceries from their household budget. Laughing about that is particularly low. We should be in here talking about how to help those people, not mocking them and poking fun at them. We've got a difficult cycle starting to unravel upon our economy as inflation remains persistently high, and elements of the household budget going up dramatically more than inflation. Inflation is running at seven per cent, and we know electricity prices in my home state of South Australia for the average household are going up by more than 20 per cent. That is in the future. So the future cost to households is much worse than it is right now, and if they're telling members opposite, out at their supermarket listening posts and street corners and while doorknocking and phone canvassing, that things are tough now, then, regrettably, any member in this chamber has to say: 'Well, it's about to get much worse. You see, that electricity bill you got recently that you thought was tough to pay and you had to make a difficult decision about whether or not you could have a family holiday later in the year, unfortunately the next one you get is going to be 24 per cent higher if you're on the average household bill in the state of South Australia. That's the future you can look forward to.' Be grateful about how tough it is right now, according to the government, because it's going to get a whole lot worse as these price rises continue to flow through the economy. And that's at a time when real wages are going backwards. So, as all the relevant costs in the household budget increase, the only thing that's not increasing is your pay packet to cover those costs, and that means making very difficult decisions. Laughing about jam, Vegemite and litres of milk might bring out the student politician in some, but it's no laughing matter. There are Australian families who are doing it really tough right now, and people in this chamber should take that very, very seriously. 16:23 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm It's another sitting day here, and another absurd MPI from a group of people who are utterly lacking in credibility when it comes to talking about the cost of living and pressures facing people right across Australia. Forgive me, Deputy Speaker, for appearing quite angry while speaking on this MPI. It's because I am. I'm really angry that, after a decade of childcare costs increasing, of out-of-pocket Medicare costs increasing, and of a deliberate strategy to keep wages low and keep workers in insecure work, those opposite have the absolute gall to walk in here and all of a sudden pretend to be on the side of working Australians, working people. I think the fact that we've seen so many state elections right across Australia where the Liberals have been voted out, where what the Liberals have to offer has been rejected, means the Australian people have gotten pretty good at seeing through the lies of those opposite. I think those opposite are pretty brave to come here, though—to give them some credit—every single day and try this on. Perhaps they deserve a bit of congratulations for their courage—or perhaps it's just shamelessness. Since we've gotten into government, we have been working really hard to relieve the pressure on families because we do understand that people are under an enormous amount of pressure across our communities. We've heard some statements from those opposite about the importance of manufacturing in this country. I've always been a massive supporter of manufacturing and the good, secure jobs, with good wages, that the manufacturing sector provides. So I'm a bit shocked to hear those opposite come in here and talk so much about how amazing manufacturing is, because, when given the opportunity to vote for manufacturing and vote for good jobs, secure jobs that pay workers well right across the country, those opposite said no. It's pretty appalling, too, to hear those opposite talking about what we need to do to support young people, when of course they failed a generation of young people when it came to taking action on climate change. We also saw during the very worst parts of the pandemic that universities were absolutely abandoned by those opposite, which has had a really devastating effect in my electorate on students studying at Monash and Deakin, particularly postgraduate students. And those opposite really failed to have much vision at all when it came to improving the quality of jobs for young people. I'm really delighted that one of the recent policies that we've enacted will ensure that superannuation is paid to people on payday. That will have a real effect on young people, because it is largely young people and those in insecure work who have suffered from the loss of that entitlement in the past. I'm so delighted to be part of a government that is taking action there, which will improve the cost-of-living pressures for young people not just now—and with those other measures that I have described—but also in the future, when it comes to their retirement. In my electorate we have around 7½ thousand people that will benefit from the increase to the Child Care Subsidy—cheaper child care—which will commence on 1 July. I'm really pleased to see that, particularly because we saw the cost of child care rise under the decade that those opposite presided over, under their woeful government. We also saw aged-care workers recently get a much-deserved pay increase. For those hardworking people in the care economy, largely women, that's going to make a huge difference to their cost-of-living pressures. Again we are reminded of the absolute contempt those opposite had for working people and for quality wages for a decade, to the extent of ridiculing the now Prime Minister when he suggested that the lowest paid workers in our economy should get a pay rise. It is absolutely disgraceful. I'm so glad Australians rejected that nonsense from those opposite. We're tripling the Medicare rebates for families. In my electorate alone, we saw out-of-pocket costs to see a GP rise by 38 per cent. If you want to talk about inflation, that's a pretty significant cost-of-living increase and pressure on households. I'm proud to be part of a government that is taking cost-of-living pressures across the country seriously. I find the opposition's tactics in these MPIs utterly bizarre. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. COMMITTEES 46 COMMITTEES Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee 46 Membership 46 16:28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport. 16:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Dr Scamps be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into prevention, diagnosis and management of all forms of diabetes, and obesity and its effects on the Australian population, including prevention, diagnosis and management. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 46 BUSINESS Consideration Of Legislation 46 16:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023: (1) on Tuesday, 30 May when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance and any division or quorum deferred under standing orders 55 and 133, the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm; (2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm on Tuesday, 30 May, the bill being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until no further Members rise to speak, at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 31 May at 9 am; (3) on Wednesday, 31 May: (a) the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 being immediately called on following prayers; (b) questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; and (c) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with the bill being taken as a whole; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. I'll be very brief in my remarks because the whole purpose of this is to get through the debate and that purpose would be defeated if I were to give a long explanation. Effectively, what the government has been trying to do is make sure that we maximise members' opportunities to be able to speak on this issue while, at the same time, making sure that we get it to the Senate before the Senate returns. That's why we had some late nights last week. Members were still given the full 15 minutes to speak. Some members assisted the House by giving briefer speeches, but the right, if someone wanted to exercise it, to speak for the full 15 minutes remained. What this motion does is say that we will finish this debate tonight. It may well be, given the number of speakers that we have on the current list, that we finish in time for the adjournment anyway, but this says that, if we don't, we'll have the adjournment debate between 7.30 and eight o'clock, so, if you're on the roster, you'll still get your speech. Then, at eight o'clock, instead of adjourning, we will return to this bill and we will continue going through speeches until the list is exhausted. Then, tomorrow morning when we return, we will have the second reading vote. For the information of members, the government's intention is that we will then go immediately into consideration in detail. We'll stay there. There'll certainly be votes; there may or may not be divisions on amendments. Then, when we hit the third reading, whether a division is called or not, the bells will ring, and I'd remind members that, for those listening to the broadcast, the term 'mickey' won't be a familiar one, but it's a very familiar one to members of parliament. You may see on the screen a division that looks like one that you don't ordinarily turn up to. The third reading, for constitutional purposes, has to be divided and, no matter how many people there are on each side, every name will be recorded. 16:32 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the Leader of the House for his explanation. I understand he has had some conversations with the Manager of Opposition Business and, for the goodwill of the House, I'm sure we'll proceed successfully tonight. Question agreed to. BILLS 47 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 47

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 47 16:33 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie In continuation, Perry Hamilton from Griffin said: 'I have been trying to work out why the Prime Minister and the Labor government are so hell-bent on including the Voice into the Constitution when they can simply legislate right now.' Peter Perkins from Kippa-Ring said: 'The Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is a nebulous statement. To draw the long bow, everything parliament discusses or proposes relates in some way to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I will be a "no" voter, and I am very concerned about many unspoken issues.' John from Clontarf said: 'I was sitting in the lunch room with colleagues and the topic of the Voice came up. The feedback I heard was they're sick of being pushed around, being told what to do, and sick of the conversation, and this was from both Indigenous people and non-Indigenous Australians.' Mike and Terra from Clontarf are voting no. They say that this voice proposal in the Constitution represents the Aboriginal industry only and not Aboriginal people in remote areas, and they've done a lot of travel into remote areas. With the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Nampijinpa Price, I recently did a 'politics in the pub'. We had an opportunity to go to a school. Then we had about 350 people for a 'politics in the pub', and it was quickly sold out, more quickly than when I've run it with a treasurer or former cabinet minister. One of the things I asked Jacinta about was her name. I said, 'Your name is Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. What does "Nampijinpa" mean?' She explained that it is her skin name. It was a very interesting meeting. She spoke about the Voice when asked, and she doesn't support it either. When we talk about a voice, I think we can all agree that it's important to listen to all voices. Here are some of things some my respected and highly qualified colleagues are saying. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has said, 'I don't want to see my family divided along the lines of race, because we are a family, a family of human beings. Senator Kerrynne Liddle said, 'The scope is far too wide, and it gives Indigenous people a benefit above and beyond other Australians in the founding document, the Constitution.' Former prime minister Tony Abbott stated in his address to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: 'The Constitution belongs to all of us.' Prime Minister Albanese refuses to provide even the most basic detail on the Voice model. He wants you to vote on a Saturday, and then, come Monday, he will spend however long he needs to workout the detail. That's like putting foxes in charge of the chook house of our Constitution. Details should come before the vote, not the vote before the details. This process is without precedent. Informed decision-making is one of the leading features of autonomy for the individual in today's society and is undoubtedly one of the major issues that have arisen with the process this government has taken to introduce the referendum to Australians. There are already hundreds of bodies across the nation that represent Indigenous views: the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA; the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies; the Lowitja Institute; Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet; Closing the Gap; NAIDOC; the National Native Title Tribunal; Indigenous land corporations; the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations; and Indigenous.gov.au. There are also four main national bodies that represent Indigenous Australians: the National Consultative Committee, the National Aboriginal Conference, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the National Congress of Australia's First People. There are also 11 democratically elected First Nations people in the House and in the Senate. Where is their voice? Does their voice not mean anything? MPs and senators have a responsibility to represent their state or territory or their electorate. I would like to say also that discussion from codes like the NRL and other sporting bodies and businesses is unhelpful and is only driving more people to vote 'no'. They don't want to be told what to do by a sporting group or big business. 16:37 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Twelve months ago the people of Hughes put their trust and faith in me to represent and serve them in this place. I similarly put my trust and faith in the people of Hughes when later this year they, along with 17.5 million other Australians, will have the opportunity to vote on this referendum. The people of Australia always get it right. As disappointing as it was to be a Liberal on 21 May 2022, when we conclusively lost government, the Australian voters got it right. Similarly, Australians will get it right later this year when they vote either 'yes' or 'no' on this referendum. I was elected by the people of Hughes as a Liberal and under the Liberal brand. I commend my party's position to support this bill to the extent that we will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the bill and on the referendum. This is appropriate. Changing our Constitution, our founding document, by vote by a majority of Australians in a majority of states is one of the hallmarks of our great democracy. It has only occurred on eight occasions since Australia became a federation in 1901. The subject matter of this upcoming referendum is in two parts, although in one question. It is the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the enshrining of a national voice within our Constitution. These are important matters for both Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. I have had the advantage of having listened to many speeches on this bill made in this place, from my side, from the government's side and from the crossbenches. At the outset, I thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister Burney, for her representation of and advocacy for her people on this bill. She has conducted this debate with respect, integrity and dignity. My plea is that, as this bill leaves this place and goes to the other place and then ultimately to the Australian people, we similarly conduct ourselves with respect, integrity and dignity. On my side, I particularly commend the speech of my friend the honourable member for Menzies and the work he undertook as the deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. Similarly, I commend the courage and commitment by my other friend the honourable member for Berowra, who has been a staunch supporter of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for a voice at local, regional and national level. He has worked tirelessly over many years in his belief that this is the answer to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In that vein, I similarly acknowledge the work also conducted by the former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Mr Ken Wyatt, who's no longer in this place. The Liberal Party has a longstanding tradition of supporting Indigenous Australians. Robert Menzies gave Aboriginal people the right to vote in Commonwealth and territory elections. He also established the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, a national treasure that seeks to preserve Indigenous language and culture. Harold Holt brought the 1967 referendum to a successful conclusion, to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted as part of the Australian population. 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. Scott Morrison secured the National Resting Place and built a historic partnership with the Coalition of Peaks. Several weeks ago, I committed to engaging with my electorate on this bill and the two underlying propositions regarding constitutional recognition and constitutional enshrinement of a national Voice to Parliament. To that end, over 2,000 have responded to my survey; I've received over 400 emails from constituents; and, on 3 May, over 130 people attended a community forum I facilitated and moderated on the Voice. I thank Aunty Gail Smith from the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council, who gave the acknowledgement of country, as well as CEO Melissa Williams and all the Gundungurra people who attended. I also acknowledge those from Sutherland Shire Reconciliation, led by Aunty Dolly Brown, who also attended. I thank the panellists, who gave up their own time: Joe Hildebrand for the 'yes' campaign, and former prime minister the Hon. Tony Abbott for the 'no' campaign. Joe and Tony argued vehemently and vigorously but without vitriol and without virtue signalling. They used intellect, reason and passion to argue their respective cases. I thank those from my electorate who attended to ask questions—intelligent questions—and who were generally seeking to understand the referendum question before they vote. That is what I hope for in this upcoming campaign. My plea is that we, as Australians, treat each other with dignity and respect, in the same way the panellists on my community forum treated each other. When we wake up as a nation the day after the referendum—it will be a Sunday morning—we must be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. How we feel on that day is important, as is, in addition to how we feel on that day, the day after the referendum, how we treat each other in this process, how we treat each other in this place and how we treat each other outside of this place. The day after the referendum, whatever the result, the Australian people will have got it right. That's what we accept in a democracy. That's what happens in every election. We lost the federal election last year, but the Australian people got it right. Although we may have different views in this place and the other place, there is, I believe, one thing on which we all agree: that we must do more to close the gap; to bring about real, practical reconciliation with Indigenous Australians; to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, many of whom live in deplorable circumstances that would be unacceptable in other parts of Australia. And I say this, as well, as somebody with Indigenous Australians within my family. To Sherri, Jackson and their beautiful little girls, Estelle and Everlee: if this voice is successful, I hope that it improves your lives and the lives of your people down there in Wreck Bay. Therefore, the question for the Australian people, for the electorate of Hughes, is whether the referendum, if passed, will bring about better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. It seems there is widespread support for constitutional recognition. I support that. I always have. It seems to me that the majority of my electorate support this. Indeed, the majority of Australians seem to support this. This is largely symbolic; however, symbols are important. Otherwise, we would not have flags. We would not have uniforms. We would not have badges. Symbolism matters. The second part of the question that is being put to the Australian people will be about enshrining a national voice into our Constitution. This is the part that has troubled my electorate and is troubling many Australians. We canvassed this at length at the community forum. Prime Minister Albanese had the opportunity to break these questions into two. This would have ensured as far as possible that constitutional recognition was successful. Instead, with intractable obstinacy to engage with our party, in an attempt to wedge us and paint us as racists, he has refused to obtain bipartisan support. The Prime Minister therefore now takes full responsibility for the 'yes' campaign's success. The process could have been very different. The process should have been very different. In conclusion, my electorate of Hughes has demonstrated that it is interested in understanding both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns for the upcoming referendum. I say to the people of Hughes: please continue to engage. Ensure that you understand both sides of the debate. I am one of 17½ million Austrians who will have a vote on this important issue towards the end of this year. The people of Hughes and the people of Australia got it right last May. They will get it right again on this referendum. 16:48 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. I believe that all Australians of goodwill on all sides of politics agree that we need to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. While there are areas of progress which we should celebrate, the simple fact is that, on average, Indigenous Australians will live shorter lives than other Australians, have poorer health outcomes, be less likely to be employed and have lower levels of education. The two parties of government have a shared responsibility in closing these gaps. Over many decades, both parties have made some progress but have left much still to be done. The bill before this House, in my assessment, is motivated by two complementary desires. The first is to achieve practical outcomes in improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, and the second is to incorporate within the foundational legal document which underpins the rule of law in our nation a symbolic recognition of the distinctive place of Indigenous Australians as Australia's First Peoples and as the inheritors of a culture which is more than 60,000 years old. If this bill is passed it will authorise the government to proceed to hold a referendum which, if supported by the required majority of Australians and the majority of states, will amend the Constitution so as to establish the Voice to Parliament. In my remarks today I want to focus firstly on why the Liberal Party is supporting this bill. Next, I want to review the bipartisan history in getting to this point and explain why it is so deeply regrettable that the current Prime Minister has abandoned that bipartisanship. Third, I want to make some observations about the choice now facing the Australian people. Let me turn, then, to why the Liberal Party is supporting this bill and why, as a Liberal member of parliament, I am voting yes on this bill. The purpose of this bill is to authorise the referendum to proceed. It sets out the specific terms of the constitutional amendment which is proposed and which will take effect if the referendum is passed. From the time this parliament was formed in the middle of last year, and the Prime Minister announced that his government would be proceeding to a referendum on this matter, the Liberal Party's position has been to approach the question with an open mind and with goodwill. We went through considerable deliberation. Our leader and our shadow minister attended meetings of the Referendum Working Group on the Voice to Parliament. We sought further details about what the Voice was and how it would operate. We asked questions, such as: Who will be eligible to serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? And a range of other questions. It became increasingly clear, though, that the detail we were seeking was simply not available. For these and other reasons the Liberal Party arrived at the position that we would not support the proposal to establish the Voice through an amendment to the Constitution. However, we were very clear that we supported the Australian people being in a position to take this decision. In turn, we are supporting the bill that is before the House today, and that is because this bill must pass if the referendum is to proceed. I want to turn to the importance of bipartisanship. In 1967 the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to change the Constitution as it applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The 'yes' vote was almost 91 per cent. This was a remarkable, positive and unifying moment for Australia. As the Prime Minister acknowledged in his Lowitja O'Donoghue oration last night, it was achieved because the then coalition government led by Harold Holt took care to achieve bipartisan support for the referendum. The Liberal and Labor parties both recommended that Australians vote yes. The result of the 1967 referendum was that Indigenous Australians could rightly feel that they had been recognised and supported by the broader Australian community. Of course, there is more to be done. This side of the House has long recognised that reality. That is why it has been our policy for a considerable period of time to support amending Australia's Constitution so that it contains formal recognition of Australia's First Peoples. Wisely, over more than a decade, both sides of politics have recognised that if we are to make progress towards this very important objective, that progress must be achieved on a bipartisan basis. In 2007, former prime ministers John Howard and Kevin Rudd both stated their support for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In 2012, both the Liberal and Labor parties voted for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act. After the coalition came to power in 2013, then prime minister Tony Abbott, with support from then opposition leader Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, established the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2015. This committee delivered its final report in 2015, recommending that a referendum be conducted to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. In 2015, the Referendum Council was jointly appointed by then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten. It's job was to advise the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about progress and next steps towards a successful referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. In 2018, the Liberal member for Berowra, my close friend and holder of the neighbouring seat, and Labor senator Pat Dodson were appointed as co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Arising from the final report of this committee, a Voice co-design process was carried out during the life of the last parliament, under the then coalition government, the Morrison government, with the agreement of the then Labor opposition. I run through this brief history to underline the importance of bipartisanship in these processes, something which has been recognised over more than 15 years and which was previously the foundation to the successful outcome of the 1967 referendum. This is why it is so deeply unfortunate that, since the 2022 election, the Prime Minister has radically departed from this bipartisan approach. The government has chosen not to engage in any realistic or meaningful consultation, still less negotiation, with the opposition concerning the words of the referendum question and concerning the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. The Prime Minister has chosen not to provide any significant detail in relation to how the Voice will be structured and how it will operate even though the Liberal Party have been clear from the outset that this is an area of great concern, we believe, for many Australians. The result is that we as a nation find ourselves in a position where there is a real risk that this referendum will divide the nation rather than unite it. Rather than delivering a result which enhances mutual understanding between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, which increases confidence amongst Australians that they are greatly respected and valued by the entire nation and which tells the whole world how proud every Australian is of the distinctive culture, history and society which has developed on this vast southern continent over more than 60,000 years, we face the real risk that the result of the referendum will do none of these things. In my opinion, we face that risk should the result be 52 to 48 for the referendum or 52 to 48 against. I fervently hope that risk does not materialise into reality. But, if it does, a fundamental reason will be that the Prime Minister chose to abandon bipartisanship, chose to make no attempt to secure wording which enjoyed support across the political spectrum and chose to go ahead to put a referendum to the Australian people in circumstances where the meticulous preparatory work required to secure strong majority support simply had not been done. Let me turn, then, to the choice now facing the Australian people as they cast their votes in the referendum. The vote that I will exercise as the member for Bradfield will be to support this bill so that my constituents and people around Australia in turn get to exercise their votes as they see fit. From the point that this bill passes the parliament, each member of this House and each senator has one vote in the referendum, a vote worth no more and no less than the vote of every one of the more than 17 million Australians on the electoral roll. It is my hope that we have a respectful and fact based process under which every effort is made for Australians to receive the information they require to cast their votes as they see fit. I want to express my respect for the many Australians of goodwill who intend to vote 'yes' and the many Australians of goodwill who intend to vote 'no' on this referendum. As I have spoken to my constituents in Bradfield, it is clear that many are thinking carefully about this referendum. It is also clear that many people feel that the information they need to make a decision has not been made readily available. Many are uncertain precisely how the Voice will work. To help address this uncertainty, I am pleased that there will be a pamphlet written and distributed to all Australians setting out the case for 'yes' and the case for 'no' on the particular referendum question. This has been a standard requirement in referendums for many years, but, curiously, the Albanese government initially proposed removing this requirement. The Liberal Party pressed for the normal requirement to apply, and I am pleased that the government ultimately agreed. It is for this reason that some Liberal members in this chamber will vote to oppose the bill so that they can formally provide input into the preparation of the pamphlet. It is a legislative requirement that if a parliamentarian is to provide input into the 'no' case then that parliamentarian must vote no to the bill presently before the House. Let me turn to the Liberal Party support for regional and local voices. These will be local and regional advisory bodies which provide grassroots advice to bring about practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The establishment of local and regional voices was recommended in the Calma-Langton report written following the co-design process I outlined earlier. Indeed, this was the policy commitment which we took to the last election, along with a commitment to spend $31.8 million to establish local and regional voices. The approach of starting first by legislating local and regional voices would allow the new system to establish itself and to prove its worth, and, should it prove to have problems, the legislation can be amended to fix the problems. It is interesting that objective observers have commented there is a considerable amount of agreement between the two major parties. As Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey wrote: Despite the political acrimony over the Voice referendum, what's most striking is the similarities between the positions of the Coalition and the Labor government. Both agree Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution. Both agree practical outcomes are needed to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Both agree parliament and the executive government need to be better informed about the laws and policies they make, and that they need to hear the voices of those on the ground who are affected by those laws and policies. Of course, there are also areas of disagreement which are well understood. I conclude by observing that this is an important bill. I am pleased to support it and, in turn, to cast a vote for the referendum being able to proceed. This decision will now be in the hands of the Australian people, and I am confident they will apply their trademark common sense and wise judgement in arriving at a decision for our nation. 17:02 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I thank the member for Bradfield for his contribution and for laying out very well for the House the long history of this debate and the amount of work that has gone on over many, many years. As the member for Bradfield noted in his concluding remarks, this is a very important piece of legislation. We have seen, sadly, over the past 235 years since settlement that Indigenous people in this country have been let down in many ways by successive governments, by successive departments and bureaucracies, both at state and federal level, and by boards paid to represent them. They have been let down in areas of life expectancy, health outcomes, education and job opportunities. By most, if not all, statistical measures, our Indigenous communities have never closed the gap. Of this, I think across this chamber there is no doubt and no disagreement. This legislation is purportedly designed to fix that through two mechanisms: firstly, through constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and their presence here on this great continent long before British settlement; secondly, through the creation of a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution. Sadly, the details of which, remain a mystery to us all. It is the second part of this that is proving divisive. We cannot address these issues by dividing Australians on the basis of culture. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr's eloquent statement, no Australian should 'be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. We cannot address the systemic issues faced by Indigenous communities without acknowledging the amazing diversity of opinion, culture, background and life experience that exists in Indigenous communities right across this great nation. In relation to the first part of the question, I firmly believe, as does, I think, everybody who has contributed to this debate, that Indigenous recognition in the Constitution is both necessary and well overdue. I think if this was the first part of question was a separate question that we were addressing, we would see an outcome even greater than the 1967 referendum. If we want to look for examples, the Queensland, South Australian, Victorian and Western Australian governments have been able to include such recognition in their own constitutions. Therefore, there is no reason why this should not occur at a federal level. In relation to the second part of the question though, the coalition believes this is best achieved through legislation. It has been pointed out previously that this could be done here and now, and importantly this would deliver local and regional voices. These should be the direct voices of their respective communities, built from the grassroots up. What may impact Indigenous communities in the APY Lands or on Cape York may bear no relationship to the issues faced by Indigenous communities in an urban setting or in areas like my electorate of Forde. It is important to note that there are already a multitude of organisations supposedly trying to fix the issues in Indigenous communities, but I think it's fair to say that they have demonstrably failed to deliver for those Indigenous communities. If we go down the path of a voice, these organisations as well, in my view, must be restructured, reformatted and refocused on solving the genuine problems facing local Indigenous communities right across this country. It is because these local communities themselves are best placed to know what they need and when they need it. It is these local communities in the electorate of Forde that I would like to highlight. There is so much Indigenous heritage to celebrate my communities. The traditional custodians of the land between the Logan River and Tweed Rivers are the Yugambeh people, and to the north of the Logan River is the Yuggera people. These lands include that of the Logan district, now the City of Logan, a large portion of which falls within my electorate of Forde, and the northern Gold Coast. The early history and creation of the Logan districts itself is much like the broader Australian story over the last two centuries. Relations between the settlers, law enforcement and the Yugambeh people was, as Griffith University states, 'at times volatile, while at others relatively peaceful and respectful'. And I know from stories I have heard that there is an acknowledgement among the settlers' diary records that if it wasn't for the assistance of the Indigenous communities in their first couple of summers of settlement they would not have survived. But we also have to acknowledge the moments when things weren't so good, such as the activities of the native police in attempting to disperse Indigenous peoples from the lands on which they had lived for generations past. However, we should also acknowledge and celebrate those, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have worked to bridge the gap between the Yugambeh people and the settlers. We've recently seen through the Yugambeh Museum the Yugambeh language being revived by their extraordinary work, and it is now being taught in our local schools. I'm also proud to have worked with and continue to work closely with some wonderful local Indigenous groups. For over a quarter of a century the Jimbelunga Nursing Centre in Eagleby has provided and continues to provide high standards of care, safety and service for the aged and elderly in our communities, to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service in Brisbane has worked tirelessly in our community for many years. And the Beenleigh Housing Development Company is an organisation that strives to support, enhance and transform the lives of its members in a culturally supportive and regenerative way. The previous coalition government was one of its biggest supporters, having provided a $750,000 funding grant over three years for it to continue to run its programs. Its aim is to provide shelter for the community that provides nourishment and protection through the concept of the Jinndi Mibunn, or the eagle's nest. The pilot Family Jarjum Jinndi project is a key goal of the organisation that would see the establishment, construction and running of a housing hub for the local Indigenous community. The Forde electorate, and the Indigenous community within it, fully demonstrates so clearly the benefit of working together towards a single goal of bringing real change to the lives of Indigenous people. I've heard those opposite comment during this debate that we should be listening. The remarks I've just made on the successes of our local Indigenous community show that we are listening. I can share with this House that the views I hear when I am out and about speaking to a variety of constituents across my electorate are much like those shared by the member for Bradfield in his earlier comments. There are those who fully support the Voice and the present proposal, there are those who do not and there are those in the middle who want more information and are undecided. As noted earlier, it's important that any actions we take in the space do not divide us. All Australians want to see real change, a real closing of the gap for all of our Indigenous communities. This change cannot happen by creating citizens with different rights. How can something that is built on a premise that is divisive be expected to deliver positive change? With this proposal we are left with so many unanswered questions. What happens if the proposed model does not work as expected? Will we be required to hold another referendum to repeal fundamental errors? How and why should Indigenous people trust the government to deliver meaningful change to their communities when, since the last election, it has already gone back on so many of its promises to the Australian public? How can the Voice be held to account to make sure it does not overlook the needs of remote communities? No government should ever provide so little detail on such an important and permanent decision and then seek that you trust everything will work itself out once the decision is made. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. As others on this side have noted, the coalition supports the passage of this bill and, importantly, Australians having their say. That's why I'm supporting the passage of this bill, allowing every Australian to vote on the proposed question and on whether it should be adopted and enshrined in our Constitution. I urge each and every person in this country to think carefully before casting their vote. Do not feel pressured to vote a certain way because a corporation or organisation is telling you that you should. If the proposal is not completely satisfactory to you, do not feel that you have to vote for it at all in order to attain parts of it. Good policy married with poor policy will not necessarily equate to a good outcome. The question for me remains: on a vote as significant as this, are the risks work taking? Guilting the Australian public into voting for the poorly detailed policy that is the Voice, as distinct from constitutional recognition—those two should be separated—in my view is not a risk worth taking. Establishing a local and regional voice, along with restructuring Indigenous organisations, for the betterment of Indigenous people could be done right now in this place via legislation. We would then have genuine information and detail to discuss the specifics of the policy—an aspect of this debate which, to date, has been sadly lacking. I will continue to support the call for Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. Constitutional recognition would be a significant step forward for Indigenous Australians and, in my view, would mark the completion of our Constitution. 17:15 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise today to oppose the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I have to say I'm quite sad to have to speak on this bill in that way today. I don't believe that the government really needs to put us in this position with this bill, which is dividing us as a parliament and will divide us as a nation in the referendum. In fact, I believe we're at a historical point, a unique one in modern Australian history, where everybody—it doesn't really matter whether you're a conservative or a progressive, Right or Left, what your racial background is, what country you've come from or what gender you are—agrees that our Constitution could and should be altered to improve it so it's understood that the historical reality of this continent is that Aboriginal people were here first, accepting that principle in our Constitution. I actually think that consensus exists across this chamber and across our society today. It is sad that we have ended up at a point where we are going to divide on a second proposition, which is something the government has called 'a voice to parliament'—which is the result of work that was done by the previous government—because of some things that are easily resolvable, in my mind. I'll go through some of those for the benefit of people listening. I think that disagreement in a democracy is not division, and it's fundamental, when we have referendums, that we have a good debate and freedom of debate to discuss the ideas that will shape the fundamental rights that are involved in a constitution. Australia had the unique benefit of adopting the best of the British constitution and the best of the United States system and constitution—taking the best of those two models and implementing them together, as a modern country. But we're naturally conservative about the Constitution, not politically but in a traditional sense. There hasn't been a successful change to the Constitution since I was born, in 1977. In my entire life, not one referendum has been accepted adopted, and not many before that either. The reason for that is that there is an inherent scepticism, and I think a good scepticism, about government and government wanting to extend its power or control over the lives of individual citizens and communities, and about the idea that government knows best or that government can do best. The whole principle of the Voice as I understand it, as best as it has been explained, is that government has not listened to Aboriginal people. Government and its organs—all of its bureaucracies, all of our parliaments, all of our laws—have not understood some fundamental things about what Aboriginal people want and need or how to determine their destinies within a modern Australia. And that's why we need the Voice. So we accept the point that government and its organs and all of our power has not been able to improve the lives of Aboriginal people. At the same time we're proposing that the way to resolve that is to send 24 elected politicians, elected by race, of Aboriginal descent, to Canberra to talk to government and that that will somehow resolve the same problems that have been unresolvable. To me, that doesn't make a whole deal of sense. I've listened carefully to the arguments of my colleagues in the Labor Party, across the chamber. I've listened carefully. Many of them are very emotive. They've focused on 'how will you feel the day after if you vote yes or no'. I understand. Feelings are very important. Emotions are important. But constitutions are about rights, the application of rights, and about the construct of our society, and human progress has shown us that equality of rights is fundamental to a free society. The basic principle of equality of rights and access to rights is the most important feature, which means we should not allocate those rights on the basis of race, on the basis of background or on the basis of privilege. All of us want our children and grandchildren and future generations to have equal rights and opportunities, especially when it comes to questions of race. So it is not understandable to me that a voice which is necessarily based on race—that's what the Makarrata Commission has told us: three per cent and 97 per cent—and which enshrines racially based rights in the Constitution will improve equality of rights in Australia or help us reconcile our history and help us journey together in the future. It isn't clear to me. The arguments I've heard from members opposite have not cleared it up either. I heard the member the Cowan, for example, say that, if you can Google a chicken curry recipe, you can Google what the Voice is. But we're not going to outsource the Australian government or the construction of our rights or the construction of our Constitution to Google or to a multinational company. There was the argument from the member for Cowan. She may have been making a joke, but it isn't a real constitutional argument. Constitutions should be about principles, and the Constitution should be about the principle of equality of rights. It's a fundamental Liberal principle. It's a reason I'm in politics and parliament. I do believe absolutely that, as a human being, whatever your background, you should be treated the same, and our country has failed to do that in the past. Our Constitution failed to do that with some racist provisions in our own constitution that should be resolved and fixed. But history has taught us many things, and one of those is that trying to make subsequent or future generations pay for the mistakes of past generations is a fool's errand. Over 50 per cent of the population in Australia have a grandparent or parent born overseas. Most people have no ownership of our colonial period or the wrongs that were done to Aboriginal people. They weren't part of it—not their ancestors or them or their children or the future generations. This debate today on this bill and this referendum that the government is putting forward is about the future. It's about future constructions of rights. We can't make rights more equal in Australia or fix what went wrong in the past—when many things went very wrong—by attempting to rebalance things the other way, so that the three per cent will then get special rights over the 97 per cent. It was wrong not to give Aboriginal people equal and the same citizenship from the beginning of our Constitution. It is wrong to enshrine the rights of three per cent over 97 per cent the other way. The better proposition is equal rights for all Australians, and that's the proposition that I'll be putting when I campaign for the 'no' case, because I believe that's the fundamental principle that makes a society free and makes us a great country. I'm disappointed in the way the government has handled not just this legislation but the entire referendum debate. Many of the government members had a very respectful debate, but many implied that, if you don't understand the Voice, you are some form of idiot. The Prime Minister has been guilty of this, too. If you don't understand what the Voice is, somehow you're a fool. This is not correct. The Voice is a very new concept. People don't understand it. They need information about it. That is why, in the past under the legislation, governments have provided money and funding for the 'yes' case and the 'no' case in referendums and committed to extensive information campaigns and committed to constitutional conventions. That's because, when we're talking about the construct of our society, we want the maximum information in the hands of our citizens. We want their best thinking. We want their best consideration. The government has a role in setting that up. We certainly shouldn't be outsourcing it to Google, as the member for Cowan suggested. But the Albanese government quite radically has provided no funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases. I understand that the purpose behind that—and I think Australians should really appreciate this—is that they believe that will give the 'yes' case an advantage. Therefore the government is saying, 'No funding.' The government attempted to cut off the communication that would ordinarily go to every single household. Every household would get a basic piece of information from the government outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases and outlining the merits of both so people could make their own decisions. The government tried to cut this off. Why did the government try to cut off information about our Constitution and about what's proposed? One can only surmise that they don't want information about the Voice in people's hands. Why? If this is as good for Aboriginal people as members of the government believe, why wouldn't you fund a full information campaign about it on both sides? You have to be fair about this. I might be a constitutional monarchist and believe in our system being quite unique and good for Australia and good for Australia's future, but of course I believe that the campaign for a republic should get the same amount of funding as the constitutional monarchy campaign. It would have been outrageous for the Howard government to have denied funding to one side or the other. It would have been outrageous for the Howard government not to commit to providing information on the 'yes' and 'no' cases to every single household so they could make their own informed decision. It would be, I think, an error not to have had that constitutional convention, which people can still remember being a great exploration of the issues. What a great opportunity has been missed by the Albanese government to have a constitutional convention. That really could have thought about the best of the arguments for and against a Voice and really explored things in a way that would have helped. There's no doubt that the polls are telling us people don't understand exactly what the Voice is or how it will function. That's all demographics, including older people, younger people and migrants. I think that this failure by the government to have this fundamental fairness project on a fundamental change to our Constitution, something new and different, is a failure of the government. That's why I'm going to be opposing this bill. I'm very frightened at the way the debate has been conducted in some quarters. It is almost as if Aboriginal people who have a 'no' opinion, who don't agree with the government's proposal on the Voice, have no right to that opinion. I think that's an extension of the paternalism that we've seen over many hundreds of years. It's an extension of the paternalism towards Aboriginal people—the idea that they can have only one opinion. Actually, the diversity in Aboriginal voices should be as welcome as the diversity in any other background or group, and it should be listened to. I've found when I've spoken to Aboriginal elders who have spoken to me, some just very randomly, at events—they might be doing the welcome-to-country ceremony or other things—that I have been surprised by what I have heard from them about their concerns about the Voice. I have been surprised sometimes by their positions. Sometimes I have been confronted by other things that they have said that I did not expect. I believe Australians should go and listen to as many Indigenous Aboriginal elders as possible to get a real understanding of what people are thinking. We are not getting that in this debate in this chamber. We are getting a very one-sided monologue about this. We are not getting that in the media. We are getting a one-sided monologue. But I am concerned that when I have said to Indigenous elders, 'I would like you to come and speak to the people in my electorate and tell your views, because your views as an Aboriginal person are more important than mine on this matter,' they have said that they are too afraid to speak out in the culture of today on their view that they have concerns one way or another about the Voice. I think that is a very, very sad indictment of this debate and the culture that we live in. This should not be the case. How we going to improve the situation for Aboriginal Australians if lots of Aboriginal people do not feel comfortable in coming forward with their own views? Are we guilty of not listening already? Are we guilty of not listening in this debate to Aboriginal voices that think differently to what the government is proposing? It feels like we're replicating the mistakes that we have been making for a long time in many ways. This is not an esoteric point. I think this is part of the cultural problem that we have today—that, if you are not in line with the majority or you don't have the consensus view, you are denied a voice. I think, sadly, that is happening to a lot of Aboriginal elders who don't agree with this proposal. I accept many do, and I accept many think this is a good way to proceed. I think it would be nonsensical not to accept that. But a diversity of opinions needs to be heard. The fact that they are not being heard is another reason why I don't support this bill or this process. I believe that this juncture in history actually lends itself to us coming together and taking an important step in reconciliation. That would be recognition in our Constitution. I believe the government could get a mandate from the Australian people—and perhaps they did last time—to legislate a Voice in their own right. I may not agree with that, but if the government gets the public's permission they should legislate that Voice. It is a better way to proceed given all the lack of understanding that we have seen from Aboriginal bodies in the past. You can go through all of the different bodies in Australian history. Everybody in this chamber has now acknowledged that they haven't done a great job of listening, understanding or working through government processes to produce outcomes. That's why we're here. So how is another one going to do that? The last one point I'll make is that the government's denial of detail of any potential bill or legislation is another revealing point of their intention. Detail does matter in relation to constitutional reform. How we will improve the lives of Aboriginal people is an essential question. How will the Voice do that? No government speaker has addressed that. They've said it will. They've asserted many things, but they've not said, 'This is how the Voice will function to improve these actual practical outcomes for Aboriginal people.' At the same time they're saying we need to listen more, the government are saying that this will not be listened to because the executive doesn't have to pay attention; it just has to consult. That's their own argument—that this will not be litigated. Really, when you look at it—and there is plenty of conjecture about this—everything is litigated in Australia. So if we have a constitutional amendment and we have a bill to enshrine the Voice and a piece of legislation passes this parliament, this would be the first constitutional amendment in Australian history that wasn't litigated. I just don't think anybody can look the Australian people in the eye and suggest that there will be no litigation out of a change like this. Of course there will be and we accept there will be. That is not necessarily a reason to go against it but it is a concern that would be addressed by a piece of legislation that the Australian people could examine and that legal professionals could examine. We could test that and test how well that would work or not work. None of that has happened. So I say to people: consider this carefully, seek out the information the government is trying to deny you and consult Aboriginal elders. The Prime Minister is fond of asking: if not now, when? But I say to the Prime Minister: if it is a bad idea, never. I won't be supporting this bill and I certainly won't be supporting the referendum in its current state. I do believe that it is sad for our country. I believe we can recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution and that we should in the future. 17:30 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor It is a great privilege to rise this evening to make a related and brief contribution to what has been a marathon debate. I think there have been over 100 speakers so far, and I have listened very respectfully and with interest to the contributions from all sides. While we obviously have points of difference, there has been a great opportunity for the House to debate this bill and for all people to put their points of view. I want to take the opportunity this evening to explain to my constituents my position on the Voice. I've been very consistent in my media statements that I have always supported the recognition of Indigenous people as the first inhabitants of this continent that we all now enjoy; that is a no-brainer and it should be recognised. However, I don't support the enshrinement of the Aboriginal Voice advisory body in our Constitution. I will explain why in a moment. I did also want to make the point that I absolutely support the right of the government to take this referendum to the Australian people. It was certainly an election commitment that they had made, and the Australian people deserve to have their say on this important issue. I will be voting against this particular legislation this evening, if that is in fact when the vote takes place, as an authorised dissenter. The reason—I'm talking specifically to my constituents here—is because I had some input into the 'no' pamphlet I will have to be recorded as having voted against this legislation. That is why I stand here tonight—to explain that position. I will also now explain why that is so important. Many people in my electorate don't have the IT skills or the access to IT to simply google all of the details on the Voice. There are many elderly people. I have a larger than average cohort of older Australians. Many have already contacted me and asked for more information, so I do believe that the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets will be critical for my constituents to come to an informed position on the Voice. I encourage all of them to take advantage of that process. I want to take a moment to quote from Paul Kelly's—the doyen of the press gallery—article in The Australian on the weekend about this process. This is not me speaking. This is not any partisan o Liberal member or indeed those from the other side. This is a scrupulously fair and balanced commentator who has enjoyed the title of 'doyen of the press gallery' for many years. He said: This is a government that refused to convene a constitutional convention, refused to authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset, made no early effort to achieve bipartisanship, declined to legislate the voice first to test its viability and decided the details of the voice would be released after the referendum, not before. This is why we so desperately need these pamphlets to be sent out to all Australians, I'm speaking here tonight specifically to my electorate. We have fought very hard to get this pamphlet up. The government initially refused or was not going to include a pamphlet as part of the process. We have got them over the line on the pamphlet, and I will be taking part in providing some input into the wording of that 2,000-word pamphlet. As I've said, we've heard many contributions in this place, many of them wonderful speeches. I just want to add my small, unique perspective as the member for an electorate which is 9.1 per cent Indigenous. From the north of the Ngaanyatjarra lands right up to Wingellina on the South Australia-Northern Territory border, Warakurna on the NT border and right down to Nannup and Manjimup in the south-west of Western Australia, it's an enormous electorate with a very diverse range of Indigenous people living across it. We've got some of the most desperately disadvantaged remote communities and we've also got some very highly functioning communities in the southern part of the state. I deal with those Aboriginal people on a virtually daily basis. Just on Friday night I was in Leonora at a function where I spoke to some very dear friends about this very issue. I'm not going to reveal their thoughts, because I want to retain their privacy, but my point is that I engage with Indigenous people, as I say, on an almost daily basis. When I hear this sort of paternalistic view that all Aboriginal people agree on everything and that, if we have this panel of 24 that will meet here in Canberra, they will speak for that incredibly diverse range of people across my electorate, I just don't accept that. That's not my lived experience of dealing with those people. A great example of that was the cashless debit card trial, which operated in my electorate for five years and was removed recently by the government. Some of those very dear Indigenous friends of mine fought tooth and nail to have the cashless debit card introduced to make a difference to their people. That was opposed by other Indigenous people around the country, many academics, many high-ranking public servants and others who thought it was paternalistic et cetera. It was never actually intended to be targeted specifically at Indigenous people. Across the Goldfields, in fact, fewer than 50 per cent of the people on the cashless debit card were Indigenous, but that's the way that it was construed by opponents in the government, in the media and in other areas on social media. There was no consensus from Aboriginal people on that particular issue, and certainly, while the government may claim they had support for the removal of the cashless debit card, I have many Indigenous people across the Goldfields who opposed that particular policy. Lo and behold, in today's West Australian the headline says 'Cashless debit card: secret reports reveal spike in drinking, violence after controversial scheme axed'. It goes on to say: A rise in drinking, gambling, stabbings, domestic violence and school non-attendance was reported in the East Kimberley in the weeks after the cashless debit card was abolished. So the people of the East Kimberley, who fought to keep the card, would possibly disagree with Aboriginal people in other parts of the country. This notion that all Aboriginal people are going to come together, including three of them from Western Australia on this panel of 24, and agree on these issues is completely wrong. That is part of the reason that I will be voting no and encouraging people in my electorate to vote no. I think, from the broader perspective of the community—and everyone I speak to wants to see better outcomes for Aboriginal people; there's no question about that—what I'm hearing is that people are very concerned about the risks of introducing this Voice to the Constitution. We've heard a whole range of legal views in the media. We've had the parliamentary inquiry. We've had contributions here in the parliament saying that, because such and such legal expert said that there's not a problem, there can't be a problem. I'm not a lawyer; I'm a humble farmer. But I've seen a few legal cases play out in my time, and a recent one that springs to mind is the Love case in the Hight Court. I'm not going to go into the details of that case. However, I assume the Solicitor-General briefed counsel on behalf of the government, and I assume he briefed them that there was a significant chance that the Commonwealth of Australia would win that particular case in the High Court. Well, the Commonwealth of Australia didn't win the case. I use that example to illustrate that just because you get a legal opinion, whether it be from constitutional expert A, from the Solicitor-General or from a certain retired High Court Judge, that doesn't give any guarantees of how these things may play out in the High Court in future. So, my position is that I will be voting no in the actual referendum. I will be voting no to this particular legislation enabling the referendum. However, that doesn't mean I don't support the legislation. I'm simply voting no so that I can be part of the 'no' pamphlet process, which I'm very much looking forward to. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that as this debate carries on over the next six months people make the effort to inform themselves, to ask questions, to not be afraid to dissent if that's how they feel and, most importantly, to treat people who have an alternative point of view with respect. Thank you very much. 17:41 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I want to thank all the speakers who have been part of this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I think it's really important that the tone of the debate is kept at a high level. Whilst the member for O'Connor and I disagree on a lot, we do agree on that—that there will be a variety of opinions across our country, all of which should be treated with respect during this process. I come from an electorate with an Aboriginal population that is larger than the national average and one that has experienced disadvantage at various points. I believe fundamentally that we can do better and we should do better for our First Nations communities across the country. And I believe that constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is absolutely unquestionable. I'm really proud to be part of a government that is now prioritising the importance of constitutional change to recognise and to listen to First Nations people across our country. This debate has gone on for decades, and for decades I have seen a top-down approach, one that imposes a range of things on First Nations communities, one that hasn't listened to the voices of First Nations communities and definitely didn't prioritise allowing our First Nations communities to have a say on laws that directly impact them and that don't, on most occasions, impact any other person in our society. I think now is the time for change. Not only is it time to right the wrongs of the past but it's time for our country to move forward under a model of recognition that is acceptable to First Nations Australians and that works within the framework of Australian law and governance as we know it. To my mind, it takes a Labor government to effect this type of change. We have a long history of creating equality, equity and fairness for all Australians. But this isn't a Labor Party idea. It is not a function of government. It was an idea generated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the result of numerous dialogues across the country which culminated in Uluru. We are simply listening to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, because that statement asks for constitutional recognition through a Voice. We've heard that having a Voice to Parliament will take away some of the feelings of powerlessness that so many of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander friends and family feel, right across this country. We've heard from Constitutional experts who state that the alteration that will take place as a result of the Voice will enhance our system of governance and its laws. It will address the lack of inclusion or recognition of Australia's First Nations people in the Constitution, and the debate I have heard across the chamber absolutely highlights that that is the goal of everyone in this chamber—   Constitutional recognition. It's a worthy and long-overdue aim, and I'm pleased to hear so many support that. Currently, our Constitution doesn't contain any references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, it does allow for our parliament to make laws that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We've heard the importance of being recognised as the first Australians in the Constitution is important to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This change will reflect the real history of our land and at last include all of its people. We should be incredibly proud of that history, a history where we have the longest living connection to land, sea and sky of anywhere of the world in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, a history that spans over 60,000 years. Secondly, it will provide First Nations people with the ability to have an enduring Voice to Parliament on policies and legislation that will directly impact them—a Voice embedded in our Constitution that cannot be overturned by future governments. The establishment of this Voice to Parliament will ensure that the Constitution reflects the historical truth of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' longstanding and continuing place in Australia, and provides an institution to improve their lives. The Voice is an invitation from our First Nations people to say, 'Can we try something different?' It is a recognition that over the last couple of hundred years we have made decisions on behalf of First Nations people, and some that were not so good for them. This is simply an acknowledgement that we can and should do better, an invitation that at its heart says, 'Can you listen to us when you are making decisions about us?' I speak to a lot of Aboriginal people in my own electorate, and one of the most basic things they say to me is: 'We've tried it your way. Can you try it our way for a change? Make decisions with us, not for us.' When it boils down to that, it isn't much to ask that we have a Voice to Parliament and to the government of the day so that First Nations people can have a say in the laws that impact them. Now is the time for our communities to have that say. Now is the time for the Australian public to have that vote. There has been a lot of discussion about detail, there has been a lot of discussion saying, 'We need to know more,' and 'There's not enough time.' This debate has gone on for decades. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered in May 2017, and we are already six years down the track with no investment. Now is the time that we should do this. To people out there asking for information, there will be a lot of information as a referendum date is set. It will come forward. Not only will there be information on the process of a referendum and how people can be involved in a campaign if they wish to be but there will also be the public information pamphlet as well. There is more to come, but this is not the end of the story. This isn't the only thing to do. The referendum at its heart gives a power to parliament to make laws. Following that referendum, if we are serious about a Voice to Parliament, we then go out and consult with First Nations people and how they want this Voice to work for them. What are the things they want to talk about? Some of the discussions we've heard have said, 'Show us the legislation now. Isn't that the exact top-down approach we're trying to avoid and that the Voice asked us not to do any more? I've heard from members across the parliament who say that not all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people agree with the Voice. Absolutely! Not all Greeks agree with an issue that impacts them. Not all Italians agree. Not all English migrants agree. That is just another move to say: 'If they can't agree amongst themselves, then surely we should find something else to do instead.' This is about moving everyone forward with the consensus that came to this parliament from First Nations people themselves. It was presented to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was succeeded by Prime Minister Morrison and then by Prime Minister Albanese. We have to act. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road and say: 'We'll get to it at another point.' Now is the time to do something different, because we know that on every metric we are failing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There are worse housing outcomes, worse health outcomes, and worse educational and social outcomes. We can and should do more. The referendum will move this country forward. It will, in my opinion, give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a feeling of belonging in this country, a feeling that their voice is being listened to by parliament, a feeling that, even if it's not perfect, it's another step in the right direction. I look forward to the many conversations that are going to take place over the coming months and hearing from people with a variety of different views. I will end my reflections as I started them. This has to be a debate that, at its heart, is about respect, because I believe everyone in this chamber and everyone across Australia believes that recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution is long overdue. But I also believe that we need a mechanism to make sure that that voice can't be changed going forward, which is why this constitutional amendment is so important for all of us. I hope that the debate remains respectful and takes into account a wide variety of views. Hopefully, that will lead to some fantastic outcomes across our country. 17:52 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm pleased to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and, in so doing, make clear my views on the question that will be put to the Australian people at the upcoming referendum. At the outset, let me reiterate the Liberal Party's position that all Australians deserve to have their say on that question—not big business, not big sporting codes, not political parties. All those bodies and more will make their views known and will put forward the case for yes or no. But, ultimately, it will be the Australian people who decide. The outcome is in their hands. Whilst I will be voting yes to this bill, I will be voting no to the Prime Minister's question. The Prime Minister's proposed reform of the Constitution is unsound. It is my strong view that a yes vote will not result in better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, but it could result in worse outcomes for all Australians. The term 'outcomes for Indigenous Australians' is often used in this debate, and it is used in the context of closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. We should pause and ask ourselves what this means and what we seek. In my view, it means measures that help children to feel safe in their own homes and beds, help women to be safe from violence and sexual assault, support families to stay together in secure housing, bring down the disproportionately high rates of smoking and health conditions such as type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, normalise going to school and work as a regular part of everyday life, and lower the rates of Indigenous incarceration. While these outcomes are practical in nature, there is, of course, a spiritual, moral and ethical dimension to closing the gap, but the work needed to advance these practical outcomes illustrates that the mission of reconciliation remains unfinished. The overwhelming majority of Australians want to see the gaps closed. They want to see these better outcomes realised, and they want the reconciliation journey to continue apace. You can want all of that but still vote no because you do not believe that this referendum question is the right one. As my friend the member for Berowra often says, people of goodwill can disagree. My own local church parish leader, Father Peter MacLeod-Miller, who wrote to me over the weekend, noted: 'It would be a tragedy if the referendum left us more divided than we have been before and more fearful of offering a range of perspectives because of righteous intolerance.' People of goodwill can disagree, and in this referendum people of goodwill will disagree. But, increasingly, this Prime Minister acts as the self-proclaimed moral arbiter of Australia's national conscience, not as a leader seeking consensus. Again and again, when given the opportunity to provide the detail, the Prime Minister takes the low road and hurls insults instead. Regardless of whether 'yes' narrowly wins or narrowly loses, millions of Australians will vote 'no', and they deserve better than their Prime Minister referring to them as 'undertakers preparing the grave to bury Uluru', 'Chicken Littles' or anything else with such deplorable connotations. We cannot be in a situation, either, where those on the edges of radical politics belittle and demean Indigenous Australians, blaming them for their suffering and ignoring the realities of what has caused them their pain. Hardliners on both sides of this referendum need to take a long, hard look at the words they choose, because language matters; discourse matters. And there is a special obligation on the Prime Minister to keep this debate respectful, because, if he continues to descend into the gutter, how on earth can he lecture anyone else about the evils of joining him there? I do believe there is a lack of understanding in society today about intergenerational trauma and how it cascades through generations. We have examples in our own history. When young men came back from the war, some were unable to manage relationships or show love for their children. Those children endured very difficult childhoods, and, in turn, were not always able to shake the lingering effects from their own decisions. Some turned to alcohol and drugs in order to cope, and that continued the pain in their own families. But trauma in our Indigenous communities is especially severe and protracted. That is why at the heart of closing the gap is the need to break the cycle. Just because you did not personally experience dispossession, loss of identity and loss of country does not mean that you are not affected; nor does it mean you carry no burden. The apology was an important moment in our country's history. I was proud to support it then and I'm proud to support it now. As I said at the time: The lessons we learn in very early childhood are the lessons we carry with us all our lives. Not having proper parenting very early on, not knowing your family and not knowing who you are are obstacles many find impossible to overcome. The pain of rejection and loss do not go away. Knowing all of this, some say that it is nevertheless not our fault and we should not apologise. If previous parliaments are no longer around to say sorry, then it is up to us as the present parliament to apologise. In 22 years as a federal parliamentarian, I have travelled to many Indigenous communities across the country. No-one can deny the enormous gap in living standards that exist between most non-Indigenous Australians compared with our First Australians. There is much more work to be done, and all Australians must be engaged in bridging the divide in distance and understanding for a more unified and confident nation. As environment minister, I ruled against a go-kart track on the top of Mount Panorama, recognising the sacredness of the songlines that link the tops of all mountains for Indigenous peoples. Listening to different views from local tribes, I also made a decision that the remains of Mungo Man and Mungo Lady needed to be re-interred in unmarked graves, rather than continuing to be kept like scientific experiments in a safe at the tourist lodge, to the real distress of their descendants. In both of these situations, not every Aboriginal person agreed with either the decisions I made or with each other. As with most complex social issues, people think differently. How, therefore, do you capture deeply-held convictions and unique bonds of connection, kinship and country? I do not believe the answer lies in the proposal advanced by the Prime Minister. I do not believe that the path forward is through a group of appointed national leaders residing at the top of our system of government with an unlimited, untested ability to interact not just with elected representatives but across the full spectrum of executive government and with supreme authority gifted by the Constitution. How can this group of just 20 have the detailed understanding, networks or even decision-making capability to reach across, and provide advice on, the myriad bespoke challenges in each and every local community? And how can a top-down bureaucracy be better than a bottom-up, community-led, locally-empowered Voice—one which speaks with local authority and local purpose, from every Indigenous community across Australia, backed by legislation, in this parliament? This is why I was and remain such a strong supporter of local and regional voices as prescribed, initiated and undertaken by the previous Liberal government. I see this as a critical step towards improving the trajectory of people's lives. Recently Senator Kerrynne Liddle and I visited a family living on a concrete slab on the edge of Alice Springs. Originally travelling from an outstation, they had been there for months so that one of their own could receive medical treatment at the Alice Springs Hospital. It was confronting to see people in modern Australia living in such squalor and hopelessness. It made me angry. Unfortunately, the situation would have continued if not for national media attention bringing a necessary and urgent response. On one level, the family was let down by the government. On another, they were let down by the Aboriginal council charged with assisting them. Disadvantaged communities need practical action to make a difference today, and the Voice won't do that. The desperation of remote communities that have so little is often invisible to those living in the cities. But that is exactly what this Prime Minister seeks to disingenuously appeal to—the enormous goodwill and good nature of all Australians. The Prime Minister constantly implies that, if you are horrified by reports of Indigenous children in crisis and you want to do something to help, you must vote for the Voice because it will help. But, sadly, it will not. It will add an extraordinary layer of bureaucracy to every single decision the government makes, adding time, adding complexity and keeping communities waiting even longer for real measures that make a real difference. I know that the argument of too much bureaucracy is dismissed by 'yes' advocates as a dreary political answer to a challenging moral question, but you can see what excessive bureaucracy has done to Aboriginal Australians in the past. It has prevented decisions being made precisely because of just how many competing issues and areas of responsibility are involved. Those issues won't go away with the Voice; they will actually become entrenched. There have been well-meaning efforts over many years to bring together all levels of government in one place, and I saw this in western New South Wales with a COAG initiative called the Murdi Paaki trial. I encourage people to read the evaluation not because it necessarily failed but because it is a clear demonstration of just how difficult and challenging Indigenous policy is. In this case, 16 community action plans were delayed and not finalised. People couldn't agree. If this doesn't point to the need for local and regional voices then I don't know what does. If you read this evaluation and superimpose a national Canberra led voice over the top, how could it be anything but counterproductive? When I go to the ballot box later this year and vote no I will do so with conviction but with a heavy heart. If the question were different and about enshrining Indigenous Australians as our First Australians in the Constitution, the recognition that enjoys bipartisan support in this place, and this was accompanied by legislated local and regional voices than I would enthusiastically vote yes. As Father Peter also noted in his letter to me: 'National leadership under our system of government affords the flexible option of legislation without permanent constitutional amendment.' The truth is that, by pursuing his my-way-or-the-highway approach, the Prime Minister is putting the whole mission of reconciliation at risk. If the Prime Minister wants to achieve what he says he does, his first duty should be to bring all Australians with him. There's no stopwatch in this process. There's no call to action that says it must be completed in the next few months. The timeline is entirely the Prime Minister's. I appeal to the Prime Minister: if you look into your heart and the heart of the nation you lead and you see division, misunderstanding and, yes, even fear, do not rush to failure. Instead of insulting and demeaning the millions of Australians who are going to vote no, I urge the Prime Minister to work constructively with the opposition to legislate what we can agree on and then go to the Australian people with a referendum question that enjoys bipartisan support—constitutional recognition backed by legislated voices. As I said on the day that the opposition leader and I announced our party's position on the Voice, it was a day of many yeses—yes to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, yes to local and regional voices, yes to better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, yes to Indigenous Australians having their say and yes to uniting this country behind doing everything that we as a parliament can to strengthen outcomes for Indigenous Australians but a no to dividing Australians. To all Australians I say this: it's okay to vote no and still remain part of the national effort to help your Indigenous brothers and sisters as you look on with anguish at what is happening in their communities. It's okay to vote no and still demand better action from all politicians when it comes to closing the gap. It's okay to vote no full stop. And it's okay to vote yes, too. What is not okay is to feel a moral compulsion and a coercive guilt to vote a certain way because of the tenor of this debate. It's not okay for the Prime Minister to bully you into a decision. It's time for the Prime Minister to stop the insults and the moral blackmail. That's what will divide our country and tear at the fabric of our beautiful nation. Significantly changing our country's Constitution cannot be allowed to proceed just on the vibe. The Prime Minister has deliberately starved Australians of crucial details at every juncture. He has been deliberately tricky. An increasing number of Australians—I believe them to be a majority—feel they do not have enough information to ratify the permanent change to our Constitution that the Prime Minister demands. This isn't even about tinkering with an existing section. Australians aren't being asked to make modest revisions or improvements to words already there; they're being asked to enshrine an entirely new section. This is exactly why the High Court would be eventually called to interpret the Voice's full scope and powers, and no-one can predict the outcome of that interpretation on our system of government. I've made my personal views known in the speech, but, as I said at the outset, this is going to be for each and every Australian to decide. Irrespective of the final result, I will continue to pray that we stay together as a country true to the spirit that has made us who we are and what we are. Ours is a story that enmeshes an Indigenous history, a British liberal democratic inheritance and the most incredible mosaic of multiculturalism anywhere on earth. As Australians approach this greatly consequential national debate, we cannot lose sight of the importance of every single part of our national story. That is how we stay strong, that is how we stay together and that is how we advance the next chapter of our unique Australian story, advancing Australia fair together, one and free. 18:06 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Australian Constitution is well crafted. It's an excellent document written after a decade of deliberation by men of great wisdom and foresight. It has largely withstood the test of time, serving Australia well even after considerable global and generational changes. But the Constitution was not perfect, as the eight changes made by the Australian people since 1901 have demonstrated. Interestingly, none of the delegates to the constitutional conventions in the late 19th century were women, and none were Indigenous. Those groups were treated as unequals, which is one of the great failings of our constitutional founders. There is no denial or dispute that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people inhabited this land prior to European settlement. As such, they have an exclusive and unique place in Australian history. Regrettably, the Australian Constitution never recognised that reality. Even worse, Indigenous Australians were cast aside and downtrodden for decades. Australian history is littered with examples of Indigenous Australians being oppressed, enslaved and even killed. Disgracefully, children were forcibly removed from their families in an attempt to erase Indigenous existence from this land and to destroy their culture and their spirit. That's why this legislation is so important. It addresses in some part and attempts to right, to the extent that it's possible, the wrongs of the past. Importantly and contrary to those who say this proposal to create a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be divisive, the proposal will, after around 240-odd years, serve to bring people together and, indeed, to rectify those past failings. Since 1788, Australia has not been one nation, and it certainly has not been for all Australians. The terminology 'First Nations people' implies that there is division, and that division has been a consistent feature of Australian society ever since European settlement. The original section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution until 1967 singled out Aboriginal people and specifically empowered the parliament to make laws with respect to 'the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'. The words 'other than the Aboriginal race in any state' were subsequently removed, after the 1967 referendum. By way of another example, the Defence Act 1903 prevented Indigenous Australians from military service. However, hundreds of Indigenous Australians did serve, but they were paid less and treated as unequals during that service, and at the end of their service they were denied access to soldier settlement schemes, unlike all the other soldiers. Both in law and in everyday life, the discrimination against Indigenous Australians is a cause of shame in Australia's otherwise relatively proud history. I have nevertheless been heartened by the many gracious, sincere and respectful contributions to this debate, from all sides, which I believe were made from the heart—and excuse the pun. I believe that many of the speakers to date have spoken with absolute sincerity and with belief and conviction in what they have been saying. However, there have been matters raised that I will attempt to respond to in the time that I have, because I think they might go to the heart of the concerns that are raised with me as I get around my own community. The first is the argument that the debate has become one of emotion, one where emotional rhetoric is starting to dominate part of the discourse that I hear in and around the community. Well, can I say, this is indeed an emotional subject. Nearly 240 years of injustices and disadvantage evoke emotion and passion. That's the reality. So, if people get emotional about it then I believe there's good reason for that. But, more importantly, passion in my view indicates that people are sincere and genuine about what they are speaking about, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It means people have absolute conviction about what they are saying. I have particularly noted that those who make the claim of emotion the most are themselves relying heavily on a fear campaign of divisiveness and special rights. Fear is the most effective emotional tool used in any campaign right now, and it has been used successfully time and time again. Again, I see fear being brought into this debate, and in my view that is a much more negative side of talking about emotion than what I hear from those who speak passionately about the changes that are needed. The second objection raised is that there has been insufficient time to consider the proposal. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was considered, debated and delivered six years ago, in May 2017. Since then it has been discussed and debated extensively, just as debate about Indigenous disempowerment, discrimination and wrongdoings have taken up so much of parliamentary debate over the years—indeed, perhaps more so than just about any other topic I can think of. Importantly, there have been four critical reports since 2012, all about this very issue. So, I question whether those who argue that more time is required are sincere in that particular argument. But, separate to that, I genuinely believe it is highly unlikely that an extension of time would have elicited more views or changed the views of the legal experts who have provided advice or the community leaders who have taken an interest in the Voice proposal, have followed the debate and have made a submission. I propose this question: does anyone in this place realistically suggest that their view would have changed if more time had been allocated? The constitutional change proposed has also been described as divisive. Personally, I do not accept that description. I believe the proposal in fact does the opposite. The Close the Gap title does not apply to any other sector of our society. That makes it very clear in my mind that we are already a divided society and we on this side are trying to bridge that gap, which is in fact why the title is there. The divisions have always been there. Indigenous Australians are the only sector of society for whom we already have numerous sector-specific laws, including for land rights, education, government procurement policies, health, employment and so on. There are a number of laws which specifically address Indigenous disadvantage. The Indigenous peoples of this land are not only disadvantaged but their issues need to be addressed separately. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have, as I have said from the outset, a unique place in our society. It is also claimed that insufficient detail is known about the Voice. Again, all I can say to people who make that statement is, if you want to take the time to have a look at what is proposed, there is now plenty of literature out there. Whether you go to the website voice.gov.au or whether you simply ring up your member of parliament or any other group who has been following this this debate, that information is now available. It clearly spells out what is proposed. If the Voice proposal is supported, there will be subsequent legislation relating to the administrative functions of the Voice as a body and also perhaps other details. But that subsequent legislation doesn't change the Constitution. That can be changed by subsequent governments if it isn't fit for purpose, so any fear that we might have got it wrong in that respect can be addressed as we deal with any issues that arise. The critical question before parliament right now is the proposed change to the Constitution itself. Because, as we know, with all sections of the Constitution, what is written into the Constitution are matters of principle. It is the foundation of our laws. It doesn't then go to the specifics of the laws, which are dealt with by parliament on a daily basis. So it is the principle that we are asking people to vote on here. There have also been concerns about High Court challenges if the Voice is allowed to make representations to executive government. I hear the comments from people whose views I respect greatly, but those claims have now refuted by several eminent legal experts. Just as importantly, the intent of this legislation has been made clear by the explanatory memorandum and the Attorney-General's second reading speed. There has always existed in this country a longstanding convention that if and when grey areas of law arise, the courts will rely on the intent of the legislation as spelled out in the explanatory memorandum and the minister's second reading speed. So it makes it clear that those concerns that have been raised about representations to executive government are unfounded. Frankly, I believe that they are simply being used to raise more fear in the minds of voters. In conclusion, when land rights were first mooted, I can recall a very serious and, I thought at the time, genuine fear campaign about the risk to everybody's property rights. Those risks never eventuated. When the notion of terra nullius was dismissed by the High Court in 1993, the same concerns were raised. Again, those fears were unfounded. Equally, when the Wik native title legislation was challenged in the courts—that was to do with native title rights co-existing with pastoral leaseholders—those fears were unfounded. I certainly recall when the apology was being mooted all the arguments about how this would lead to a plethora of financial claims against the government. It never happened. I say the same about the fears that are being raised about this legislation. I do not believe that they are justified or that they will happen. Ultimately, the Australian people will decide, and that is how it should be, because only a decision of the Australian people will be acceptable and provide enduring change. Whilst not enshrined in the Constitution, every other sector of society has a representative body that provides advice and makes representations to government about matters that affect their sector. The constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people acknowledges their unique place in Australian history, which, unlike in New Zealand, Canada and the USA, where similar British settlement took place, their Indigenous rights were recognised through the establishment of treaties. In Australia, that never happened, and that is why this legislation and this recognition within the Constitution becomes so important. We now have an opportunity to make the amendments that are necessary to do that. The constitutional change will ensure ongoing certainty, which is, again, one of the concerns that have been raised with me about how we've plenty of voices for all Australians in this place right now. We cannot guarantee that into the future unless something like this is written into the Constitution, which will, indeed, make it enduring. I believe this legislation will prove itself, like previous matters, to be not only enduring but the right decision for the Australian people to make right now. 18:21 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Australia stands on the shoulders of 1,600 generations of First Nations people. That is our shared history. In my first speech to parliament, I spoke about being in this place to be a good ancestor. It is up to us now to prepare for the generations ahead. Through this legislation and this referendum, the Albanese government is giving all Australians the opportunity to be good ancestors, to accept the invitation from First Nations people to walk with them and to build a better future together and to implement practical and symbolic reform. The referendum to enshrine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution will be about two things. It will be about recognising and it will be about listening—recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia with 65,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land, and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to laws and policies that affect them. The Turrbal and Yuggera peoples are the traditional custodians of my electorate of Lilley, on the northern side of the Maiwar, also known as the Brisbane River. Earlier this year I spoke with Lilley local from Deagon and Wemba Wemba First Nations lawyer Eddie Synot about what the Voice means for him. Eddie said: 'Everyone can see there are real issues that we have failed to deal with as a society, issues which are regularly highlighted in this place and in the media. For a long time First Nations people have had unfinished business in this country, and we now have an opportunity to do something about it and to be part of something positive.' I would like to thank Eddie for taking the time to share his perspective with me and with our community. Sports clubs and codes from right around the country who have benefited from the skills of Indigenous sports stars have backed their First Nations players and the Voice: Football Australia, the Australian Football League, Australian Taekwondo, Badminton Australia, Baseball Australia, Boxing Australia, Cricket Australia, Rugby Australia, Tennis Australia, National Rugby League, Netball Australia, Golf Australia, Deaf Sport Australia, No Limit Boxing, NRL Touch Football Australia, Triathlon Australia, Wheelchair Rugby League, Motorsport Australia, the PGA of Australia, Sport Inclusion Australia and the National Basketball League. Our peak Olympic and Commonwealth Games bodies, the Australian Olympic Committee and the Commonwealth Games Australia, have also backed the Voice. Last week I heard the member for Cook talk down sports organisations who have gotten behind the Voice. I couldn't disagree more with the member for Cook's sentiment that politics should stay out of sport. Sport is a platform for growth, for conversation and for influence. Sport is a vehicle which unites people, and I commend all of these organisations for coming together to support the Voice. As Senior Australian of the Year and Kungarakany and Iwaidja man Professor Tom Calma said, the fate of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament rests with the people, not the politicians. With that in mind, I cede the rest of my speaking time. 18:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I rise tonight to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and to say that I will campaign every day between now and referendum day for this referendum to pass, because I want our Constitution to recognise First Nations Australians and I want to see a voice to parliament. This bill sets out the proposed alteration to Australia's Constitution which people will vote on later this year. It gives this country a wonderful opportunity, a nation-building opportunity, to recognise 65,000 years of Indigenous history and culture, to listen to Indigenous voices on the issues that affect them, to close the terrible gap in life outcomes and to come together, as Australians with big hearts and generous minds, in a spirit of reconciliation and national unity. This referendum is the culmination of an extraordinary democratic process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was born out of a series of regional dialogues—dialogues held in every state and territory—finishing appropriately in the heart of our country, at Uluru. These dialogues involved 1,200 delegates. We've never seen anything quite like it. It was an unprecedented exercise in grassroots democracy, led by First Nations Australians at every stage and building on a much older movement for reconciliation. The Day of Mourning first took place in my electorate in 1938. There were the Yirrkala bark petitions in 1963, the Barunga Statement in 1988 and so many more moments in our history when this perfectly reasonable request was made of us as a nation. We owe it to the people who participated in these dialogues to take their proposition seriously and not to disrespect their hard work by rejecting it out of hand or by calling it a Canberra voice, when this couldn't be further from the truth. This is a voice to Canberra, not the voice of Canberra. Delegates came from all over the country to Uluru—from big cities and small towns, and from remote communities right across Australia. They came from Redfern in my electorate. There's something deeply unfair about dismissing that contribution, and I really do plead with the Leader of the Opposition, who now acknowledges that he was wrong to reject the apology to the stolen generations: please don't make the same mistake again; please don't turn your back on the rightful request of First Nations Australians for recognition in their own land. As Minister Burney and the father of reconciliation, Senator Pat Dodson, have both made so clear, this is a referendum about two principles: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia in our Constitution and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to the laws and policies that affect them. It does this by establishing a representative body made up of First Nations people that will advise parliament and decision-makers on relevant topics, and it entrenches that body in the Constitution. This was a very important point for First Nations peoples at the constitutional convention. The Voice should be rooted in the Constitution so politicians can't sweep it away when they feel like it. But the design of the Voice—its size, its reach, its composition—can be amended by the parliament of the day, just as the original Constitution said that the Commonwealth would be responsible for defence without specifying how big the Army would be or what the chain of command would look like. This referendum will establish the body in principle while leaving room to refine the model as we learn more over time. One thing the Voice doesn't do is give a veto over government laws or decision-making, and I think it's important to combat that misinformation that some people are engaged in. As I said, this referendum is about recognition and it's about respect. We are so lucky to share this country with the world's oldest continuous cultures. As the Uluru statement puts it, First Nations people have called Australia home: … according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from 'time immemorial', and according to science more than 60,000 years. It makes me so proud. I was recently in Paris, where I saw an exhibition of First Nations art. To see these enormous paintings that tell the stories of the songlines; to see the creation of the artists; to be able to show that to the world and to feel pride that this is an example of Australian art and culture; and to have the experience of First Nations people saying to us: 'It can belong to all of us. Recognise this history and culture in our Constitution', is an incredibly moving experience. There's been a palpable change in my lifetime, as Australians have grown to understand just a little bit about the scale of this history and culture. When I was growing up—and I'm sure other members have experienced this as well—we didn't do acknowledgement of country or welcome to country when we were at school. In fact, I went to our school library to ask my history teacher: 'Who were the people who lived here? Whose land are we on?' My history teacher couldn't tell me. My school library couldn't tell me. I went to the Sutherland library, next door to the council chambers in Sutherland, and I couldn't find out there either. It is incredible to think that. There is no child anywhere in Australia today who couldn't tell you the names of the traditional owners of the land their school is on. What an amazing bit of progress that is. Yes, it's progress, but that progress comes slowly. It comes at a cost to the elders and others who are teaching and sharing their culture, and fighting for recognition. Many of them have been doing this for their whole lives. Can you imagine how exhausting it must be right now to be a First Nations Australian saying, 'Please recognise us in the founding document of our country'? Can you imagine how exhausting it must be, after decades of activism, to have to make the case, again, that our founding document should admit the clear and certain fact that this was not an empty land; that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the original inhabitants of this continent; that they carry a special and unbroken connection to our land; that this place is their home and always was and always will be; and that our founding document should reflect that truth? In 1901, when our Constitution was written, terra nullius was still the uncontested law of this land. Aboriginal people weren't counted in the census or commonly allowed to vote. In 1901 we didn't recognise land rights of any sort. Mabo and Wik destroyed these lies, but that didn't happen for close to a century after our Constitution was written. Our Constitution was written in a different age with a different understanding of First Nations history, and we can't let that misunderstanding remain unchallenged. This referendum is an opportunity to correct the record. It's an opportunity to tell the truth about Australia's First Peoples. That brings me to the second principle that's alive in this proposition, which is consultation. It shouldn't be a controversial point that listening to communities leads to better decisions and better outcomes, but dialogue and conversation will make government more responsive and more relevant to people on the ground. Australia's handling of the HIV crisis led the world because we asked communities at risk to shape our response. When we have been successful at reducing gender inequality, it's because we've asked women what they need. Disability advocates and others have popularised the expression and, more importantly, the practice of 'nothing about me without me', and that's exactly what the Voice is about. It's about building an institution, led by First Nations peoples, that will help governments understand the needs and the experiences of Indigenous communities. It's about doing things differently, because, frankly, what we've been doing up until now hasn't worked as well as it should. We still have shameful gaps in life expectancy, health outcomes, school completion rates, kids ending up in jail, homeownership, community wealth and so many more areas. The Voice is a tool to help close these gaps, to make better policies and to produce better outcomes. It's a principle I've seen at work in my community in Redfern. Redfern has been a pioneer in Aboriginal-controlled community organisations: the Aboriginal Legal Service, established in 1970; the Aboriginal Medical Service, established in 1971; Mudgin-Gal Women's Place, established in 1992; Wyanga Aboriginal Aged Care Program, established in 1996; Babana Aboriginal Men's Group, established over a decade ago. We've seen the differences in outcomes of quality of service and care when communities are empowered to make decisions over their own lives. It's something the people that I represent in Redfern have fought for and succeeded in for many decades. When Redfern locals decided they needed to reduce youth crime and get kids to school, they did it with the Clean Slate Without Prejudice program, run by Tribal Warrior and the Redfern local area command of the police. When they saw that some families needed support to keep their kids safely at home and navigate the child protection system, they did it with the H.O.M.E program. When they saw that people leaving prison needed help to reintegrate back into community and never reoffend, they did it with Never Going Back. And when our community decided that services needed to work better together, they coordinated themselves with the empowered communities strategy. We have leaders in Redfern. We have solutions in Redfern. They know what their community needs and they know how to deliver. In the same spirit, the First Nations Voice will advise on these types of issues: health, aged care, justice, housing and education. I have no doubt that this advice will help parliament make more thoughtful and more effective decisions. As well as seeing firsthand the benefits of self-determination in my electorate, I see it in the environment and water portfolios. Indigenous Australians have actively managed their country with all sorts of methods—controlled burning, established fisheries, management of native vegetation. They have unique experience when it comes to landscape management, and we've tried to value that better over the last year in government by doubling the number of Indigenous rangers because we know this leads to better outcomes on the ground—for rangers, for the communities they live in and, of course, for the environment that is cared for so expertly. We're adding 10 new Indigenous protected areas which now form a crucial part of our national estate. We're doubling funding for Commonwealth national parks, including parks like Uluru, Kata Tjuta and Kakadu, and renegotiating leases with traditional owners to take a joint management approach. We're working better to protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage by nominating the Murujuga Cultural Landscape for World Heritage listing, as one example, and by systemically changing our cultural heritage laws in a co-design partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. The destruction of Juukan Gorge was immoral, but it's shocking to think that it wasn't illegal. Our laws need to reflect the value of Indigenous cultural heritage and need to be much better at protecting it. When we rewrite our environmental laws we will have established a new national standard for First Nations consultation. This constitutional change is a reasonable proposition. It's a thoughtful proposition that complements our system of government. It's something that can make a practical difference to the lives of Australia's First Peoples. At Uluru, First Nations delegates presented this nation with a gift, with an opportunity. This referendum is a chance for Australia to do something we can all be proud of: build a better country together. 18:40 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'm proud to represent the people of the Tharawal and the Wodi Wodi country in this parliament. I'm proud to rise this evening to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and I'm proud to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. Our Constitution is and must be a living, evolving document which reflects the Australia we actually live in, not the Australia of another time. We've understood this from the beginning. The Constitution was only five years old when the first attempt was made to change it, and by the end of the first decade of federation three referenda had been held and two had passed. Our Constitution was written at the end of the 19th century, and it was grounded in a view of Australian history that began in 1770. It was grounded in a belief that Captain Cook had discovered Australia, an untouched land that was not inhabited by anyone who counted. To put it bluntly, it was grounded in a fiction. We cannot hold to the view that our Constitution is a perfect document with no need for improvement, updating or adjustment. The running of this country involves dozens of aberrations, workarounds and fix-ups, on a daily basis. All of them are designed to correct, diminish or get around the effect of the Constitution's many imperfections, which the Australian people rightly expect us as a national government to do. There are things that we can't work around, for which we can't put in place a fix-up and which must be changed. Our founding and our foremost document must embrace and protect all of us. The original Constitution did not. In 1901 the First Peoples of Australia were not only ignored; they were expressly and deliberately excluded from Australian life. And for the first 66 years of the Commonwealth, our Constitution gave the government the power to make laws for absolutely everybody except for the First Nations people. It expressly stated that they did not and could not count as Australians. Fifty-six years ago this Saturday, Australia ended that exclusion, overwhelmingly and comprehensively. In Mabo, the High Court overturned the historical fiction that had given comfort to generations of European settlers—terra nullius, the myth that this land was empty before we arrived. The High Court rejected this as nonsense, and in doing so ensured that the common law of this country would recognise 65,000 years of culture and of belonging to country in the form of native title. The High Court has rectified the common law of Australia. It's up to this parliament and the Australian people to rectify the constitutional law of Australia. Without an acknowledgement of the First Peoples in our Constitution and without giving them a designated place to speak, that original fiction that enabled their exclusion and silenced their voices lingers on. It's dazzling to contemplate the true history of this continent. It is our great fortune to live in a place where human beings have walked for 65,000 years, to breathe the air that they breathed and to live amongst their descendants. It is indeed an honour. We have among our numbers the oldest continuous cultures in human history. You cannot break a 65,000-year connection to country that is inspired by spirit, story and song. To stand anywhere in this country is to be a part of this great history, the longest continuous thread. Our Constitution can never be whole until that thread has been weaved into it, nor can the story of our country, nor can the sense of ourselves. The Uluru statement is a gift to this country. It's a majestic document grounded in generosity, honesty and hope—hope for a better future. For over 200 years, our First People have been hurt. They've been ignored and disappointed. Great travesties have been visited upon them. The Uluru statement might have been full of recriminations for the things that have been done, for the indignities, the injustices, the murders, the misappropriations. There might've been demands for the things which must be done, but instead there's a generous offer: the offer to walk together and to pursue a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood. That's what the Voice is going to give us. It will not make right every wrong. It will not prevent every wrong in the future. It does not aspire to do any of those things. But, by opening up a clear and direct line between our First Peoples and our parliament, it will make a real difference in the Australia that we want to live in and it will give us a clear path to the Australia that we want to live in, where there is justice for the First Peoples, who live amongst us. How can this be done other than by listening? Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters—some of them—do not believe in this thing, and that's why they cavil with it. They tangle themselves in legal and technical arguments and they howl about a lack of detail. They contrive hypotheticals. But strip all of that back and there's one basic truth: they don't believe in this thing and they don't believe in what it means. It's true the Leader of the Opposition boycotted this parliament's apology to the First Australians. He made that active decision to turn his back on that event and eschew all that it meant. He's apologised for that and he was right to do so. It may even be that his views have come some way since that date. But they have not come far enough to be generous. They have not come far enough to believe in this and all that it means, all that it aspires to. We have to lift ourselves beyond the manufacture of fear masquerading as caution and wilfully, knowingly ignorant statements about our Constitution and our history. To be frank, if you don't feel comfortable acknowledging the whole truth of colonial history and would rather huddle in the shadow of terra nullius, just say so. Just say so. If you don't think First Nations people deserve a constitutionally recognised place in our government, just say so. Just say so. If you don't think First Nations people have anything relevant to say about the social and economic disadvantage that ravages their communities then just say so. Enough of the distractions. Forsake the hypotheticals and the legal tangles and just tell us what really bothers you. The Australian people of today and the future will judge you on those objections. No referendum in Australian history and probably no public idea since Federation itself has had more eyes and hands on it than the Voice. No referendum since Federation has had more details known about it than the design principles. We know what the Voice is. We know what it's about. We have a proposed question. We have a draft amendment. We have design principles. We know what it will and won't be able to do. It will advise the parliament, but it will not be able to dictate to it. It will guide the parliament, but it will not be able to steer it. It might disagree with the parliament, but it will not be able to veto its work. We know that it is that simple. The proposed amendment is drafted with exactly the same simplicity as the rest of the document it would join. It outlines what it is and what power it has and where those powers end. We know what the Voice is. It has been constructed carefully. It has been constructed thoughtfully by and for the First Nations people of Australia. Rather than talking and telling, it is a product of asking and listening. All it asks us to do is the same. We regularly attend civic ceremonies and citizenship ceremonies. Towards the end of those ceremonies, everyone stands and we sing the national anthem. There is always that line in the second verse of the national anthem that makes us pause: For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share. We know those boundless plains weren't empty when the Europeans arrived. They were occupied by the oldest continuous culture anywhere on earth. It's time for Australia to step out from the shadows of terra nullius and into the light of a country made whole. Let's get this done. 18:52 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have been custodians of this land for more than 65,000 and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people on whose ancestral lands our parliament meets. I extend that respect to the First Nations people present or those who are watching and listening. I also proudly acknowledge the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung and Bunurong peoples of the Kulin nation, traditional owners of the land on which my electorate of Maribyrnong resides. Last Friday, it was six years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented, and it has been six years since the Liberal and National parties dismissed it. I acknowledge the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has subsequently expressed his deep regret at his initial rejection. I remember attending the subsequent Garma Festival after the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The sense amongst Indigenous politicians of being let down by politics as usual was palpable but so too was their determination to keep going. Just as our First Nations people had to fight for land rights, the right to vote, to be counted in the census and to have the grief and loss of having children forcibly removed from their families acknowledged, this year our fellow Australians will ask the rest of us to support a change to the Constitution that will right a historic wrong, to finally recognise First Australians in our modern nation's birth certificate, a decision to be embedded in the memory of future generations. Unfortunately, these words are not without opposition. The instinctive reaction of the coalition six years ago was: 'This idea is different. We weren't expecting it, so we shouldn't do it.' Still they cling to this, as if somehow the previous century of failure was proof of the wisdom of staying the course. Disingenuous voices saying that they need more detail are—as my colleague the Minister for Indigenous Australians has pointed out—looking for excuses, not answers. We vote in a referendum on a principle, just as we did in the 1967 referendum about whether Aboriginal people should be counted in the census and if the Commonwealth should enact laws for Aboriginal people. In 1967 there was no demand to show how a 'yes' vote would impact every law. In 1967 the referendum did not divide the country. In fact, 90.7 per cent of our fellow Australians who voted then agreed with the principle. It is fair to say that this nation since Federation has made strides in justice, Indigenous rights and opportunities and law enforcement, but it is also true that there are still giant strides yet to be made. There is still widely accepted recognition amongst all people of goodwill that we need to do better and that we know we can do more. We've failed to remove economic, health and education barriers for Indigenous Australians. But I think there's recognition amongst the vast majority of the Australian people that we have failed to remove barriers less clear to the eye that come from the chasm between words and actions, between promises and results. Indeed, our failings as a society and of our political system have condemned Aboriginal Australians to live in the shadow of disappointment, the shadow of the tyranny of low expectations. The wait for recognition in our Constitution is painful. The lack of recognition and the lack of empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is a tumour in the health of our society, but it can be cured. Other new frontier societies have taken steps to reach accommodation with their first nations people. Now it's our turn in Australia. We are not going first; we are catching up. The Uluru Statement from the Heart offers a creative, generous path to recognition. I recall delivering the response to the Closing the gap report as opposition leader in 2018. Already the resistance and misinformation about the Voice had begun. I'm proud that I offered Labor's full-throated support for the big, bold idea that could potentially be the antidote to year after year of incremental disappointment as we failed to close the gap for Indigenous Australians. Five years ago I stood here and I asked, 'Who are we to tell 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from 12 regional dialogues to go back to the drawing board and try again because here we don't like it?' I stand in the parliament today, five years later, as this approach to constitutional recognition has now been termed divisive and dangerous, and I ask the same question: who are we to tell people that our failures of the last 120 years should simply be accepted as the antidote for the future? Tonight I want to say that the key to recognition is not the racist—the never-evers are what they are and, thankfully, they are in the minority—nor is it the undecided Australians, who are still to engage in the Voice referendum, whose questions are sincerely set forth and whose anxieties we can allay. I think the key to constitutional recognition is the quiet conservative, who is perhaps more devoted to the status quo than understanding the fairness of our argument. They are good people, not racists and not mean. They are people who say that they agree with the goal of recognition, but not just this particular method. They are people who believe that they should be able to personally set the timetable for another vote on recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution at another more convenient time. These quiet conservative, good Australians, who live perhaps by an insular concept of time, constantly advise First Nations people to wait for the better words and the more convenient time. Martin Luther King Jr said that the shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than the absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will and that lukewarm acceptance—the convenience of delay—is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Now is the time for strong moral leadership from traditional Liberals through the commitment to the idea of empowerment, not deterred by arguments of propaganda, and wise enough to recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not asking for, nor shall receive, any special rights through a 'yes' vote. Let me be clear. The Voice to Parliament will not be a body with the power to veto over the representatives elected by the Australian people. It will not be a third chamber of parliament. It will not be a distraction from the on-the-ground problems nor a peripheral ball to be kicked out of bounds of day-to-day life. My hope is that the quiet 'no' voter takes time to appreciate that our constitutional status quo was never meant to be frozen forever in time. Our constitutional status quo exists for the purpose of establishing fairness and recognition of all Australians. But, when our constitutional status quo becomes a frozen obstacle blocking the flow of progress, then passive, unquestioning rejection of constitutional recognition inhibits our nation's journey to the future. The founding fathers of our Constitution never intended that this document should be frozen in 1901 and should never be able to be changed. To the quite conservative, I ask you to reject the myth that there's no hurry to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution. It is folly to assume that the very flow of time cures all ills and that somehow time will cure it. Time is, of itself, neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. Now is the time to lift our Constitution from the museum of 1901 to the modern house of 2023. 'Do nothing-ism' is the valium of progress. The unrecognised cannot remain unrecognised forever. The yearning to be recognised is legitimate. It is not enough to do nothing and ignore the trauma of remaining unrecognised. Too many dismiss the intractable economic and social tragedies gripping Aboriginal communities. They use it as some kind of permission to turn away and do nothing—to shrug our shoulders and put this in the too-hard basket. Too many people ask how they can be blamed for the sins of those who went before them and say that what's past is past. But the past is not past. 'Past,' according to Shakespeare, 'is prologue,' and nations live with their past. Other nations have come to terms with their past. We might try to concrete over it, but it seeps through like green shoots appearing through the cracks. As much as the noise of our lives and the wonders of the nation we've built distract us, we cannot, and should not, deny that this place we call home has an Aboriginal foundation. We cannot ignore what Henry Reynolds called so beautifully 'the whispering in our hearts'—the whispering that cannot be quieted until all Australians walk together in reconciliation. There is the quiet nagging conscience which says that repeating the same processes in the same way will not give us different outcomes. We're proud of being the most successful multicultural country in the world, but we also have the oldest continuous culture on earth right here before us, and we need to celebrate it in our Constitution. Our Constitution does not recognise their physical, emotional and spiritual bonds with the lands, sky and waters of our marvellous continent. It does not acknowledge the rich 65,000 years of culture, arts and languages, or their songlines or Dreamtime. By Indigenous people making representations on matters that affect them, we can help preserve their past and shape their future. If we needed to build a railway, we would create the infrastructure. If we are to build a corridor to proper equality, we need to create the constitutional infrastructure. The Voice is integral to that process. If we pass this referendum, we do it for the Aboriginal people who were excluded from our democracy when we became a federated nation in 1901; for the kids of the summer of 1961 who were banned from the Moree swimming pool because of the colour of their skin; for the brave men and women of the Wave Hill walk-out; for Nicky Winmar, staring down racist hecklers; and for every Aboriginal person who has felt like a refugee in their own country. I have no doubt that, if we step up on the referendum, it won't affect our democracy. A 'yes' vote will not undermine our democracy, but it will affect our national psyche. Recall how you felt in 2017 after the same-sex marriage plebiscite. Whatever your view, there was relief that the nation had arrived at a proposition and the realisation that we didn't miss the opportunity. We can be instrumental in delivering a profound response to historical exclusion. It is our time to step up and demonstrate to our nation and the children of the future generations the country we want to see in the mirror. The Scottish historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle said, 'No lie can live forever.' We have our chance to correct the record. In final summary, historic racial unfairness should be excised from Australian life and our Constitution because it is morally wrong. When we vote 'yes', we say to our children—and, indeed, the rest of the world—that Australians are at terms with our past; that we are a modern, inclusive and open-minded nation. We send a message that we acknowledge that our country has a proud Aboriginal history. We say that we want the next generation of our Aboriginal kids to grow up with a better deal than their parents and their grandparents had. It will allow us to create the next chapter of the nation. I say to Australians who are quietly thinking about voting 'no': do not believe that a 'yes' vote gives our First Nations people extra rights. It just recognises that, after generations of economic and psychological trauma, our First Australians don't start at the same place that the rest of us start from. Please don't accept the argument that every Australian should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when in fact one group of Australians, by virtue of historical intervention, don't have that pair of boots. That is why we vote 'yes' at the referendum. 19:06 Ms 00AMR Ballarat CATHERINE KING (—) (): I think that was a terrific contribution by the member for Maribyrnong, and very heartfelt. I, too, like many of the speakers in this debate, want to begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional custodians of the land on which this House meets. I also acknowledge the traditional owners of the land surrounding my home town of Ballarat, the Wadawurrung and Dja Dja Wurrung people, and I pay respects to elders past and present, and the many, many elders who are emerging. I thank those traditional owners for the generous work that they do across our local community every single day. When you think about Ballarat, you think about history: you think of gold, the Eureka flag and our Victorian-era streetscapes. That history is real, and we are really proud of it. But it is incomplete. European men and women first arrived on the lands of the Kulin nation in the 1830s. Gold was discovered in 1851. That history doesn't even go back 200 years. It's history so fresh, frankly, that there are photographs of it. We've been here for the blink of an eye in the history of this incredibly ancient land, and the traditional owners, through the Wadawurrung and Dja Dja Wurrung, have lived on these lands for tens of thousands of years. Their stories are written across our landscapes. From time immemorial, they have lived on country, protected country and cared for country. They are the longest-living culture on this planet. And it is such an incredible gift that we are the custodians of that culture, here in Australia. And, of course, in only a few short years, they were dispossessed. It is a wrong that our nation has spent many years attempting to reckon with. This year we can help right that historic wrong and take the next step on our long journey to reconciliation. Passing this bill will be a small step on that journey. The bill we are debating this evening, Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, must be passed to hold a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The referendum will be about two things: recognising and listening—recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, with 65,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land. People often ask me: 'Why are they not recognised in the Constitution now?' If you think back to the time when the Constitution was developed, First Nations people were seen as a dying race, who were not going to be around, so why would you recognise them—particularly in our Constitution? They were being basically driven out; they weren't going to be around. And so, when you hear First Nations people say: 'We are still here, despite all of that history,' that is why it is so deep and meaningful for them to be recognised in the first of our nation's documents, because it is a message of survival. Despite all of that history, despite all that has happened to them, they are still here, and we see them in all of their beauty. And that is what the recognition is about. The second part is listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when it comes to laws and policies that affect them. That is what Australians will be asked to vote for—recognising and listening to them. That journey has led us to this referendum. It has been long, and the points of debate have been well tested. There has been the expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution established in 2010, the 2015 report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, the First Nations constitutional dialogues; the Uluru convention, the referendum council and many more processes. All have led us to this point and have ensured the appropriateness of this question and this amendment we have before us. This Voice will work alongside existing structures. It will not have a veto power. It will not deliver programs or hold money. It will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it will empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make sure their voices are heard by those of us in the executive and those of us here across this parliament who are making such big decisions. Appearing before the committee inquiry into this bill, Gerald Power, the deputy mayor of the Orange City Council, spoke about what this referendum will mean. He said, 'At the age of 61, I never thought we would even come to this. I thought I would be dead. I thought my son would have to pick it up. My mother died and my ancestors died without having a voice in the Constitution and that lack of a voice was simply because we were never identified as humans.' Why is it so important to have it in the Constitution? It is because it needs to be there. It needs to at least acknowledge that there were humans here and that these are the oldest human cultures on the face of the planet, continuous and ongoing. Let's not wait any longer to recognise. Let's not wait any longer to listen. The connection between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and this land has never been broken, not in the community I represent and not anywhere in this country. This referendum is the best chance we have to address the injustices of the past and to create change that will deliver a better future. This year our nation can recognise the truth of our history and provide a voice to those who have been ignored for too long. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a generous, generous offer. I will be voting yes. I commend the bill to the House and I encourage all Australians to accept the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to vote yes on the referendum as it is coming up, to accept it with the spirit with which it was made and with which it was offered to the Australian people. 19:12 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell This year we have the opportunity to do something that is long overdue. It is a step that should have been taken generations ago—that is, recognition in our Constitution of the 65,000 years of shared history and continuous connection to this land for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. What a privilege we have to do so. But recognition is not enough. We must enshrine a voice, a voice that can speak to those 65,000 years of history and the collective aspirations for our future, a voice that will inform policies and programs that impact First Nations Australians. I know in my role as Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health and Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention that contribution will be invaluable. We must close the gap on every measure—life expectancy, child mortality and disease, over representation in custody, suicide. We have failed our First Australians. In 2023 we are saying that isn't good enough. The Voice will make a genuine difference. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit Yarrabah in Far North Queensland. While I was there, I met with Mayor Ross Andrews. What Mayor Andrews told me then was the same as what he told the parliamentary inquiry into the Voice referendum—that is, that enshrining the Voice would provide security to First Nations recognition and consultation. It will mean future governments will not simply be able to push aside the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In Yarrabah, they have persistent and acute issues that must be addressed—housing, water security, digital connectivity and opportunities for education. The Voice will mean communities like Yarrabah are properly heard. This referendum will be a unifying moment, a historic moment. And while those on the other side of the aisle will say that this is just another layer of bureaucracy, they're simply not right. This isn't about more bureaucracy. It's the opposite. This is about making sure voices in remote and regional communities are heard. It's about making sure local communities have a representative body that will be consulted on policies that affect them. It's about making a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. That's what the Voice will help deliver. Last week I spoke to Aunty Bronwyn Chambers, an elder from my community. Aunty Bronwyn is a nurse, an educator and the elder in residence at the Wollotuka Institute on the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle. Aunty Bronwyn spoke to me of the deep shame globally that Australia doesn't recognise its First People in its Constitution. She said that now the world is watching, that the Voice is long overdue, and if not now, then when? She also told me the Voice is not only about now but about the future. The word she used was 'legacy'—legacy for her children, her grandchildren and all First Nations people. The Voice has the support of every state and territory minister across Australia. The business community, unions, sporting organisations and faith groups are backing 'yes'. The opposition is saying no; they're backing more of the same, and the same is simply not good enough. This is not a political voice; nor was it constructed in the minds of politicians. The Voice was a collective contribution of decades of work from First Nations advocates and communities, culminating in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. To paraphrase from the statement, they seek constitutional reforms to empower their people and take a rightful place in their own country. When our First Nations people have power over their destiny, their children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. This is not a voice from the mind but a voice from the heart. This is a generous offer from those who met in Garma and all those who came before. It is an offer that we must generously accept. I have great faith in the Australian people, including in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales. This is the best chance we have for a better future for all Australians. 19:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The work, leadership and stories of countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have brought us to this point in our journey to constitutional recognition. I acknowledge and thank them. I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I am proud to be a member of the same caucus and a member of the same cabinet as the member for Barton, and it is a privilege to work with her on this important national project. And I'd like to acknowledge and thank Senator Patrick Dodson in the other place for the work he has done over so many years to advance the cause of reconciliation, including in this term of parliament as Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I also thank those many non-indigenous Australians who have worked towards constitutional recognition and the development of the Voice. This bill is a significant and critical step in fulfilling the first request made in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. If approved at the referendum, four simple lines will be inserted into the Constitution. Those lines will finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as Australia's First Peoples in our founding legal document after more than 120 years of exclusion and omission. Those lines will enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. And those lines will ensure that the Voice can make representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples while allowing the parliament the flexibility to respond as the Voice evolves and the needs of First Nations peoples change. The Voice is the form of constitutional recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates called for in the Uluru Statement. Through the Voice we will listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to create practical change and make a difference where it matters, in areas like employment, health, education, housing and justice. I would like to address three issues that were raised by opponents of the bill over the course of this debate. The first is the assertion, the extraordinary assertion, by the Leader of the Opposition that the Voice would somehow put race into the Constitution. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech in the second reading debate, that contribution from the Leader of the Opposition was simply unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this nation. I welcome the repudiation of the Leader of the Opposition's misleading comments by some of those opposite, including by the leader of the National Party. This bill would not introduce race into the Constitution. In the words of the former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French, the proposed constitutional alteration contained in the bill would represent: … a significant shift away from the existing race based legislative power that the Commonwealth has with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people … And that is because the proposed alteration would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples not as a race but as the First Peoples of Australia. How can anyone possibly argue that this is about race? As I said in my second reading speech, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years and represent the oldest continuous living cultures in human history. They have maintained a relationship with Australia's lands, waters and skies since time immemorial. The Australian Constitution has never recognised the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country. That is what this bill does. That is what the Voice would do. This is the form of constitutional recognition sought by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and that leads me to the second issue raised by opponents of the bill—that is, the suggestion that the government should pursue an alternative, merely symbolic, form of constitutional recognition. The history of the debate around constitutional recognition points to two significant problems with this suggestion. The first problem with the idea of symbolic recognition through a constitutional preamble is it has previously been rejected by Australians at a referendum on 6 November 1999. That preamble proposal would have recognised, among other things, the special place of First Nations people 'for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures'. Fewer than 40 per cent of voters nationwide said 'yes' to the preamble and it failed to achieve majority support in any state or territory. The second problem with the idea of symbolic recognition is that it was consciously rejected during the consultation processes that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Merely symbolic recognition has been comprehensively rejected by First Nations peoples. In the Kirribilli Statement, presented by 39 Indigenous leaders to the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and then opposition leader Bill Shorten, a key step leading to the Referendum Council and its consultations, clearly stated that an approach to recognition centred on a preamble would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The same view emerged from the First Nations regional dialogues held over six months from late 2016 in 12 locations around Australia. The purpose of the dialogues was to try to reach agreement among First Nations people on whether and how they would like to be recognised in the Australian Constitution. The Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly reflects the outcomes of those dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention. The statement respectfully requests 'substantive constitutional change and structural reform'. A process to alleviate the torment of powerlessness that is felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by offering them a means of influencing their own destiny. This cannot be achieved by symbolic recognition alone. The language of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is striking, and it reflects the comprehensive process proceeding it, the regional dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention at Uluru. Constitutional recognition through a voice is the request of a broad consensus of First Nations people. It is a considered and generous request that is the result of wide consultation and a robust, inclusive, deliberative process. The Referendum Council concluded that a preamble alone could not give sufficient recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A voice offers recognition that would, the council said, have both substantive and symbolic value. The government agrees. The third issue that has been raised by some members of this House over the course of this debate is whether subsection 129(ii) would require the executive government to consider the Voice's representations or consult the Voice before making decisions and queried whether this could lead to protracted High Court litigation. As outlined in my second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum and confirmed by many of Australia's foremost legal and constitutional experts, section 129 would not have this effect. Subsection 129(i) guarantees the existence of the Voice. Subsection 129(ii) guarantees the Voice's core representation-making function. Subsection 129(iii) confers upon the parliament a broad power to make laws on matters related to the Voice without detracting from the guarantees in subsections 129(i) and 129(ii). Under 129(iii), the parliament will have the power to legislate about whether representations by the Voice need to be considered by the executive government and, if so, in what circumstances. After careful consideration, the government deliberately amended section 129(iii) of the draft provision to make clear the primacy of the parliament. My submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum enclosed the opinion of the Solicitor-General on proposed section 129. Consistent with the views of the overwhelming consensus of constitutional experts, the Solicitor-General advised that proposed section 129 would empower the parliament to specify in legislation whether and, if so, how executive government decision-makers are legally required to consider relevant representations of the Voice. In short, Australians can have confidence in this constitutional amendment and confidence that constitutional recognition through a voice will work. The Voice, as proposed in this bill, would amplify the voices of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Should the referendum pass, there will be a public consultation process to settle the design of the Voice, including how it will connect with communities and work alongside existing organisations. The Voice will represent the diversity of views and needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to the national parliament and government. The design of the Voice would build on the progress of the states and territories in listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It would build on the design work of Professors Calma and Langton, which emphasise the importance of local and regional voices. It would build on the work of the Uluru dialogues. It would build on the Voice design principles agreed by the Referendum Working Group. If the parliament and the executive government take communities' perspectives into account in developing, enacting and implementing laws and policies, those laws and policies will be better targeted from their inception and lead to improved outcomes. In this way the Voice would help drive change to close the gap. This bill is the product of a comprehensive and lengthy process to determine the right form of constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples stretching over more than a decade. This includes the Referendum Council's regional dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention to which I have already referred. In the lead-up to the introduction of this bill, the government established the Referendum Engagement Group, the Referendum Working Group and the Constitutional Expert Group to provide advice on the draft constitutional provision. The Constitutional Expert Group examined, in detail, the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival last year and found it to be a solid basis for the constitutional alteration. As a result of this process, the government refined and improved on that proposal— The SPEAKER 53517 Has the Attorney-General concluded his remarks? Mr DREYFUS HWG I seek leave to conclude my remarks. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed earlier, further consideration of the bill is made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Long, Mr Jeff 73 19:30 Mr V 300147 Casey IOLI () (): On a terrible weekend on our roads, we lost a very special member of our community, Jeff Long. I didn't know Jeff well, but like anyone who played cricket and sport in the Yarra Valley everyone knew Jeff. We knew his significance as a loved and respected community member in Yarra Junction and Powelltown. I want to pay tribute to him tonight by reading the words of his good friend Tony who put a tribute online today that summed up his impact on many communities. Tony's words are: The Yarra Junction football and Netball Club mourns the recent passing of former player Jeff "Joffa" Long. We extend our deepest sympathies to Jeff's children, Stacey, Nathan, Emily, and Tyson, and to his grandchildren. We are thinking of you at this sad time. The loss of Joffa has reverberated throughout the Upper Yarra Valley and in particular the Football and Cricket Clubs of Yarra Junction and Powelltown. Jeff has represented both sporting communities on hundreds of occasions and has made countless friendships. Jeff took his football and his cricket very seriously. His skills with the Kookaburra and with the Sherrin was exceptional. Joffa always spoke his mind. He was a working man, a timber mill worker, a slaughterman, a firewood merchant, and a good provider for his family. He was an aggressive and capable opening bowler and tough, uncompromising and skilled footballer who let his opponents know that he was around. He loved talking sport with all and sundry. He was an outdoors person who loved his fishing, rabbiting and cutting firewood in the bush. He was openly friendly to all and he made a point of engaging you with those unforgettable blue eyes and his welcoming smile. He simply loved people and he loved to chat. Most importantly, he was genuine. Jeff Long was the real deal. What you saw was what you got. The writer of this epitaph is eternally grateful for having known Jeff as a dear and true friend. He certainly was a larger-than-life character of the Upper Yarra community. No question about that. He was born and raised in Yarra Junction; went to school here, spent his working life here, and raised his children here. He helped raise his grandchildren here. To have had the privilege of really coming to know him and to call him my friend is what makes him a person I will never forget. Many years ago, Jeff found himself on his own with four young children. With the incredible support of Stacey, his eldest child (who was in her early teens), he steered his family through some very tough times. I then saw Jeff in his finest hour. He put his family first and really stepped up. I got to see the heart of a man I have come to deeply respect. I saw a beautiful and caring soul. Jeff will be sadly missed. He will be talked about whenever Yarra Junction and Powelltown people gather and look back on the good times. We will miss his sincerity, his friendship, his honesty, his trust, his opinions and his love for his fellow man. Jeff's friendship was genuine; it was uncomplicated and sincere. In life, we cannot ask for any more from a fellow human being. Jeff Long: a life very well lived—a loving father, grandfather, brother, son, and true friend to so many. An original, never forgotten—may he now forever rest in the sweetness and eternal care of Almighty God. I want to thank Tony for that amazing tribute to his great friend, Jeff, and I know many people in the Upper Yarra, in Yarra Junction and Powelltown, echo the words that Tony so eloquently wrote today. It's an honour to be able to share those in parliament. I also want to mention Jeff's grandson, Beau, who was involved in the accident. He's in hospital tonight, starting to recover from his injuries and also the loss of his beloved grandfather. A GoFundMe page has been established for his support through this tough period. If you want to support them, please visit the Seville Cricket Club Facebook page to donate to that. My thoughts are with Beau, with all the Long family. Everyone in the Upper Yarra knows a Long. They're great people in our community, and Jeff was an amazing example of that. I wish Beau and his family a speedy recovery, and my deepest condolences on this tragic loss. Vale Jeff Long. Industrial Relations 74 19:35 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'd like to associate the government with the member for Casey's heartfelt tribute to his constituent. I met some wonderful people at parliament today: Sam, Ben, Ella and Pip travelled here to talk to us about the importance of higher wages and better working conditions. Sam's a supermarket worker, Ben's a train driver, Ella's a dancer and Pip works at a chocolate factory. Their stories are the stories of workplaces in modern Australia after nine years of Liberal government. They are stories of exploitation, casualisation, low wages, bad-faith bargaining and job insecurity. Theirs are the stories we need to hear so we can close the loopholes. The Albanese Labor government acted swiftly, following our election 12 months ago, to reverse nine years of industrial relations vandalism under the Liberals, which included nine years of deliberate wage suppression. We raised the minimum wage, we implemented multi-employer bargaining and we abolished the antiworker bodies the Liberals had set up. The passage of the secure jobs, better pay bill was a huge step forward to lifting wages, improving job security and closing the gender pay gap, and just two weeks ago we followed it up with a 15 per cent increase in aged-care workers' pay. The Albanese Labor government proudly supports higher wages and better conditions for Australian workers. That stands in stark contrast to the Liberals, who in both word and deed want workers to earn less and have less protection in their workplaces. But there's always more to do, and that's why the stories of Sam, Ben, Ella and Pip are so important. Sam has worked at a major supermarket chain for 16 years. She's also a mum who knows how to stretch a dollar. Sam discussed with me the issues that she and co-workers have with rosters and the cost of living. Casualisation is rampant in Sam's workplace, with effectively permanent workers constantly put on casual employment contracts. Her employer uses a loophole to evade putting workers on permanently, robbing them of the financial security they crave. How can employers on one hand cry out for more workers and on the other continue to treat those that they have so poorly? At a time when we are told there is a worker shortage, it makes no sense to keep chopping and changing reliable workers' hours. The constant uncertainty is a drain on workers' health. It feeds anxiety and it makes it harder to plan a weekly family budget. Ben's been a train driver for 10 years, and this was the second time I'd met him. He reminded me that he'd come to see me in Canberra after the Albanese government was elected and he'd presented me with a dollar coin set in a plaque to commemorate the Prime Minister's absolute and proud support for raising the minimum wage. That plaque and coin have pride of place in my office foyer here in the parliament. Ben wants compulsory arbitration. He says it's too easy for employers to ignore recommendations from the industrial umpire, forcing unions to instead go down the expensive and time-consuming route of civil legal action. He says umpires' rulings should be respected just like they are on the footy field. Ella works as a dancer and operates freelance, so she's effectively a contractor with an ABN. Her industry has no job security and no minimum standards that she can use as a floor to negotiate her contracts. Ella described freelancing as being 'the poster child for exploitation'. Finally, Pip has been a machine operator at a famous chocolate manufacturer for 10 years. She says casualisation and financial insecurity lead to poor mental health outcomes for her co-workers and make it harder for workers to seek redress for claims of wage theft. I thank Sam, Ella, Ben and Pip for meeting with me. I am proud to be in the Labor Party, because it's in our DNA to fight for higher wages and better conditions, and I'm proud to be a member of a government that is so evidently committed to these ideals and to putting them into practice. But we can never rest, and there are always loopholes to close. Homelessness 74 19:40 Mr 247742 Petrie HOWARTH () (): You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that homelessness is an issue across Australia. People in my electorate are telling me they have seen an increase in people living in cars and in parks throughout the electorate. According to the last census, in 2021, 123,000 people experienced homelessness. The government haven't done a great job here, but we're happy to lead from opposition. One thing we need to do is have more houses built and more land released. Supply is a big issue. The government can't be greedy. The state governments and the councils can't be greedy with taxes, because every dollar that they get from taxing developers and investors is passed on to people buying that land and those homes, so it's a fine balancing act. In regard to high-rise development, people can't complain every time there is a high-rise development application. You can't have it both ways. You can't see people on the streets and want something done and then complain when an application is put forward for high-rise development. There is only so much land in the country. What's interesting is that I've actually had people who live in high-rise complain about high-rise. We also need to train more tradespeople. Being a tradie is an honourable profession. I was one before I came into parliament. The coalition, when we were in government, did a lot to help train tradies. We had the JobTrainer fund, which basically gave free training all through COVID. Then we had the boosting apprenticeship scheme, which got so many people into apprenticeships, and we actually paid part of their wages. The state government in Queensland needs to do a lot better. The Palaszczuk government haven't done a great job of managing their public housing stock. Since the Newman government left over eight years ago, the Palaszczuk Labor government haven't supported community housing providers, mainly because they want union jobs within the public sector and just because the Newman government supported CHPs. They're finally starting to realise that CHPs do a reasonable job when rents are capped at 30 per cent and you can also get Commonwealth rent assistance. Inflation, of course, has been rising. We've seen it rise in the past 12 months. If I ask people: 'Are you better off now than you were 12 months ago, when the Albanese government came to power?' the reality is that the answer is no, and it's not coming from the Kremlin; it's coming from Canberra. We need to look after middle Australia. There was nothing in the budget for middle Australia, for working people. They rightly help people who are doing it tough and are on welfare, but if you're working—a single person or a couple or a couple with a family—there isn't much there, apart from the small amount for energy relief. Today we heard the minister talk and crow about energy prices. They were due to go up by 40 per cent but he's somehow reduce that by eight per cent. So a 32 per cent increase is a good thing, despite the fact that he promised a $275 reduction at the last election. The reality is that we have to promote homeownership. We've got to tell young people that they can buy their first home. It is possible and they mustn't be negative around this. I see little of that from the current Labor government. The coalition has a good record in this place. It was the coalition that legislated the First Home Super Saver scheme. Every young person who wants to buy your first home, save in super rather than a bank and pay 15 per cent tax on everything you earn over 45 grand rather than 32½ per cent. It was the coalition that brought in the First Home Guarantee, where you only need to save five per cent and we'll cover the mortgage insurance for you. It was the coalition that brought in the Family Home Guarantee, which enabled single parents, having saved a deposit of just two per cent, to then get into their own home. If you're earning up to $125,000, you can take advantage of that. The reality is the coalition has a good record when it comes to homelessness between 2016 and 2021. We reduced rough sleeping from 8,200 people to 7,600, we reduced severe overcrowding from 51,000 people to 47,000 nationally, and we reduced couch surfing from 17,000 people to 16,000. The reality is there's always more to do, but we did do some good things. I want to pay credit to the Labor government up in Queensland. I wrote a joint letter with them, when I was the community housing minister, around reducing boarding houses, and that was the only figure that we saw fall in Queensland between 2016 and 2021. The next census is due in 2026. Labor has a lot of work to do. Markets 75 19:45 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser When many people hear the word 'market', they immediately think 'free markets'. But most markets aren't free. There are all sorts of ways in which they are regulated—disclosure requirements, product standards, restrictions on unconscionable dealing, and many more—as it should be. Indeed, the notion of a free market is a theoretical and intellectual benchmark that is useful but far from the norm. Tonight I'm going to talk about a particular kind of intervention or regulation of markets that can be life changing and, indeed, lifesaving. The real-world markets that look most like free markets are those for often homogenous or simple products and services, where price is the key determinant. Those often work quite well. However, government funded services are becoming increasingly complex. For services not easy to either source or put a price on, market design and market stewardship, often by government, are required in order to get the best outcomes for people. In a disability or aged-care services or healthcare context, a person's main concern is usually quality of care and how well that care is suited to their particular needs. A low price will usually not induce a person to choose a supplier if they believe they will receive substandard or inappropriate care. An older person might need a range of services to remain in their home but may not be able to get them all from one provider. It might be difficult for them to navigate a market to access all the services they need from various providers. Similarly, people on the NDIS might need a range of services that are not available from a single provider—a wheelchair, occupational therapy and direct care, for example. With heterogeneous, highly varied preferences and complex products or services, effective service delivery is often a two-sided match. The personal connection between the person and the service provider is extremely important, as those of us who shop around for a GP or health specialist would attest. We want to get the services to those that need them, and price can still often play a role but in many contexts won't be playing the key or only role. This is where innovative market designs come into their own. They could provide much bigger bang for buck in a range of areas of government spending. Matching markets is one example of innovative design. Indeed, several winners of the Nobel Prize in economics in the past two decades have worked in this area. A prominent lifesaving application is the kidney exchange system. Previously a husband may have wanted to donate a kidney to his wife but their blood types may have been incompatible, making the donation impossible. Often, donations were limited to particular geographic areas or hospitals. In a matching market, incompatible donor patients are matched with similarly incompatible pairs so that patients receive kidneys from a compatible donor. Such coordinated exchanges provide many more matches than if individual donors and hospitals are left to their own devices, thus saving many more lives. Similar kinds of matching opportunities are available in many areas of government service delivery. Closer to home, another innovative market design led to a huge increase in the quality of life of children with autism. The Northern School of Autism, which opened in 2012, drew students from much of the metro area of Melbourne. While bus travel was free, the geographic spread of students was vast, resulting in long travel times of up to two hours each way. Transport involved three legs for senior students—from home to a pickup point, then on to the junior campus, and then a shuttle leg to the senior campus. While students attending the junior campus arrived on time for the 9 am start of classes, senior students arrived 30 minutes later at their campus. This not only shortened their educational time but disrupted the teaching of all other senior students. An innovative design was implemented through a pilot. I worked on this when a parliamentary secretary in the Andrews Labor government, with the University of Melbourne's Centre for Market Design and the renowned California Institute of Technology. A maximum travel time was set: one hour each way. Algorithms then determined the optimum bus size and routes, and those routes were auctioned. The results were amazing. The average travel time was cut from 66 minutes to 29 minutes for the morning service, resulting in much happier children and parents, and a substantially enhanced learning environment. Such a coordinated approach isn't anti market, but it requires what might be described as well-designed, and often well-managed, markets. It is about effecting preferences through choice in a way that empowers all participants in the market. Leaving consumers and providers to their own devices doesn't work nearly as efficiently in as many contexts as a coordinated and well-designed approach. Rural And Regional Health Services 76 19:50 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Last week marked one year of the Labor government and on behalf of my electorate of Cowper I want to put regional health—and I emphasise regional health—in the spotlight. Sadly, in my view, it has been relegated to the dark backstage during that time. I will, however, give credit where credit is due, and I acknowledge that many GP practices across the country are grateful for the increase in the bulk billing incentive. This announcement was also welcomed by many constituents who had contacted my office regularly over the past four years. I was told that the fee gap when visiting the GP was becoming untenable when coupled with the significant cost-of-living woes over the past 12 months and record inflation levels. In my electorate of Cowper, there are only two per cent of GPs that will bulk bill. I sincerely hope that this increase will change that, and I'll be keeping a very close eye on that statistic. Unfortunately, the credit will stop there, because in regional Australia it's not getting easier to get an appointment. As a result of COVID-19, the migration away from the cities and into regional areas skyrocketed our migration numbers, particularly in coastal regions on the stunning mid-north coast. While the population numbers are surging, the number of GPs and medical centres has stagnated, and in some areas, including Port Macquarie and Lake Innes, it has declined. Prior to COVID, it was already difficult to get in to see a GP or a specialist in areas of my electorate, but now it is close to impossible, with many practices forced to close their books to new patients. Even existing clients are waiting weeks to be seen. Instead of recognising this and providing initiatives aimed at safeguarding the regions, this government has actively ripped out doctors from our regions by changing the distribution priority areas, effectively funnelling skilled workers into metro areas and sealing our fate when it comes to attracting the long-awaited migrant force into the areas that need it most. To further compound the issue, the Albanese government has slashed Medicare-funded mental health supports in half. We've been shown that 70 per cent of GPs list mental health as one of the top three issues in patients. Many GPs and psychologists across the country have articulated that Australia is facing a mental health crisis and that support and consideration needs to be given more weight, not less. I think that one of our local clinical psychologists, Jennifer Grant from Coffs Harbour, said it best when she called me to express her dismay on the cuts. She stated, 'Just as people shouldn't be asked to ration vital medicines like insulin, they shouldn't have to ration mental health care.' Then there is the 60-day dispensing legislation. Once again, this sounds great and will save some people some money, which is noble given the cost-of-living issues. But, once again, it doesn't provide the necessary safeguards to ensure that our critical regional pharmacies are able to remain open and with the right level of stock to service the community. As we have seen so often before from Labor, this new legislation is set to heavily benefit metropolitan areas and put added strain on regional providers. I continue to field desperate calls from pharmacists around my electorate. While all understand the merits of the system in that the number of required GP visits will be reduced, what the legislation does not take into account is the knock-on effect. It has been widely reported in recent months that Australia is already facing serious supply chain issues when it comes to critical medicines across regional Australia. Pharmacies are feeling the impact more acutely than their counterparts as they are not prioritised when it comes to stock distribution. This new legislation will mean that some patients will simply miss out on medication as other individuals are able to stockpile. It needs to be changed. Asylum Seekers 77 19:55 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Tonight I want to talk about supporting refugees and people seeking asylum. It's an area of the work that our government has been doing that is important to me, and I know it's important to many people in my community who regularly contact me about this. In the past year since our government was elected, we have been steadily working through some of the issues we inherited in this space. We know, and I think our communities know, that there isn't an overnight fix to many of these issues. They know that important work like this takes time. But we were clear before we were elected that we thought the approach we could take was showing humanity while also making sure that our borders remain strong, and that is indeed the approach that we have taken now that we are in government. I know to many people in my community, who, as I said, contact me regularly about these issues, that is a really important approach. It marks a different approach to what we have seen previously in this place. Our government has delivered on our commitment to provide TPV and SHEV holders in our country with a pathway to permanent residency. Many of these people have been living in our communities for a long period. For some of them it has been a decade or more. Providing these people who have been found to be owed our protection with a permanent visa pathway will obviously make a tremendous difference to their lives and to the lives of the people around them. Again, many people have contacted me about people they know in their communities, people they have supported over many years who are TPV or SHEV holders. For those people who have worked here, who have started businesses, who have built lives in local communities, this decision goes some way to taking them out of the limbo they have been in and gives them that pathway to a permanent place in Australia. Our government has also taken an approach of supporting refugees and people seeking asylum in communities. In my community there are many local groups that do this work, including the Jagajaga Grandmothers for Refugees, the Montmorency Asylum Seekers Support Group and the Welcome to Eltham group. I want to thank them for all they do to support people living in our community with links to work and with a place to stay and for building those connections for asylum seekers and refugees in our area. I am pleased that our government has supported 20 social enterprises, including eight in my state of Victoria, that are providing pathways to employment for refugees. To have these social enterprises providing support to alleviate the financial pressures people feel and providing a source of connection and pride for the area they are working in is an important thing. Our government is also investing in supporting the mental health of refugees and asylum seekers in our community. As part of our government's aim to provide the best settlement services, we are providing $136 million over four years for torture and trauma services to help support refugees with the psychological issues which arise from what have often been traumatic experiences before arriving in Australia. As I said, it's about providing humanity while making sure we remain strong on our borders, providing the right amount of support at the right time. We know that everyone is different and that people may need extra support at different times. Our government is also expanding the Community Refugee Integration and Settlement Pilot, which provides a community based pathway for refugees settling in Australia. That is just one example of how we are trying to make sure that our communities, who want to support refugees and asylum seekers, can do that work. Our government is working globally on this issue; we know that it's not something we can tackle as an individual nation. So we did support a visit earlier this year from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In fact, it's the first time that someone holding this position has visited Australia in 11 years. I think that gives an example of the change in approach that we've seen. The commissioner was clear that our government has a lot of work to do but that he was reassured by the steps that we have taken to date. In this place, I was honoured to help launch the Parliamentary Friends of Refugees, and I serve as a co-chair together with other members of this place. It's the first time in our parliament's history that we have had a group like this established. I very much thank all the MPs who have joined the group and hope that you will join with me in trying to change the conversation we have in this country about refugees and asylum seekers—to make sure that it's not an 'us and them' argument that we fall into, to make sure that people seeking asylum are not demonised for political purposes, but to make sure that we are upholding our responsibilities to protect people where those responsibilities exist, and to show humanity while making sure that we keep our borders strong. BILLS 78 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 78

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 78 20:01 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs In the lead-up to the introduction of this bill, the government established the Referendum Engagement Group, the Referendum Working Group and the Constitutional Expert Group to provide advice on the draft constitutional provision. The Constitutional Expert Group examined in detail the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival last year and found it to be a solid basis for the constitutional alteration. As a result of this process, the government refined and improved upon that proposal to clarify and broaden the scope of the parliament's power and to ensure that the provision fits seamlessly within the Constitution. The bill has also been the subject of rigorous and robust public debate and scrutiny, including through the joint select committee's enquiry. The overwhelming majority of legal experts have concluded that it is constitutionally sound. The committee recommended, after reviewing significant evidence through hearing and submissions, that the bill be passed unamended. The government thanks all those who contributed to the committee enquiry by making a submission or giving evidence and thanks the members of the committee for their thorough and thoughtful consideration of the issues. It has been just over six years since more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates gathered at Uluru from all points of the southern sky to make this modest request for voice, treaty and truth. We in the parliament have spent many hours discussing how to fulfil the first part of that request, a request built on more than a decade of work. But it will soon be up to all Australians to make a choice. It will be up to the Australian people to take the opportunity offered by the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, an opportunity for our nation to do better, to come together and to walk towards a better future. The SPE 53517 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and further consideration will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. House adjourned at 20: 04 NOTICES 78 NOTICES Presentation 78

Tuesday, 30 May 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS South Australia: Hospitals 80 16:00 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise with really good news today. We have quite a milestone in my community. Our emergency department at Mount Barker opens next week. On Friday I had a tour with the SA health minister, Chris Picton, to look at the fantastic new emergency department. It will have up to 17 bays—12 more than the old ED. There's a bit of history with this. When I was first elected here my predecessor told me that it would be impossible for us to have an emergency department in Mount Barker and it would be impossible for us to have doctors overnight. My babies were born there, as were the babies of many people across the region. But there were no doctors for an emergency department. If you had a sick child with a high fever at 2 o'clock in the morning, your only choice was to bundle them into the car and drive north of 50 kilometres to get them to a hospital. I went to the then South Australian health minister, Jack Snelling, and said, 'We need to get some sort of service.' We got a 24-hour doctor system. Then we had a small emergency department. I thank the previous government for contributing a significant amount of money in order to get this happening. The previous government committed over $11 million to the Mount Barker facility. I also mention that we haven't forgotten the south coast either. More than $13 million of federal funding has been committed to the south coast hospital at Victor Harbor. That is in the process of being upgraded too. Health is the most important public policy area. It's the one that affects people the most. Now my community in the whole of the Adelaide Hills region will be able to take their sick children at two in the morning and know that there are dedicated paediatric beds. There's even a specialist bed if somebody has an infectious disease. We never had any of these services. It has been such an honour and privilege over the last seven years to fight for that funding for our community and then to see that realised. I thank everybody who has been involved. The health ministers are no longer in those places and the governments have changed hands, but the commitment has continued no matter who has been in government at the state level or the federal level. Health is critical. If you don't have your health, you don't have anything. I look forward to the upgrades at Victor Harbor as well. We need to make sure that, when people have an emergency and need to have their health addressed, they can do that locally, because local is what's best. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 80 16:03 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Last Friday was Sorry Day. In the morning I joined dozens of community members in the City of Whittlesea's annual sorry walk, listening to elders, paying my respects and saying sorry. It was also the sixth anniversary of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—that generous invitation from our First Nations people to the rest of us to walk together towards reconciliation. I was honoured to have my friend Sheena Watt, member for the Northern Metropolitan Region of the Victorian parliament, join me, Minister Lily D'Ambrosio and Lauren Kathage, together with many engaged local residents at the Epping Memorial Hall, to discuss the upcoming referendum for constitutional recognition of our First Nations people in the form of a Voice to Parliament. Sheena spoke movingly, passionately and powerfully about what is at stake for her as a proud Yorta Yorta woman and for us all. Through an extensive question-and-answer session she answered many queries and addressed concerns. The room contained a diversity of opinion, but there was an overwhelming sense of support for the Voice—for responding to what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have asked for. I was particularly struck throughout the conversation by the unfairness of Sheena having to tell her story on this day in this manner because right now there isn't the mechanism the Voice will provide and because there isn't a way for the perspectives of First Peoples, as First Peoples, to be brought to bear on our decision-making, and this has to change. We must recognise the fact of our 65,000-year history in our Constitution. We must also enable the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be heard on those issues that affect them. This is good manners, but it's so much more than that. It's a big step towards realising our potential as a nation, as a genuinely reconciled country that harnesses its diversity as our greatest strength. The conversation at the town hall was respectful and considered but exposed how pervasive myths and misinformation have become in this debate. Organising this forum brought home to me the consequences of the coarsening of our public debate, including by those who should know better—like the Leader of the Opposition. His disgraceful speech in the parliament has fanned ugly flames and is both dividing Australians and denying people public space because they are afraid. We need to be better than this. It has to be incumbent on all of us in public life to recognise the effect of our words on every member of the community. This begins with taking a zero-tolerance approach to racism and recognising its staggering ongoing impact on First Nations people in particular. This is the floor though, not the ceiling. Right now, people are being hurt and are being threatened. This cannot be how public debate takes place in Australia. We do need to get better at disagreeing with one another in terms that ensure that all people are always respected—all people, not all viewpoints because what we say carries consequences. We must always remember this and maintain our focus on ensuring that our words don't deny others their rightful voice. Herbert Electorate: Crime 81 16:06 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert The No. 1 issue in Townsville is crime. There is rarely a day that goes by where the morning news updates don't outline the latest incident contributing to our youth crime. This morning it was a teenage criminal, charged with assaulting a police officer after being intercepted in an alleged stolen car. On Sunday night police were forced to use tyre spikes to stop the car just down the road from my electorate office. The car had been stolen from a home early that morning. Five suspects fled the scene and three were arrested. Later a 14-year-old girl allegedly assaulted an officer during an arrest, and a 16-year-old girl was found with a knife. Meanwhile, last week we had a police officer left with a broken nose after an attack at a shopping centre. This is what our city has become, and it has been going on for years, but it should not be accepted as business as usual. Unfortunately, that is exactly the approach taken by the state Labor government. In fact, yesterday we had a taste of exactly what the Premier thinks of crime victims by the way her office treats them. Her office showed she simply doesn't care about Townsville's crime when it 'replied all' to an email from a victim of repeated home break-ins saying 'standard response'. No sympathy, no concern; just a generic response ordered for a repeat victim who hasn't felt safe in their home for years. It just proves the state Labor government has completely given up on the issue. And if that wasn't enough, just hours later we had news that one of its own Townsville MPs, the member for Mundingburra, has wasted police resources, tying them up on a wild-goose chase. The MP put in a request to police to investigate why an ambulance turned up to his house one night when he hadn't called one. It turns out the ambos were a few houses short. But instead of asking where they were meant to go or assisting them with the confusion, he organised the Queensland Police Service to investigate whether it was a hoax call. It's little wonder the people of Townsville have absolutely no confidence in their three state Labor MPs. They're more worried about finding out why their beauty sleep was interrupted than allowing the police to do what they do best: catching and locking up criminals. My community is desperate for change. They want tougher penalties, and they want detention as a last resort removed from the Youth Justice Act. Yes, we need to look at addressing the underlying issues, but our community wants a solution to stem the bleeding now, before we think about the surgery. What we don't need is MPs wasting police resources on a merry-go-round of youth justice ministers and a Premier who has no sympathy for victims of crime. Budget 81 16:09 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I rise to say I am proud of the 2023 budget, which delivers the stronger foundations for a better future. When it comes to what that means for the people in the Perth electorate, I have proudly written to every one of my constituents sharing with them the news that is in this budget and how it will lay those stronger foundations. The centrepiece is investing in our public health system, in our public Medicare system—something those opposite have spent 40 years trying to tear down, something those on the Labor side have spent 40 years building up and protecting. And we do that in this budget—tripling bulk-billing incentives, making sure that people can get the doctors they need to see when they need them. In my electorate of Perth, I was proud to stand alongside the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Early Childhood Education as we announced the first Medicare urgent care clinic anywhere in the country in Morley, in Perth, at Rudloc Road Medical and Dental Centre. It's going to be a fantastic service for the people of Perth. It comes on top of the bulk-billing incentives, which will really assist up to 63,741 people in my Perth electorate across 58 GP practices. Every single pharmacy in the Perth electorate will be able to deliver cheaper medicines from later this year, with two-month prescriptions. This is a good initiative that will benefit some 37,000 people across the Perth electorate, saving them $180 a year or more—real cost-of-living relief, available at every pharmacy in the Perth electorate. On top of that, one month from today we will see the Cheaper Child Care package come into action—something that I know you, Deputy Speaker Chesters, have campaigned on very strongly for a long period of time. In my electorate, 6,800 families will see cheaper child care, giving children the care they need at a price that parents can afford, helping people get back into the workforce. We think about the other big pressure on our workforce. I was pleased to stand in my electorate on the weekend as the government released our national strategy for the care and support economy. We know that we can do those big things like provide a pay increase for 25,000 aged-care workers in Western Australia but we need to plan for the future. I encourage every Australian to have their say on that very important piece of work. Then it comes to all the other initiatives contained in this budget. You see, when it comes to education and skills, 3,000 initial places for universities and 19,000 fee-free TAFE places across TAFE in Western Australia. We see 39,960 premises in the Perth electorate alone finally getting access to fibre-to-the-home internet, thanks to this government. Parry, Mr Ethan, Laybutt, Mr Zac 82 16:12 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to give the House an update on a couple of athletes from my patch, and they are both absolute crackers. They're from different fields. Firstly, Ethan Parry, who I've spoken about before, is a Hervey Bay athlete about to compete in the Virtus Global Games in Vichy, France. The Virtus Global Games is an international competition for high-level athletes with intellectual disabilities, Down syndrome and autism without intellectual disabilities. I see the member for Jagajaga and the member for Solomon are both here. I'll give them the hot tip: go to Ethan's Facebook page. It is 'Ethan Parry—The Athlete'. Please like his posts; they are absolute crackers! He has been out raising money. There will be more than 1,000 top athletes and 400 staff from 80 different nations expected to attend the event. The competition, which corresponds to 15 world championships in one week, will mobilise more than 400 volunteers, judges and officials from all over France. The games kick off on Sunday 4 June. Ethan will be competing from Tuesday to Friday in various events, including the triathlon, the 100 metres, the 200 metres, the 100 metre relay and the long jump—that is quite an extraordinary turnout! He has been the recipient of Local Sporting Champions grants. He is coached by Daniel Parker, who's better known as Stix. Stix is a former Invictus Games medallist and Afghanistan veteran. He's a great addition to Hervey Bay, helping coach athletes like Ethan. Across the weekend, Zac Laybutt, a Bundy boy, made his debut for the North Queensland Cowboys. He turned out for the Cows and took to the field on Friday night for his NRL debut. He started his rugby league career in Bundaberg with the Western Suburbs Panthers Rugby League Club. He started as an under-7 and continued with the club until he was an under-16. He attended Bundaberg State High School before joining the Cowboys Young Guns program—and there are a lot of them in there. He is the younger brother of Kyle Laybutt, who has also played for the cows, would you believe—two brothers, both who've played for the Cowboys. He's turned out 17 times for the Townsville Blackhawks in the Hostplus Cup in the past two seasons. We also have Coen Hess, another Bundy boy, a regular for the Cowboys, and I'm sure he'll be itching to get back into State of Origin on Wednesday night. While on my feet, can I say: go the Queensland Origin team! It is the biggest game in town this Wednesday night. It is an absolute shame that it's in Adelaide. I hope they sell out, because this is the spectacle to see. Obviously I'll be backing the Queensland side. It is a real opportunity. There's a lot of competition in the building. I have a side bet on, I'll admit, with Senator Ross Cadell. I hope he loses. He was silly enough to give me a 4½ start, which I think is a champion effort for someone who's backing the Blues! Let's go the cows. Let's go Zac Laybutt. Most of all: come on, Ethan Parry! Representing Australia—what a great turnout. Solomon Electorate: Community Events 82 16:15 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon As you know, Deputy Speaker Chesters, the Northern Territory—Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area, the Top End of the Northern Territory that I'm so proud to represent—is blessed to have a range of festivals, conferences and other activities now that the dry season has well and truly hit its stride. In the last couple of weeks I've had the pleasure of attending the Darwin Italian Festival for the first time, held down at Fort Hill Parkland, with that beautiful sea breeze coming in off the harbour. A great sea breeze was also at that Nightcliff Seabreeze Festival. It was a fantastic couple of days. I sponsored the art award for inclusiveness. That went to the Henbury School, so congratulations to them. On the weekend just passed we had the Darwin Seniors Expo at the Sitzler Netball Centre, which was a fantastic chance to talk to seniors and to put out a new seniors and pensioners information booklet with all the updated information. That is always very popular. On upcoming events for those who want to get up to the Top End and get warm if they're from somewhere a bit chilly: we have the Darwin International Dragon Boat Festival coming up in a bit over a week. We've got the Darwin Greek GleNTi Festival, with a couple of champion days there and great food and entertainment. We've got the Barunga Festival. We've got the supercars coming to Darwin. For those who love their motorsports, get up to Darwin for 16 to 18 June. We have Territory Day, which is on 1 July. It's sort of our birthday for the Northern Territory. We'll have heaps of fireworks and great music, and it's all free. We then have the Gran Fondo bicycle event the next day, 2 July. No matter how big Territory Day is, I'll be waking up come that Sunday morning, 2 July, and I'll again be cycling for charity in the Pollie Pedal. That's a busy June and early July, and those are only some of the events that are on. As the dry season continues, the Top End will be serving up so much more, with the Darwin Festival; with the NATSIAAs; with the NIMAs, the National Indigenous Music Awards; and with Aboriginal art fairs, just to mention a couple—fantastic events throughout. We've also had some great conferences. It's no wonder that our convention centre has recently won a Qantas tourism award as one of the best events venues in the country. We had a great Australian Defence Magazine conference. Fantastic stuff. I was very pleased to speak at that. We've also got the World Aquaculture conference on right now in Darwin. Plenty of sights and sounds with the military exercises through the Top End as well. It's a cracking time in the Top End during the dry season. Look forward to seeing me up there. Tanami Road 83 16:18 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to express my deep concern regarding the Labor government's decision to delay the sealing of the Tanami Road. The Tanami is not any old piece of road. It is a critical and strategic transport route connecting the town of Halls Creek to the Stuart Highway near Alice Springs. It serves as a lifeline for the mining and pastoral industries, supports our vulnerable Indigenous communities and supports tourism in our region. I cannot overstate the importance of sealing the Tanami Road. Currently the unsealed road is difficult to maintain and often falls into disrepute. During an average wet season, let alone the recent catastrophic floods that have hit the Kimberley region, a sealed Tanami Road would ensure a reliable source of food to isolated towns and our vulnerable Indigenous communities. It would ensure access to vital healthcare services for these remote communities. In addition, there are increased expenses that occur for our essential freight haulers, costs which have put some of them out of business. A sealed Tanami would also strengthen our Defence capabilities in the north-west of Australia, which is becoming increasingly more important in today's unstable world economy. My constituents in the north deserve food security. It is a basic human right. I was told yesterday that the residents of Halls Creek are paying over double the price for food, at their local supermarket, than they were this time last year. Because of the clear benefits and urgent need for this infrastructure upgrade, proudly, the coalition government ensured the sealing of the Tanami was a high priority by allocating close to $198 million in our 2019 budget, and in the 2022 budget we announced an investment of $510 million. Inexplicably, the Albanese Labor government has confirmed, in Senate estimates, that it will take a decade to complete the sealing of the Tanami Road. A decade! This time line is simply unacceptable. I appreciate the concept of going slow in these very remote parts of Australia, but 10 years? That is a glacial pace. The state transport and planning minister, Minister Saffioti, has recently accused me of not being across the details regarding the Tanami. Clearly, the Tanami is not a priority for this minister, and I am so disappointed that she hasn't fought harder for the people of the Kimberley. So, for the minister, here is the detail: the WA state 2021-22 budget allocated $265 million over four years—terrific—whereas what do we see in the last budget? A mere $13 million over four years. The people of the Kimberley should be shocked and appalled at these figures. I know, having been a very strong advocate for the Tanami, that I certainly am. Regional Australians deserve better. The people of the Kimberley deserve better. Once again, we see that state Labor is letting you down, and, once again, the Albanese government are letting you down as well. Bennelong Electorate: Small Business 83 16:21 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Before I became a member in this place, I ran a small family owned business, the one that my father started way back in 1987 out of the back of a van. He worked hard to build it up. It paid for my education, it paid for my upbringing and it has employed scores of people over the years. My entire life has been involved in and around small business. I get small business, and I get small-business owners. They are my people. I know the challenges they face but also know how important they are to our communities. They employ locals, they give our town centres vibrancy and they help grow our economy. In my time as a councillor, mayor and now MP, I can say that I've always stood up for small business. It makes me very happy to be part of a government that sees as much potential in small business as I do. So I thought I'd use this time to highlight what the government has done to help small businesses, in Bennelong, in both budgets we've handed down. After 10 years of energy policy chaos from those opposite, we know that small businesses are bearing the brunt of high energy prices. Australians elected us to fix that mess of the former government and we're doing just that. In the latest budget we tackled energy prices head on. Firstly, there's direct relief to small businesses and a partnership with the Minns Labor government to deliver an automatic annual $650 reduction in small-business electricity bills. We're also helping small businesses invest in renewables, because we know that the sun doesn't send an electricity bill. The Small Business Energy Incentive will give up to 3.8 million small and medium-sized businesses with less than $50 million in annual turnover an additional 20 per cent deduction on spending that supports electrification and more efficient use of energy. It will help small businesses make investments, like electrifying their heating and cooling systems, upgrading to more energy efficient fridges and induction cooktops, and installing batteries and heat pumps, which will help drive down power prices while also driving down emissions. We've also introduced similar tax incentives to encourage small businesses to invest in IT and upskill their employees. There has been $1.5 billion set aside to provide that extra 20 per cent tax deduction for businesses who invest in IT and also depreciating assets, such as portable payment devices, cybersecurity systems or subscriptions to cloud based services. Similarly, 20 per cent extra will be able to be deducted for small businesses who upskill their staff. Expenditure that is incurred for the provision of training courses will be able to receive that bonus deduction. We know on this side of the House that when small businesses succeed Australia succeeds. Through targeted investment, responsible investment and sustainable policy, we're ensuring that small businesses in Bennelong and across the country remain a major part of our economic growth. Grey Electorate: Child Care 84 16:24 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Much has been made in this place, particularly since the budget, by those on the government side of the increased support for child care in Australia: $4.7 billion over the forwards. Generally speaking, I'd have to say, that is welcome. It's worth noting, though, that the coalition government increased expenditure on child care by $11 billion in the period in which it was in government. People shouldn't assume that there are easy bandaids in this place. The government's intention is to direct all that money into increased subsidies and increased wages in the sector. Increased wages in the sector are very welcome. Increased subsidies will be welcomed by those who get it. Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot, and there are many of them in my electorate, particularly in the smaller communities. Towns, generally speaking, under the size of about 3,000 people have very limited options for child care. It is of great concern to me that the government is putting all this extra money into child care and not creating any new places. Where child care does exist, it is under a model called Rural Care, which is an agreement with the state government that goes back well over 20 years, where positions attract the subsidy. It's run by the education department. It's limited to three employees, and, given the ratios now, that means a very small childcare centre. Unfortunately, in these towns, there is no hope of a commercial operation coming into that place, so I am deeply disappointed. I took the offer of having our shadow minister, the member for Moncrieff, Angie Bell, in the electorate recently. We met with a number of communities in Cummins, Port Lincoln and Tumby Bay. Unfortunately we got called back to Canberra on very short notice, and we weren't able to complete that investigation, but she will be back in a few weeks time. We will be going to Whyalla, Wilmington, Orroroo, Crystal Brook and, I think, Port Broughton, Kadina and Ardrossan. These are all places that are underserviced. If they have child care, they don't have enough places. In many cases, they have none at all. We need a way to open the door to give these communities the same kind of access the rest Australia is getting. I make the note that the $4.7 billion the government is putting on the table here will come out of taxpayers' pockets. So if you live in a small town like I do, like Kimba, where there is no child care, your ability—my constituents' ability—to get involved in the new program is to pay more tax so other people can pay less to access a service which you cannot. It's intolerable. It needs addressing quickly. I am hoping to develop policy in opposition that will be attractive to constituents, but the government should come along for the ride. Chifley Electorate: Coral McLean Awards 84 16:27 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Late last month I had the honour of hosting the 12th annual Coral McLean Awards in our community, dedicated to the memory of the late Coral McLean. I set the awards up as the member for Chifley as a way to reflect and celebrate the selfless contributions of women in neighbourhoods across the Chifley electorate, improving the quality of the lives of so many people. Coral McLean was the director of the Holy Family Education Centre in Emerton, and she helped establish the Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre. She was also one of the founding members of the Mount Druitt reconciliation group helping pioneer the annual Reconciliation Walk—I certainly look forward to participating in that walk this Saturday in Mount Druitt. Coral unfortunately passed away in 2011, but the legacy she left is enormous, and it seems fitting for us to be able to recognise, based on her memory, the contributions of others who walk in her footsteps. I want to extend a huge congratulations to all the nominees for their tireless efforts. They have certainly not gone unnoticed, and we recognise them on the day. Congratulations to Samara Al-Fatlawi, who was awarded the Coral McLean Award for her dedicated volunteer work at the Mount Druitt Ethnic Communities Agency. Well done also to Jasmine Weeks, who received the Chifley Woman of the Year for her mums and bubs playgroup at PCYC Mount Druitt. Finally, well done to Sophia Stratikopolous, awarded the Chifley Young Woman of the Year for her youth engagement work at Street University in Mount Druitt. On the morning, we were also joined by Anthea Pearson and Nicole Thomas, Coral's daughters. We were delighted they were both there to hear from special guest speaker Justine Perkins, who's the founder of Touched by Olivia, a not-for-profit organisation that's working to create more-inclusive play spaces and programs for kids across the country. I also thank the judging panel of Bec Reidy, Ivanka Pelikan, Thelma Vuki and Aaliyah Filipe from Street University Mount Druitt. Thanks to all those amazing women for their great work. Overnight we received great news that two Chifley College students have been recognised for their skills. Sienna Gardner and Brody Ball were announced as recipients of a Public Education Foundation VET in Schools scholarship. They were awarded certificates at a ceremony at Sydney Town Hall last night. Sienna and Brody have been recognised as high-achieving students; in fact, they've been described as exceptional. I thought that I would put on the record our enormous pride for their work. It's always important to recognise students in the Mount Druitt area who are doing well. We wish them all the very best in their future careers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 85 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 85

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 85 16:31 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The government is working to ensure that we provide more support for veterans. Those who have served our nation deserve our utmost respect and the support of government. Unfortunately, in recent years many veterans have had a difficult time when dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs because the previous government put a staffing cap on the number of people who were working to process claims in that department. That led to the deterioration of the mental health of many veterans, which resulted in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which has made some recommendations. No. 1 among those recommendations is the removal of that staffing cap and the employment of more people to process claims in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We are getting on with the job of making sure there is more support for veterans, with more funding in the budget to support those who served our nation. This legislation, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, is another element of our support for the veteran community. The bill introduces a series of technical amendments within the portfolio. Specifically, it aids ADF firefighters who served before 2004 by addressing the fact that they faced the same or greater threats as their civilian counterparts. This bill modifies the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, or DRCA as it's more commonly known, to match provisions for ADF firefighters with those of their civilian colleagues. It cuts the qualifying period for a firefighter's employment to be considered a significant factor in the development of oesophageal cancer from 25 years to 15 years, aligning it with their counterparts in the civilian firefighting force. The wording of the act will change to not require that firefighting form a substantial part of the person's duties. Instead the new criteria will consider it as a 'not insubstantial part' for the presumption of the contribution to be valid. These amendments will simplify the process for ADF firefighters to seek acknowledgement and support for those conditions. We're also changing a number of employment programs. The second schedule of the legislation aligns the Veterans' Entitlements Act with existing provisions under the Social Security Act. This ensures that any income that veterans and their partners earn from certain employment programs won't count towards the income test for support means-testing. As a result, veterans and their partners can benefit from those employment programs without it affecting their eligibility for financial support under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The third schedule of the bill aligns the Veterans' Entitlements Act with existing provisions under the social security legislation. As a result, veterans and their partners who are stuck overseas temporarily, due to unforeseen circumstances, will be able to receive rent assistance for more than 26 weeks. This change eliminates the existing discrepancy, ensuring that veterans and their partners can receive the same rent assistance as civilians in similar situations. We're also expanding acute support package eligibility. We're extending the Defence, Veterans And Families Acute Support Package to aid more families in the veteran community. This initiative offers robust support in times of crisis. With services such as child care, counselling for adults and children, household assistance and wellbeing support, we aim to bolster family units and support them. Since its inception in October 2022, the package has been available to families of working-age veterans and widowed partners. We're clarifying the eligibility criteria to include grandparents who provide full-time care for children of deceased veterans. Our aim remains to provide unwavering support to service personnel and veterans and their families, ensuring those in a crisis can maintain that continuity of support. Quite often we hear, and we understand and we know, the challenges that serving ADF personnel and veterans face, but we often don't hear and comprehend the challenges that their families face as well. This government is keen to work with organisations like Defence Families Australia to ensure that service personnel's families and veterans' families are heard when it comes to policies of support, and this policy is one step towards achieving that goal. In the budget, we committed an additional $328.1 million to building on the previously invested $537½ million to bolster the services available to the 340,000 veterans and dependants who use the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This investment aims to decrease the veteran compensation claims backlog, a problem that, as I said at the beginning, has been there for quite some time. We're allocating $64.1 million over 2023-24, to retain over 480 dedicated DVA staff who will work on delivering frontline services, and $254 million over four years to modernise the outdated and ageing IT services. It's hoped that that investment in new IT capability will help with the processing of those DVA claims and the speeding up of those claims approvals, which is vitally important to the wellbeing of veterans into the future. It will ensure timely payments and more accessible services for veterans and families. We're also expanding the acute support package, as I mentioned, to include grandparents and carers. This package recognises the unique challenges faced by these families and provides them with support. Furthermore, we're funding essential support programs, including $2 million for mental health awareness and suicide intervention training for volunteers working with veterans. These measures accompany our ongoing reforms aimed at simplifying the complex century-old veteran compensation system. I and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs have been conducting consultations with veterans and veterans advocacy groups across the country, and we've covered all of the capital cities and all of the garrison towns throughout Australia, asking veterans and their advocacy groups and family members what their view of the legislation is and how it can be improved. It's been rewarding to hear the feedback from veterans about the government implementing that recommendation from the royal commission to simplify and rationalise veterans' entitlement legislation. In all of the consultations where I've asked veterans whether or not the government is on the right track with this proposal, the feedback has been positive, and people have said that they believe that the government is on the right track and that the system is too complicated. Veterans having to pay advocates to lodge claims on their behalf for injuries that they sustained in the service of our nation is something that should not happen. With this reform simplifying and rationalising that legislation, we hope that the need for veterans to employ advocates will be removed and that they will be able to apply for the support that they deserve by themselves and get timely processing of claims and, more importantly that they understand how the system works and what they are and are not entitled to. Our Defence Force personnel and veterans and their families give so much in the service of our nation, and we believe that it's time that they got the support that they deserve. That is why we're investing more in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, employing more people to support veterans, reducing the backlog of claims, modernising the IT system, rationalising veterans affairs legislation and supporting veterans through important initiatives such as this. 16:40 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It took the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs just 20 seconds to start criticising the previous government, but I'm going to do something a little bit different. I'm going to do something positive. I'm going to actually thank him. I thank him for coming to Wagga Wagga recently—on Wednesday 12 April—to hear from the residents who live in and around the Kapooka Army base and the Royal Australian Air Force base at Forest Hill about the PFAS, the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, contamination issues there. I appreciate very much that in recent days an agreement was reached for a class action in relation to PFAS. I appreciate that those issues are ongoing. I am a former veterans' affairs minister. In fact, I was the 43rd of 46. There have been a lot of veterans' affairs ministers. I call on the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Burt, to do everything he can to continue the help for our veterans. I acknowledge the member for Braddon behind me for his service—seven years at Kapooka in a 20-year career with the Australian Army. I thank other members too for what they have done for our nation. We should always remember what our veterans have done and what those currently serving in uniform do for our country—not just on 25 April or on 11 November, the special days. I appreciate they're commemorative days—Anzac Day and Remembrance Day or Armistice Day. We should remember our veterans every single day because they put their lives on the line in many instances and they do need every bit of support they can get. That's why this bill—the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023—is important. Whilst it might be seen as being noncontroversial, it is otherwise essential because of the various measures outlined therein. There are four particular and pertinent points that I will go through. Before I do that I note that the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Kingsford Smith, talked about the fact that the claim queue has gone down. I hope he's right. I earnestly hope that that is the case. I know that more staff have been placed in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to make sure that DVA has the resources and, indeed, the personnel it requires to address the backlog of claims. I earnestly hope that what he is telling the House is indeed correct, because we do need to not only address the issues that ex-service men and women have placed before us but also do it in a timely manner. It is so important. I note that the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, the member for New England, spoke on this bill earlier today and talked about Sandakan and the commemoration that was held last weekend. Indeed, in the Wagga Wagga Victory Memorial Gardens there is a poignant memorial to the men who fell on that death march. We commemorate that, as we do commemorate many events, because Wagga Wagga is a tri-service town. We have the Army, which the member for Braddon knows all too well. We have the Air Force. We even have a Navy base, even though we're a long way from the nearest drop of seawater. Deputy Speaker Chesters, I commend your home town too for what it does and the role it plays with the Bushmaster and the manufacturing that occurs there. I am disappointed that the recent budget did not include Wagga Wagga, to have a wellness and wellbeing centre. I commend community-driven efforts to get Pro Patria up and off the ground. The coalition government made a promise, a pledge, that we would give $5 million for a wellbeing centre, and there were around 10 to a dozen of these wellbeing centres. Unfortunately, that pledge has not been honoured by this government and that is a pity, particularly for Wagga Wagga, which is a tri-service town. It has many veterans who, seeing the great attractions of our city, choose to retire there after their service is completed. The Riverina electorate—that includes the Central West as well—has 3,837 veterans, including 1,576, at last count, in the Wagga Wagga local government area. That is a lot veterans. The Pro Patria people are doing what they can to make sure that that wellbeing centre will serve the needs of our veterans, going forward. The RSL too, through LifeCare, through Charlotte Webb and others, is really making considerable ground in establishing a veterans advocacy place for Wagga Wagga. So I commend those two. Recently I was in Cootamundra where Jacqui Vincent OAM, the secretary, treasurer, trustee—a person you just don't say no to. They opened a Cootamundra RSL sub-branch veterans drop-in centre in Parker Street, the main street in Cootamundra. Jacqui and her colleagues have that wonderful advocacy drop-in centre and provide the sorts of services and advice and support for veterans that you'd expect of a New South Wales RSL. President Ray James and his indefatigable wife, Pauline—both Order of Australia medallists—were at that particular event, back on 4 March and, let me tell you, it is a very good centre and was well supported on that day. This bill aligns the entitlements of firefighters employed by the Australian Defence Force with civil firefighters in relation to oesophageal cancer, which includes reducing the qualifying period of employment for an ADF firefighter from 25 to 15 years. We know that firefighters have health complications both during and, in often cases, after their service. Indeed, the whole PFAS situation is around the use of particular substances that were used in good faith. Those people who were both using that particular substance, the firefighting foam, and, in some instances, were saved by it were unaware at the time of just how dangerous this material, substance, could be for their health in the future. That is why Defence moved—and, I know, when I was the assistant defence minister and the veterans affairs minister, the work that I did, along with others, of course—to ensure that those people who were affected by this were being listened to. In fact, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018 I put into this parliament because it was necessary and because it was going to provide better outcomes for those people who had donned a uniform. Whether it's the khaki, the white or the Navy blue or Air Force blue, that veterancentric reform continues to help them today. The second point of this particular amendment allows for payments from specified Commonwealth state territory employment programs to be exempt from veterans income means testing. This is important, and I commend the work by former coalition Prime Ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison on the efforts they went to personally, and rightly and unjustifiably, to make sure that veterans had employment opportunities after their service was complete. Not everybody can be like the member for Braddon and get a parliamentary career after their service is done. I'm pleased that the member for Braddon is an earthy person who tells it like it is. We need those sorts of people in our parliament. It's based a lot on his military experience. We've got others, and I thank each and every one of them, including the member for Solomon, for bringing that good-natured but very down-to-earth practical experience they have gained from wearing the uniform and mixing with our uniformed soldiers, the best and the bravest, and bringing it into parliament to give a veteran-centric perspective on legislation. Even the shadow Minister for Defence—I know that what he brings to our joint party room is second to none. So I do thank them for that. These employment programs, Schedule 2, ensures parity between eligible recipients under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 with those under the updated Social Security Act 1991. The provisions ensure that when the employment secretary determines that payments of benefits from Commonwealth or state/territory employment programs are exempt from income assessment for social security purposes, that the determination also applies to recipients under the EEA and does not affect income support payments. We want those veterans to receive as much as they can receive without being impinged upon by various Treasury laws and potential amendments since their service was up. They qualified under other provisions previously. Schedule 3 entrenches discretion to provide rent assistance beyond 26 weeks for veterans overseas unable to return due to unforeseen circumstances such as war or, indeed, something that we probably wouldn't have even thought of prior to 2020, health pandemics. It aligns the measure with the Social Security Act 1991. We want to make sure that veterans who might find themselves overseas and might be unable to return are still qualifying for all the benefits that they would otherwise qualify for. This is important because we just don't know what we don't know. We hope that the worst of COVID-19 is behind us, but there are still people dying every day, and people still should exercise all their best behaviours to make sure that they don't expose themselves to potential hazards of COVID-19. Get your jabs, do all that, particularly our veterans, some of whom have health that has perhaps not been the best. They should be getting those immunisations to protect themselves at every turn. Schedule 4 extends assistance to grandparents caring for children of a deceased veteran. We have more than 102,000 names etched into the rolls of honour at the War Memorial just down the road from here. It's no coincidence that the front door of the War Memorial and the front door of the Australian Parliament face each other. We owe our veterans our gratitude because they went and served, many of them as volunteers. Some of them perhaps did not want to go, but they went. They served and fought, and many of them did not return. They are buried in foreign fields. Many of them did return and were worse from the effects of it. In World War I—not that there are any World War I veterans left—we lost 60,000 of our best and brightest. What a difference they could have made to our country. In the 10 years after the war we lost another 62,000 from the effects of the Great War. No war is great. The war of 1914 to 1918 was not great, though it is referred to as the Great War. Of course we want to make sure, whether it's World War II, Vietnam, Malaya, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, whatever conflicts we have engaged in, both in decades past and in more recent times, that we provide that assistance and support to our veterans and continue to do so. These four schedules in the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, whilst uncontroversial, are important because our veterans are important. I know that; I come from a tri-service town, I come from a garrison city, and I respect what our city does to commemorate our veterans. Moreover, I commemorate the future we are going to provide them. This legislation assists that, and I urge the government to do everything it can to at all times protect our veterans and give them the futures they deserve. 16:55 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. In my electorate of Paterson, I have RAAF Base Williamtown. I'm very proud of the fact, and I take the opportunity to thank the men and women who currently serve on this base as well as acknowledge the men and women who, after service, have remained in the beautiful Port Stephens or the more broad Hunter-Newcastle area. It is a remarkable place to live, and I know that many people who have served return to our area post service, whether it's working in defence industry or working in other civilian capacities—or, indeed, for a well-earned retirement. In the 2021 census there were over 7,000 veterans in my electorate, which is why I was so proud to commit to a veterans hub at the last election, which will have its home in my seat of Paterson but also serve other people across our region. I acknowledge the defence families and their contribution to our local community, and I sincerely acknowledge the devastating effect of war, conflict and peacekeeping on our veterans and their family and friends long after their active service is over. I recently attended the local Christian school in Medowie, and I wasn't surprised when one of the teachers conducting an assembly asked the audience to stand if they were defence children or serving members or past serving members. Around 70 per cent of the people in the hall stood up. Some children, when they went through the exercise of saying how many different schools they had been to, sat down at two or three or four. One child in particular had been to seven schools; she looked like she was in about year 9 to me. That just goes to show the amount of moving that happens, and how service can impact on those children and their mums and dads as well. The defence department and local defence industry is also growing around my seat, around the base, and it is creating really well paid and quite diverse careers. I'm so pleased to think that AUKUS, particularly pillar 2, will contribute to defence industry in and around Williamtown, not to mention how much it is going to uplift our Defence Force in and of itself. This growth in not only the Defence Force but defence industry around the base is also providing opportunities for the defence department to work with local developers, defence industry and business to find a solution for residents in my electorate that have been so devastatingly impacted by PFAS, the firefighting foam, and ensure we can safely repurpose properties and assist residents to relocate where appropriate. I want to take a moment to commend the defence minister and the assistant defence minister for the very swift action they took to settle the Shine class action just last week rather than dragging people through months of uncertainty and cruelty; some of that cruelty was imposed on my community by the former government. But I'm pleased to say that we dealt with it swiftly. When we think about a veteran, we envisage potentially a World War I or World War II sepia coloured photo with someone wearing a slouch hat. Now whilst they are indeed our veterans and we should think very proudly of them, we also have to realise that veterans come in all shapes and sizes these days—whether they're men or women. It's just such an incredibly diverse group. In fact, I think about this, and I think: 'The people who went to Vietnam are in their 70s now. The people who went to Afghanistan—that was 20 years ago.' We have to understand that our veteran community is a changing, dynamic thing. I also want to give a big shout out to Legacy, who I know are in their 100th year. They have done such a magnificent job of assisting families on that great promise of looking after a digger's children should he not return home from war. But we have failed to recognise that veterans need a great diversity of assistance, and their families deserve that assistance as well. We've failed to keep abreast of the everchanging needs and demography of veterans, and I'm sad to say the previous government didn't keep ahead of the game when it came to simple amendments that could make an incredible difference to those that have served us so well. That's why these amendments, whilst not controversial, are critical. They may not be controversial, but they're very important to get into legislation so that we can have the best hand to deal with veterans. In my work as the member for Paterson I've been privileged to meet an impressive young man by the name of Adrian Sutter. When Adrian was losing his sister to cancer, he left the military to support his family. He was acutely aware that the transition to civilian life was affecting his health, including his mental health, his relationships and his friendships. He watched many of his own friends and colleagues suffer the same issues that he was going through, and sadly many took their own lives. He said to me, 'As a soldier, your purpose is to be a protector.' It requires focus and dedication, and it's assumed that it is a commitment to service for your life or your working career. You have a plan. You have a target. You're organised. You have clear direction. Every aspect of your life works around your career. That makes so much sense, when you really think about it. If you are in uniform, it is your entire life. The transition to civilian life can actually be so brutal in its dysfunction when that order is taken away, when that target is no longer there. It doesn't matter who you are, anyone can fall victim to that. And after a few years in the wilderness, Adrian really did take the bull by the horns and dedicated to recommit himself and dedicate himself to a new career—that is, to work to ensure that the transition to civilian life for veterans would not be as challenging, would not be as life-changing and dangerous as it was for him. It would be one filled with purpose and dedication, so rather than life-challenging it would be life-changing. He has shared with me his vision and he's shown me the results. I was honoured to be hosted by my friend and colleague Assistant Minister for Defence, the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite, in his electorate of Kingsford Smith. He showed me the work that Adrian and his team are doing with the veterans in his electorate and the extraordinary results that it's achieving. There's a sense of comradeship and purpose within the veteran community, as well as growing interactions and relationships with the 'outside' or civilian world. He's focused on excellence and discipline, and this is something that resonates through all walks of life. It is something that can be easily lost without support, without adequate boundaries, without having that purpose. There are so many opportunities and so many things that can improve the lives of veterans and their families, and these legislative changes are long overdue. Minor legislative changes, such as the ones in these amendments, are the beginning of ensuring that the Department of Veterans' Affairs can do their job and support our veterans by providing secure options and effective actions. They're the beginning of recognising that things need to change; rules need to be adjusted and terms need to be amenable to providing good outcomes and results. Previous ministers for Veterans' Affairs have often been restricted in providing delivery of legislative change. This has been unfortunate and, as we know, sometimes devastating. We need our veterans to be looked after because, in many ways, they need to be the best advertisement for being in the Defence that we can have. We are desperate to recruit more people to the forces, whether it be the Army, whether it be the Navy, including submariners, or whether it be the Air Force, and a good experience that's shared by a veteran with our young people just speaks volumes about what it means to pull on the uniform of your country. We want those vets to be walking advertisements, as people who have done their duty and are so proud and have been well looked after, because in that way we will grab hearts and minds, mostly of these terrific young people who we need to defend our country—young people who we need to be inspired, to hear the call to service and to step up to give their best, knowing that, when their best has been given, we in turn will give them the best in their veteran years. So this is much bigger than just some schedules and some legislative tinkering. This really sets up the foundation so that we can absolutely deliver the best to our veterans and, I believe, thereby provide the best to our Defence Force. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which understands that things need to change and that change is what creates results. Good government cannot stand still. Good government delivers. I'm proud to speak on these amendments, and I thank my colleague the Hon. Matt Keogh for getting this legislation into parliament, getting this done and delivering. Good government doesn't leave anyone behind, and this legislation is a step in the right direction to ensure that veterans are supported, recognised and respected. Lest we forget. 17:06 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 proposes uncontroversial amendments across the various acts governing veterans' entitlements and compensation, but they're very important amendments. I must say that it is nice to be talking on a bill that has bipartisan support. It's important that we always support good policies, particularly when it comes to veterans and making sure that we do everything we can to make their lives a little bit easier after the service that they have given to our nation. This bill aligns the entitlements of firefighters employed by the ADF with those of civil firefighters in relation to cancer of the oesophagus, including reducing the qualifying period for employment for an ADF firefighter from 25 years to 15 years. This is very important because we know that our emergency services, including our firefighters, sacrifice a lot, and cancer, unfortunately, is one of the long-term consequences not just for veterans but also for volunteer firefighters and paid firefighters. So it's important that we recognise that in this legislation. I want to take a second to acknowledge a friend of mine, Bryan McCarthy, a former firefighter—a volunteer and a paid professional—who passed away from cancer due to his service. Many people know and have been touched by this, so I want to pay tribute to Bryan and Maria. This legislation also allows for payments from specified Commonwealth, state and territory employment programs to be exempt from a veteran's income means testing, and it will entrench discretion to provide rent assistance beyond 26 weeks for veterans overseas unable to return due to unforeseen circumstances, such as war and health pandemics. It aligns the measures with the Social Security Act 1991. Very importantly, it extends assistance to grandparents caring for the children of a deceased veteran. This bill also makes minor amendments to the three acts governing veterans' entitlements, including the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This legislation is a good step forward. It's important legislation and is part of the acknowledgement and assistance that we owe our veterans. As I've said, the coalition supports this bill, and I'm proud to be here supporting this bill and speaking on it today. However, there is always more that we can do, and it's important that we remember that the work's not done. How we honour our veterans really is a mark of our nation. The crowds that gathered on Anzac Day in my electorate of Casey reaffirmed how important veterans are in our community and the respect which they are given. It was amazing to attend six ceremonies on the day, and many others before and after Anzac Day. There were tens of thousands of people there, paying tribute to our veterans—not just those that served in World War I and World War II, but those that served in Korea and Vietnam, and those new veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflicts. It's really great to see that we do that. I was speaking to Anthony McAleer, who is a well-known RSL historian in the electorate of Casey, a man respected by many. We were talking at one of the events about the Anzac Day ceremonies from the eighties, and he was talking about how they would have been lucky to get a couple of hundred people turning up to honour our veterans at that time. He had seen through the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s to today how much it has grown and how many communities come out to honour our veterans. It's really important that we honour them, but we also need to make sure that we do more than just honour our veterans. We need to support them. We need to remember that many veterans sacrifice both physically and mentally to protect our freedom. We should never forget that when we talk about veterans we sometimes have this notion of older men from—well, obviously not World War I anymore—World War II. We've got that image of the older veterans. Our Vietnam veterans are now in their 70s. But we've got lots of new veterans from conflicts, and we are getting veterans every day. While it's not my story to tell, and it's not something for me to share, my family has seen firsthand the challenges of a veteran returning from Afghanistan and trying to assimilate back into society. There is no doubt that it's a challenging journey that they go on, and it's a challenging journey their partners and their families go on. Many relationships do not survive the trauma of those that have served, and it's important that we always remember and acknowledge the families and the loved ones. In many ways, even though people are not together, the love doesn't die, because they know it was circumstances outside their control. So it's important that we continue to support our veterans. That's why I'll always make sure I am a voice for veterans and back organisations like Bowls Gr8 for Brains. I had the honour of attending their first event in my electorate of Casey, at Chirnside Park. They're using sport and bowls as a way to support veterans to allow them to re-engage with the community and transition into civilian life, as well as also supporting emergency service workers who go through a very similar trauma. It's great to see that they're doing that work. I want to acknowledge all the RSLs in Casey and across the nation who do amazing work supporting our veterans. The coalition, when in government, invested a record amount in our veterans. We made it easier for veterans to make claims by establishing online digital access, and we funded additional staff to help with the backlog of claims. But, as I said, there is obviously more we can do, and nothing is ever perfect. But I would note with disappointment that Labor's budget axed the eight proposed veteran wellbeing centres that had been fully funded by the previous coalition government. Whilst there wasn't one in my electorate, I know there are many members who are frustrated with that decision. It was disappointing because we know veterans sometimes don't feel heard, and it's hard for them to get their case put forward. I know many veterans were disappointed with Prime Minister Albanese's decision to remove veteran's affairs from the cabinet, because they felt that that send a signal to them that they weren't being listened to and being heard. So I hope that something the government will reconsider, because it's important that veterans' voices are always heard. One of the great honours and opportunities we have in this House when we stand up to speak is to be the voice for our community. Chris, a local man that I know well, recently emailed me to share his experience of being conscripted as a Vietnam War serviceman. He didn't serve in Vietnam, but he shared a story with me, and I just want to share his words. It's so important to be able to share Chris's words, and I thank him for reaching out to me. He wrote: Dear Aaron I recently heard the Prime minister address parliament, apologising and thanking Vietnam Veterans, especially those national servicemen conscripted into service during the Vietnam War. It was a touching and very deserved gesture to a group of men who have suffered terribly. On behalf of the survivors of the 48,000 men whose lives were changed forever, the 31,000 of us who were conscripted, but did not serve in Vietnam, I can only say we are disappointed that, once again, we are "The Men Australia Forgot"—our motto. Apart from a few lines in a Minister Keogh Press Release, which was never published in any mainstream media, we have never been thanked or rewarded. Unlike the Vietnam Vet Nashos, who have received a DVA Gold Card, a welcome home parade and your parliamentary thanks, we have received nothing for two years of our youth, taken from us by our conscription. Many of our cohort served in hostile areas, Malaya and Borneo, which have never been recognised as war zones. More served in PNG and remote areas of northern Australia, sometimes not getting home in over twelve months. 20% are depressed, 21% suffer from anxiety and 70% attribute a physical or mental ailment to their national service. 48% of all their claims to DVA have been denied. For many of us the worst part of our conscription was not our time in the army, but when we tried to assimilate back into civilian society. Vietnam Vets were not the only people who suffered from hostility on our return home. Ignorance and bigotry don't stop to do a lot of research before they erupt. A bit later on he mentions, and I think it's important: Unfortunately, we can't afford to sit around and wait that out. Statistics suggest our members have an average of only 10.25 years to live. We are all aged between 72 & 79. Our cohort is dying at the rate of three per day. I want to thank Chris for sharing his letter. In my family again, a different family member, my stepdad, Gordon, was also conscripted. He didn't serve. He didn't go to Vietnam. He was fortunate in that regard. He was actually a cook, of all things, in Healesville in my electorate. We've talked often about his time out as Healesville as a cook. He said he felt very fortunate. He actually felt a level of guilt that he didn't go over and serve with others. It still had a significant impact on him. It took two years out of his life. He was away from his family, loved ones and social networks. His career opportunities were also hampered. Becoming a cook and a chef wasn't something he aspired to, so he didn't see that as a long-term career opportunity. He was impacted in many ways from his service as well. To Chris; to my stepdad, Gordon; to all those vets who were conscripted; and to all Vietnam veterans: I want to take the opportunity to thank you all for your service and for your sacrifice. I want you to know that you are heard. While we can't change the past and how you were treated when you returned from Vietnam or when you came back into society from your conscription, I do know and I say with confidence that every member of this House supports you, hears you and wants to continue to do everything we can to make your life as easy as possible. We acknowledge the sacrifice that you made physically, mentally and socially. We understand that you didn't have a choice in what you had to go through at that time. We thank you, we hear you and we will continue to support you. I'll always be your voice in this House to make sure your concerns are heard. I also want to thank the families of all those veterans. I've had the opportunity to attend some Vietnam veterans' services. At one last year, the wife of a Vietnam veteran shared her journey, her story and the challenges she went through as a wife and as a mother supporting her husband as he went through his mental demons. Sometimes we forget about the families that have sacrificed so much so their loved ones can serve our country. I want to say thank you to all those families as well. I finish by saying thank you to the men Australia forgot. We may have forgotten you then, but we will not forget you now. 17:19 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise to speak in favour of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. That's quite a mouthful and quite a misdemeanour as far as short titles go, but it's still an important piece of legislation to require passage through this place. I've made a number of contributions in this place regarding veterans. I turn back to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' speech on this bill and recognise a home truth in this policy space. Policy regarding veterans and Defence personnel in my year as the member for Spence has been a largely bipartisan affair, though I believe a better word would be tripartite, given the number of members and senators from the cross bench who weigh into this area of policy constructively. I thank them all for that. I particularly would like to thank those of us who have made a contribution in the Federation Chamber this afternoon, including the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I would also like to give honourable mentions to the contributions made by the member for Casey and the member for Paterson, the contribution to come from the member for Hughes, and last but not least the member for Riverina. As a former minister for veterans' affairs himself, I will never be surprised to see the member for Riverina on the same side of the debate as myself in this particular area. Not only does it provide a brief respite from some of the rough and tumble we experience in other areas of policy—examples as recent as today comes to mind—it is heartening that we can set all of that aside, either long-standing or contemporary differences, for a brief moment and place at the forefront of our minds that when it comes to those who have served our country we work together as one. We have managed to do so in my time throughout the big ticket items, such as when we took note of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' response of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This is important for so many reasons, one of many being the 6,086 veterans that were living in Spence at the time of the last census, not to mention their families and children, and the many ADF servicemen and women who live and serve in my electorate of Spence too, a large portion doing so out of RAAF base Edinburgh. As the veterans of tomorrow, it is important that we keep improving the state of play for their sake too. We will no doubt continue to engage across partisan divides in a collegiate fashion with this bill. The bill puts forward a raft of miscellaneous measures by amending a number of pre-existing laws common amongst those of us who are familiar with veterans policies. This bill looks to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. In terms of legislation concerning veterans' affairs, they are the big three. The amendments to these laws that we are discussing today are quite minor in nature, but they can be quite meaningful in an incremental sense. Firstly, this bill aims to align military compensation provisions under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 where ADF firefighters would come under similar arrangements to civilian firefighters. This is of course presently the case for civilian firefighters through provisions in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 after the passage of the Albanese Labor government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022. By reducing the qualifying period of employment for ADF firefighters in order to have a presumptive impact on a diagnosis of esophageal cancer from 25 years to 15 years it will provide a degree of certainty for many if they were afflicted by such an insidious condition, as many have been in the line of their duty. Many first responders, in this instance firefighters, whether they be civilian or ADF, will go into a scene to render safe and to ensure everyone else at the scene is safe, often putting themselves in harm's way. They put themselves in harm 's way either in a direct and immediate sense or, as is often the case, in an indirect sense, where the danger exhibits itself by an acute exposure to a carcinogen or by prolonged exposures over a lengthy period of time. This change is coupled with changing the requirements that firefighting duties only be 'not insubstantial' as opposed to a 'substantial' part of a person's duties during their service. This can be cold comfort to someone and their family going through the process of receiving a life-shattering diagnosis. But lessening the administrative burden and hurdles that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would have otherwise placed in front of someone going through this tragic circumstance can only be a good thing. This amendment to the act doesn't just bring ADF firefighters in parity with civilian firefighters, in terms of this. More importantly, it's frankly the right and decent thing to do. It is the least we can do, for putting service men and women in harm's way, where many did not fully appreciate the risks they would be taking but, in any case, they served honourably, to their ultimate detriment. I note that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs mentioned that through regulations under DRCA eight additional cancers will be covered under similar arrangements, including malignant mesothelioma. Bills like this may not seem flashy, at the outset, but they often have a provision or two that enable common sense and a law to get closer to being in sync with one another. The second aspect of this legislation touches on employment programs. This part of the bill amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act to allow for a degree of alignment between existing provisions contained within the Social Security Act 1991—namely, those provisions under the act that allow amounts received from employment programs not to be considered as income for the purpose of income support means testing. This will mean that veterans and their partners who receive any money through employment programs prescribed by the Social Security Act are considered exempt from an income test under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I'm happy to see DSS and DVA working together on this. The disparity has long been confusing for many, especially for those well versed in social security law rather than veterans entitlements, and vice versa. Disparity has also been a factor that has discouraged veterans from making additional positive steps towards transitioning into civilian life and finding a new calling or defence adjacent calling, as I know many have and continue to do so. I have been a big fan of programs out there that encourage veterans to explore those possibilities and career paths outside of a branch of the ADF they formerly served in. Many of these programs are led and supported by veterans themselves who want to see nothing other than veterans thrive, build a new sense of purpose, foster self-esteem and have a new sense of self. Participation in employment programs has, for many veterans, acted as a catalyst for an overall positive difference for both themselves and their families. This bill also amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act to include the discretion to provide Commonwealth rent assistance beyond 26 weeks, for those who are eligible claimants that find themselves temporarily outside of Australia and are unable to return for a number of prescribed reasons. These are reasons such as being involved in a serious accident, a natural disaster or a public health crisis. I only wish these amendments had been set in stone during the prior public health crisis that began a few years ago. These amendments do not just make sense, they are commonsense changes to veterans entitlements law, and, once again, bring it closer to parity with the civilian equivalent. I have always found it a bit perverse when veterans and their families seeking income support or any number of other supports are found to be worse off for being a veteran rather than a civilian. We should not be worse off for having served our country, and I very much look forward to voting on this bill to make further corrections to imbalances that exist. While I know that the Albanese Labor government and, indeed, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs have not lost sight of the bigger picture, as far as reforming veterans legislation is concerned, correcting these issues in the interim will go a long way to improving the quality of life of many veterans and their families. The last of the changes that this bill seeks to introduce to veterans entitlements law is to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to expand the net of eligibility to access the defence, veterans' and families' acute support package. The proposed expansion would include grandparents who are caring full-time for the children of a veteran. Family dynamics differ in so many varied ways. This is not confined to the families of veterans or civilians. This is true of Australian families in general. Grandparents often fulfil a primary caregiving role to children, and this is no different when it comes to the family of a veteran. The reasons can be as broad and varied, but they are providing them with full-time care just the same. The acute support package is currently available to working-aged veteran families, widowed partners of veterans and their kids. The package makes a number of support services available for families of working-aged veterans who need a bit of extra assistance when it's needed the most. These supports come in the form of child care, counselling for adults or children, general household assistance and transport assistance. The supports range from general wellbeing to academic and extracurricular support for children. Some of these supports can really make a difference for a family struggling and reaching the verge of breaking point. The grandparents of the children of veterans under their full-time care also able to access support such as counselling, wellbeing, transportation and a raft of additional supports. I'm looking forward to seeing in the months and years to come the many developments that will be introduced in this place concerning veterans, but in the meantime I—and I hope all members in this place will too with this bill—will be front and centre supporting meaningful changes that aim to improve the circumstances and quality of life of veterans and families. As I always say, it's the very least we can do for those who have served our country with honour and distinction. It is precisely the message I want us as parliamentarians to send to our veterans, to our currently serving defence personnel and to anyone thinking of enlisting in the ADF in the future. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that is committed to supporting veterans and their families and children. I'm proud to be part of a parliament and a government that is looking to make many more positive steps towards improving the outcomes for veterans. Lastly before I conclude my remarks, I encourage all members present who have not done so to contact my office and join the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans, a group I co-chair with the member for Menzies. It's a forum outside of the chamber where we meet to discuss matters relating to our veteran community and meet across the aisle. I commend this bill to the House. I encourage all members to support it. Finally, I extend to all current and former serving personnel in this country my thanks for their service. 17:32 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. At the outset I acknowledge that the coalition is supporting this bill. I commend the work of the member for New England on this bill, together with the speakers I've heard in this place today—the member for Spence, the member for Paterson and the member for Casey. This bill has bipartisan support. It largely proposes miscellaneous and uncontroversial amendments across various acts that govern veterans entitlements and compensation. At the outset I acknowledge the many veterans who live in my electorate of Hughes, those at the Holsworthy Barracks and the veterans' families. As I travel around my electorate, especially with my mobile office, it has been a privilege and a pleasure to meet veterans of many of our wars—from the Vietnam War through to more the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has also been a great privilege to present many of them with certificates of appreciation. I acknowledge the work that the current government and the minister in particular are doing in that space. Before I turn to the bill itself, I also acknowledge the Woronora River RSL Sub-branch. I was very happy to attend there on Anzac Day and lay a wreath. Over 1,500 other people were present that morning. It's a beautiful service down there, and it was a real privilege to be there. The president down there is Barry Grant OAM. He has been president of the Woronora River RSL sub-branch from 2011, and he was state president of the Australian Commando Association for 18 years. In 2020 he was awarded an OAM for services to veterans and their families, and I've seen firsthand the work that he does down there at Woronora. He has worked particularly hard with another one of my constituents, Bree Till. Bree was married to a veteran, Brett, who was killed in Afghanistan in March 2009. At the time, Bree was pregnant, so, tragically, her son never met his father. Barry then reached out to Bree Till, and Bree, who was formerly a teacher, has now dedicated her life to serving and to assisting veterans and veterans' families. Particularly, she is a community and peer advisor for Open Arms, which is the veterans and families counselling service. She has recently retrained in art therapy, counselling and psychotherapy and is currently researching the benefits that art therapy can bring to the broader veteran community. Bree is from Woronora. She lives in my electorate. She's also a good friend of mine, and I commend the work that she has done not only for her own family but for many children of veterans, as well as their broader families. I turn now to the bill itself. The bill comes, essentially, in four schedules. There are minor amendments to three acts that govern veterans entitlements. Those three acts are the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. In most cases the amendments are designed to ensure consistency between the acts and to ensure veterans entitlements align with amendments made to the Social Security Act 1991. The first schedule, schedule 1, relates to firefighters' alignment. It ensures ADF firefighters, who are currently covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, have identical arrangements to their civilian counterparts, particularly in relation to claims for oesophageal cancer, whereas civilian firefighters are covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Firefighters are at significantly greater risk of oesophageal cancer, primarily resulting from fire effluent particles that can be trapped within their body. This bill proposes to deal with the minor process that those amendments made to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 apply from the commencement of that other legislation and to bring that in line. The second schedule is concerned with employment programs and seeks to ensure parity between eligible recipients under the Veterans' Entitlements Act with those eligible under the updated Social Security Act 1991. The provisions ensure that when the employment secretary determines that payments and benefits from Commonwealth, state or territory employment programs are exempt from income assessment for social security purposes, this determination also applies to recipients under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and does not affect income support payments. Again, that is a proposition that is supported. The third schedule deals primarily with rental assistance, again to ensure parity between the Social Security Act 1991 and eligible veterans under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, those being veterans who receive rental assistance while temporarily absent from Australia. The amendment will allow for an extension of the 26 weeks if the eligible person is unable to return to Australia due to unforeseen circumstances. These may include things such as war, hospitalisation, the death of a family member, a natural disaster, political unrest or a public health crisis overseas. The provisions will apply from the commencement of the making of the legislation, or where a person was overseas immediately before the commencement within the 26-day period. Again, providing rental assistance to eligible veterans is again something that we support. The fourth schedule relates to an acute support package. The amendment extends assistance for an acute support package already provided under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to eligible grandparents caring for the children of a deceased veteran. This is particularly important. Grandparents across Australia, my own parents included, play a very big role in caring for our children when they're younger, and especially in cases where a veteran may have died. The assistance that grandparents provide and the role they play already in caring for their grandchildren cannot be underestimated. The provisions provide that the deceased parent's death must be related to service, or a suicide relating to service, and must have occurred within two years of their eligibility. And the definition of 'child' is they must be under the age of 18 at the time of determination and deemed to be experiencing or at risk of experiencing a crisis. The definition of 'crisis' has, in my view, been properly considered. It includes attributes such as mental health, substance abuse, homelessness, loss of employment or a child who may be at risk of criminal activity and things along those lines. So, again, this is a very important measure to assist the children, the grandchildren and the grandparents of our veterans. I support this bill. The coalition rightly supports this. It is completely appropriate that at all times where we can reach bipartisan support in relation to veterans—in relation to those men and women who put their own lives at risk to serve us and to ensure we can continue to enjoy many of the benefits that we have in this country, as a democracy with the rule of law and various other institutions that we enjoy—that we should. To conclude, I commend this bill to the House. 17:43 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I'd like to recognise all the members who have contributed to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for Australia's veterans. In particular, I'd like to note the support from the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, the member for New England, and I thank him for his regular support of my role in his various press releases. I note the contribution from my Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Kingsford Smith, who has been a great support across the portfolio—speaking on this bill, but also in particular the work we've been doing together in consultation around legislative reform for veterans entitlements compensation and rehabilitation. I would also like to give him a shout-out, as many of the other speakers did, for the great work he has been doing in supporting communities affected by PFAS. The member for Riverina, a person who represents the triservice town of Wagga, has also made a great contribution supporting this legislation. He is also a former minister in this space and I thank him for his continued support for the legislation we've been bringing forward to support veterans. The member for Paterson—a great advocate for the veterans and serving personnel in her community—spoke about the veterans and families hub that will be coming to her community shortly, and the people who serve at RAAF Base Williamtown in her community. She shared a really telling story of a local school assembly she attended where she asked all the children who were in Defence families if they could stand up. Nearly three-quarters of the children at that assembly stood up, recognising that in our defence towns, where we have substantial aggregations of defence community, it is not just about those who serve; it's about their families, and their children, and supporting them as well. It's particularly important we recognise that in the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Legacy. This government has been proud to financially support the celebrations for the 100th anniversary of Legacy, and it's been great to see so many members of parliament joining in the torch relay, acknowledging the great work Legacy does in supporting our defence and veteran families. The member for Casey spoke of his personal experience as a veteran and the task of reintegrating into society post service. That's exactly what the work of DVA and our veterans and families hubs that we're rolling out is all about. When it comes to our veterans hubs, they are fully funded. Unlike a number of commitments made at the last election by the previous government, who had not funded their election commitments in the budget, ours are funded, and we're rolling those out this year as we speak. It is a great achievement to see that benefiting the veteran communities and defence personnel communities around Australia. I was very proud to be part of opening the Darwin Mates4Mates veterans and families wellbeing centre, part of our veterans and families hub network, just yesterday with the member for Solomon, up in Darwin. It will service the entire north end and Northern Territory community. In Darwin and Palmerston we have some 7½ thousand veterans and defence personnel, and across the NT we have 10,000 defence personnel and veterans. It will benefit from the services and service coordination that will occur at that hub, as we'll be seeing at the hubs we are rolling out across the country. The member for Spence, also a veteran, spoke of his experience and the need to support our veterans as well, and I thank him for his contribution. He always makes excellent contributions to these debates on legislation to support our veterans and families. I thank the member for Hughes as well for speaking about her local RSL and the local services that are available in her community to support veterans, particularly the services and individuals working to support the families and the children of our defence personnel and veterans. That's exactly what this legislation is all about. This legislation, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, will enhance the support and services available to veterans and their families. Supporting veterans and families is one of our key priorities, and that's why the recent budget had such a significant focus on rebuilding the Department of Veterans' Affairs in order to ensure the foundations are laid to improve access to services and supports for veterans and families. This bill enhances support for ADF firefighters who served prior to 2004. It also extends the treatment of certain income from specified employment programs as exempt income for income support means testing, and it extends the availability of rent assistance for veterans and their partners who are overseas but unable to return to Australia due to exceptional circumstances such as those experienced over recent years with COVID-19. Additionally, this bill expands eligibility for access to services under the Defence, Veterans and Families Acute Support Package, available for families of veterans in crisis. In particular, it expands this package, which we expanded through legislation last year to apply to a much wider cohort of veterans and families, to now also pick up grandcarer families—a gap we identified, and we are very pleased that, in the budget handed down just a few weeks ago, we have funded the expansion of this program. That's what this bill provides. The Albanese Labor government is committed to establishing the strongest foundations to support our service personnel veterans and their families. This is a stronger foundation for a better future. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 96

Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 96 17:50 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I want to take the opportunity to put a few things on the record regarding the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. It deals with some administrative matters to do with disputes et cetera around the minister's powers and notifications that the minister gives. We all see at times the very significant attention to the ministerial power around the ability to cancel visas, particularly when it involves tennis players or who knows what that captures the public's imagination. It is a power that can bring great attention and fame upon an immigration minister that exercises that discretion. But when it comes to, more broadly, matters around these amendments to do with recordkeeping and paperwork, I want to briefly put on the record that it's very important, when we're talking about our migration system, that there are two elements to it. There's a policy element and there's an implementation element. Policy is always within the purview of the government of the day to make decisions around the size and scope of the migration program, and to bring forward proposals to change, sometimes legislatively, the way or standards which will be applied to visas, the complexity of visas and all the rest. We could all have a lot to say about that. As a local member of parliament, I would say visa applications, after NDIS, are the most significant complexity around case management in my office, and I would be surprised if most members weren't fairly similar there. It can have additional complexity because people applying for visas are not citizens of the country; they're usually working with someone who is a constituent of yours that is looking to support them. There are also times when people don't have a citizen to support them, but they might be on a particular visa in the country and looking for your support as the local member. I know that everyone happily supports people, even if they're not on the electoral roll, to get the best outcome they can. There have been two significant moments of enormous burden on the department in recent times. The evacuation of Kabul had an enormous burden on processing capability, with the sheer volume of that. The other was helping people fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. I commend the current and previous government, the ministers and the departmental structures that were there to help with those extremely unpredictable circumstances. I reflect on my experiences of helping people from an administrative point of view. These comments are relevant to this bill, which is looking to make changes to the streamlining of the processing of decision-making around this. I think we could look for opportunities to improve the way in which the implementation of whatever the government of the day's position and policy is around migration and visa processing. This is in no way a comment against the current government whatsoever. I think it's an ongoing issue, of decades into the past, and may well be very difficult to solve in an optimal way for decades into the future. Clearly we all have experiences when we're working with particular people that are having an enormous amount of uncertainty around the waiting time that they experience in seeking to get decisions made. I respect and understand that that's a function of two things. Firstly, it's a function of needing to have a very high standard to process and ensure that the sort of people being granted visas are fit and proper people to be granted visas. Secondly, you cannot have a situation where people get special treatment because you as a member of parliament think they've got a particularly compelling reason why they need to be urgently considered, because almost everyone waiting for a visa has probably got the same kind of very good cases and reasons for that. So I look to any opportunity for us to consider legislative change that potentially, as technology develops in particular, allows the bureaucracy to move in a more efficient churn. It should always be up to the government of the day to determine what the scale and scope of the migration program is, but at times—I have been here for four years, and for three of them I was part of a government, and these experiences frankly have nothing to do with who is in government. At times, I think we can look for opportunities for the bureaucracy to absolutely be implementing what the government's policy is when it comes to migration. If there are legislative opportunities, there are other opportunities. I would love to be part of discussing them and considering them in this chamber, because I think that the way in which we work through, on an individual basis, the sort of challenges that people can have at times—I actually think members of parliament are probably some of the great experts in our society around ways in which we could improve the experience and the way in which those decisions are made; not changing the outcome but perhaps improving the timeliness. Given this is a bill, we understand, with the intention to improve the way in which ministerial decisions are made and to reduce some of the litigation and appeals, I just put those comments on the record as part of contributing to the debate on this bill. 17:56 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I acknowledge the contribution just now of the member for Sturt, and I assure him that building an immigration system that works in the national interest and is administratively efficient is a focus of the government. I acknowledge in particular the work of those officials of the immigration function in the home affairs department to ensure some of the concerns that he has set out—concerns which I believe are shared by every member of this place—are being attended to. This will, of course, be an iterative process. I look forward to ongoing debate in this place and in other forums with all members and senators on these matters. The Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Migration Act 1958. The amendments in the bill will 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. The commonsense amendments in this bill strengthen the notification framework for visa related decisions. They do this by reinforcing existing mechanisms, ensuring that those affected have the best chance of actually receiving the relevant documents. These also mirror other legislative frameworks by adopting a substantial compliance notification framework, providing greater certainty in relation to the notification of visa related decisions and actions for both the minister and the recipient of such notices. This bill also removes 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's in the public interest to do so. The removal of this subdivision from the Migration Act will improve administrative efficiencies, minimising the risk of family separation and streamlining the process for dual nationals seeking protection in Australia. 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 or reside in a third country should seek protection from the third country instead of applying for a protection visa in Australia. This bill deserves support, and I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. BILLS 98 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 98

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

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

Second Reading 98 17:59 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I rise to make a contribution on the 2023-24 appropriation bills. There is no doubt that this country needs a strong economy with lower taxes, business incentives and infrastructure investments all over Australia. Unfortunately the federal government's priorities are the exact opposite. This is clear in this year's budget. Labor's budget has put a review on the $120 billion infrastructure bills, putting all regional programs in doubt. Central Queensland is the economic engine room of Australia, yet it has not been supported by this year's budget. It appears that the federal Labor government is happy to strip critical funding from regional projects and pump the money into metropolitan areas. There also hasn't been a commitment that vital regional Queensland infrastructure projects will not be impacted by this review. For instance, there is no commitment of funding for the Rockhampton Ring Road, which will unlock future economic growth and deliver significant benefits including improved flood resilience, greater efficiencies, road safety and reduced travel times. There is no commitment to seal more than 450 kilometres of Queensland beef corridors, which will upgrade and seal the Clermont-Alpha road, the Murray Downs road, the Kilcummin-Diamond Downs road, the Alpha-Tambo road, the Dawson Development Road, the Fitzroy Developmental Road, the Fitzroy Developmental Road Bauhinia to Taroom, the Duaringa-Apis Creek road and the Glenroy road corridor, as well as other projects. There are no commitments for upgrades of the inland freight route from Charters Towers to Mungindi, which is an important alternative north-south route to the Bruce Highway and North Coast rail line, particularly during extreme weather events. It also forms part of the nationally accredited key freight network servicing key supply chains and value-adding to great note. There is no commitment to the Port of Gladstone Access Road Extension, which had a $100 million commitment on the table from the previous coalition government since 3 April 2019. The funding was to provide an alternative route for heavy vehicles accessing the Port of Gladstone to increase freight efficiencies and improve safety for local motorists. There is no commitment to Paradise Dam to restore the 170,000 megalitre structure back to its original 300,000 megalitre capacity by reinforcing its walls to their original height. Enough of delays and reviews. The federal government needs to commit to funding these critical projects. I acknowledge the government's $2 billion for upscaling green hydrogen production in Australia, particularly in the Gladstone area this year. What this government does not understand is the fact that hydrogen industry plans for Gladstone will also need water. It takes approximately 10 litres of fresh water to make a kilo of hydrogen. If we are serious about making a world-class hydrogen industry in Gladstone that can create industrial quantities of hydrogen—I'm talking about millions of tons annually—then where is the water coming from? Where are the ideas and plans to supply water and more water infrastructure? On a positive note, the government has done something to address the cost-of-living pressures felt by many Australian families by increasing rent assistance, JobSeeker allowance, single parenting payment cutoff and tripling the Medicare rebate. However, many people will not be eligible for these cost-of-living assistance measures. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on inflation and interest rate rises. Already the Reserve Bank is signalling more possible rate rises. The Labor government has also announced a six per cent increase in the heavy vehicle road user charge per year over a three-year period, which equates to more than an 18 per cent increase over three years. Everything we make in this country and every good we buy that gets to a shop travel on a truck, whether it originates from a farm or a factory or enters this country by a port. I repeat: everything comes on the back of a truck, from a jar of vegemite to a wind turbine component. Our truckies keep this country running. They keep food on the table and goods to our shopping centres, with more than 197,000 people employed in the industry. Labor's reckless truckie tax puts drivers' jobs and livelihoods at risk. The minister for infrastructure argues that this increased truckie tax gives certainty to the transport industry, but the only certainty the transport industry will have is to increase their charges and pass their costs on to the consumer. How can this possibly be helping with the cost-of-living crisis that many Australians are experiencing? Everything comes on the back of a truck, as I've said. Industry passes on these costs, and ultimately the consumers will pay more. This is bad policy from the government and will only add to inflation and to the cost of living. The 2023 budget does not provide any improvement in regional child care and has failed to invest in initiatives to deal with the challenges faced by regional families. In my electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland, many families cannot find childcare places for their children. This is preventing parents from returning to work sooner. Our communities need availability and accessibility as well as affordability. Labor's policies have failed to introduce one single new childcare place in Flynn. There are 36 childcare providers in my electorate of Flynn, offering a maximum of 2,419 places. Centres are capping their enrolments, closing rooms and asking children to stay home. I've spoken to families stuck on the waiting list, unable to work because there are no places or services for their children. Labor's plan states that Indigenous children will be able to access 36 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight from July 2023. Woorabinda and Eidsvold, which have large First Nations Indigenous populations, do not have any childcare facilities available at all. How can every Indigenous child receive 36 hours per fortnight when there are no places? Labor is willing to spend billions on early leaning, and not a single dollar will go towards creating new places for children who need it the most. The Labor government has broken its headline election commitment to older Australians to have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in every aged-care home in the Flynn electorate by 1 July 2023. Labor's expediated one-size-fits-all approach to aged-care regulation failed to consider the significant workforce challenges currently before the sector. The government has continued to cause serious distress and uncertainty for aged-care providers, and the older Australians they care for, by bringing forward the royal commission's time lines and imposing rigid constraints on the industry. In doing so, they were more focused on trying to tick and flick an election commitment than on genuinely responding to the needs of these older Australians. I support older Australians receiving the best possible care, and I condemn Labor's actions as reckless and damaging to the industry. Just recently it was reported that 23 aged-care homes have shut their doors since September last year. I think the government should provide a guarantee from the minister that no more facilities will close as a result of the government's actions. Labor have also broken another election promise: to deliver 50 urgent care clinics within their first 12 months in government, including the clinics promised in Rockhampton and Bundaberg. On the eve of the election the Prime Minister's own finance minister, Katy Gallagher, promised that an elected Labor government would have 50 urgent care clinics up and running across Australia within the first year. This promise has been consistently reiterated on the floor of parliament during the last budget estimates, despite the government being unable to confirm even the locations of these clinics. I've now been advised that the time frame for opening a Medicare urgent care clinic in Queensland will be contingent on the outcomes of the EOI processes. They are now aiming at having clinics open before 1 July 2023 if possible and, if not, by the end of the calendar year, and the clock is ticking. No wonder people can't trust this government! While Labor have implemented changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, allowing 60-day dispensing instead of 30, this will risk unintended consequences such as rural medical supply shortages. The government policy cuts $3.5 billion out of community pharmacies, cutting vital services for patients. The impacts of these cuts will affect small, rural and remote pharmacies, resulting in a significant reduction to services and opening hours and, in some cases, in closures. The Albanese government must provide a strong guarantee that this change will not harm the viability of community pharmacies and therefore will not be another broken promise. Community pharmacies play an integral role in the provision of primary health care in Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and we do not want to see any community pharmacies close as a result of the government's actions. Australian patients deserve affordable, accessible and safe access to their pharmacy services. This should be true whether they live in rural and remote Australia or metropolitan Australia. In conclusion, it's clear the Labor budget has done a lot to appease metropolitan Australia and very little for regional and rural Australia, particularly for my electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland. 18:10 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley It gives me great pleasure to talk about this budget, in the parliament, because, in many ways, it reflects the priorities not just of the government, of Labor, but of the priorities of the country, both now and into the future. One of the things that has always made me want to be a member of the Labor Party and part of a Labor government is a deep-seated and immovable conviction that the way to attack inequality, the way to make sure that people have opportunity, the way to a better and a fairer society, is education. It's why I've spoken so many times in this parliament about public school education and access to what should be gold standard education in the public school system, no matter where a student lives or what their background is. Education is what gave me and my sisters—we grew up in a country town in New South Wales—the opportunities to do further study, tertiary education, have professional careers and, for me, to ultimately be here. That's public school education. It was also due to the fact that there was a system which gave us an opportunity to pursue the careers we wanted. For me and my sisters, that was university. But that's not the only thing available to students after school, and, perhaps for too long, we've forgotten to talk about options other than university, particularly the options available at TAFE. When we look at the skills shortages that exist in many of the sectors of our economy today, we can reflect on the fact that for the last 10 years government—and perhaps governments before that—did not put enough emphasis on getting students through a school system and into a post-school skills, training and education system that meant they were equipped for the jobs that we need in Australia. We're talking predominantly about jobs in the care economy, aged care, early childhood education and, amazingly, health. If the pandemic showed us one thing about the healthcare system it showed the absolute lack of workforce planning that had gone on in this country. How a country like Australia cannot have enough nurses or GPs is extraordinary. It's exciting to see the Albanese government and the Minister for Skills and Training and be part of a government that says, 'Let's do two things. Let's make sure that young people and not so young people in this country have the opportunity to get the education and the skills and the training that they need for their lives to be secure, healthy and happy because they have employment and a steady income. Let's also make sure that the skills and the training and the education they're getting fits the skills shortages and the needs of this country, particularly in the areas where we care for people at the start of their lives and at the end of their lives so that those people can be secure and healthy and happy.' There are a number of ways that this government is doing it, but this budget makes it clear that there's a commitment to TAFE, including public TAFE. That's why I start by saying it's very much a budget that is not just a Labor priority but a priority for the community. We know that the Jobs and Skills Summit, convened very early in the term of this government, brought together people from all over the country and from different industries and backgrounds and led to a billion-dollar one-year national skills agreement to provide additional funding for fee-free TAFE in 2023 and, of course, to a longer-term agreement to drive sector reform and to support women's workforce participation. With that, we have a government determined to accelerate the delivery of over 465,000 additional fee-free TAFE places. In Victoria, we're kind of used to fee-free TAFE because we have a progressive state government that introduced it a while ago, but, nonetheless, now having a federal government that is part of that means that it has been possible for the focus of fee-free TAFE to be expanded. More than $250 million going into the Victorian skills and training sector to support more than 55,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education and training places in 2023 is what is in this budget. In my electorate alone, Dunkley, we have 2,115 apprentices. There are a lot of tradies in Dunkley. One can't walk down the street without tripping over a tradie. There are also a lot of hairdressers and beauticians who are also doing apprenticeships. So TAFE and apprenticeships are really important to my community, so a $54.3 million investment in critical Australian apprenticeship supports in this budget means a lot to my community. Many of the 55,000 additional fee-free places across Victoria will be delivered through the wonderful Chisholm Institute of TAFE, which is getting better and better in Victoria, predominantly through state government investment in its infrastructure. It has pride of place in Frankston and is going to deliver many of them. We know that fee-free TAFE helps young people to find secure, better paid and more meaningful work, and, as I said, we know it will help to fill skills shortages. It doesn't seem like rocket science, but it hasn't been done for the last decade, and it's so important. The Chisholm Institute of TAFE campus in Frankston delivers aged-care courses and enrolled nursing courses and is already delivering fee-free places there. I've spoken to a number of the students there, who are so excited at the opportunity to get that education and to get out into a nursing career. Some of them had already planned to become registered nurses and do further study afterwards, but many, particularly the young women, said to me that, if it weren't for fee-free TAFE, they wouldn't have been able to take up that opportunity because they just don't have the money or the family and other supports that other sectors of the community have. The fee-free TAFE courses have made the world of difference to them and are going to make the world of difference to people in aged care facilities who are going to be cared for 24/7, because of the Labor government, by nurses who have chosen this profession because that's what they want to do. There are sections of my community where the socioeconomic barriers to employment are really high and have been so for generations—so high that for some people they seem to be insurmountable. Again, fee-free TAFE brings those barriers down and means that people who are struggling to afford rent, food and often child care don't have to sacrifice their own education and training to pay for those things, because they don't have to pay for their TAFE course. It also means that a generation of young people in some of the most disadvantaged areas of my community can go to TAFE as the first people in their families to ever do so. They can be part of the change that they want to see for their families, their communities and themselves. That is worth more to the broader community but also to those young people than can be described. One of the really exciting things that have come out recently about the uptake of fee-free TAFE places is that, in the courses that have already been delivered, 60 per cent of enrolments were women. That is so empowering. It goes to closing the gender pay gap. We know women are working predominantly in the care economy, although I suspect that when those wages go up we will see some men start to work in the care economy, which will be good for the men and, hopefully, help women to keep their wages going up. It closes the gender pay gap and it helps to change the traditional gender stereotypes of the roles of men and women. In some pockets of my community these are quite hard to shift. They have held women back and in many cases they have held men back, because they don't get the opportunity to do some of the things with family and children that will enrich their lives. And it gives many women some financial independence and some security within themselves that they wouldn't have had otherwise. Again this is something that is almost hard to quantify and explain but is so important for any adult, but particularly for a woman in a community or a family where women haven't had employment or economic security and independence from men before. So it will make a huge difference. It builds on a number of the other measures that are in this budget and that the government has introduced that go towards helping women in the workplace and women's economic independence. The 15 per cent increase in wages for aged-care workers is just extraordinary in terms of the difference it will make. I was in the high-dependency unit at Baxter retirement village with Minister Kearney two weeks ago and the residents were telling us how wonderful they thought it was that their carers were getting pay rises. One of the women, who had recently turned 90, said to me: 'I couldn't look after myself. They deserve a pay rise for looking after me.' I thought that was a pretty great way of explaining it. Obviously the workers were delighted because it makes such a difference to their lives. The people who run Baxter village were really happy that their staff were getting a pay rise, because they understand what it means to the quality of care and the quality of workers. It will encourage more people to get into that workforce, which is struggling with shortages. We know that many single parents are women. We have a young parents program in Dunkley. It is federally funded. At the moment it is run out of Chisholm TAFE. It helps young mums who are teenagers to finish school, to finish their VCE. They are young women aged between about 16 and 22 with one or more children. They have made the decision to go back and get their education for their own good and for their children's good. They are doing all they can to get that education in really difficult circumstances. The increase to the single parent pension is also going to make a world of difference to young women like that and to older women who have had to leave a relationship for a variety of reasons. Often for reasons of coercive control or domestic violence they have had to flee a relationship. If a relationship has broken down, they can find themselves on their own having to look after a young child and get through. That increase in the single parent pension is really important. The increase to the Commonwealth rent assistance, which we often talk about in the context of young people and young people who are studying, is going to be really important to a significant number of women, single parents and older women over the age of 55, who we know are the fastest-growing cohort of people who are homeless. They find it very hard to buy a new home once a relationship has broken down or to stay in rental housing, so an increase in rent assistance—the highest in many decades—is going to make a big difference to their lives. The Australian Skills Guarantee, to go back to where I started, about skills and training—the national targets for women in apprenticeships, traineeships and cadetships are major government projects. They are great for women's employment. It is great to change that gendered stereotype of the type of work that women can and should be doing, and to give women opportunities. And, of course, there is $72.4 million for the building and retaining of the early childhood education care workforce, of whom 92 per cent are women. These are the types of investments in education, skills, training and the workforce that set people up now and into the future, and set our country and our economy up now and into the future. That is what Labor governments are all about. 18:25 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney If I could summarise the tone of conversations I had with residents across North Sydney in the lead-up to the 2023-24 federal budget, I would say that people are struggling. In truth, they've been struggling for the last three years and there isn't any relief in sight. As people have told me, they are unable to find a place to live or they are having to make choices between groceries and bills. The reality is that challenges arising in this post-COVID world have compounded long unaddressed issues in our economy, environment, workforce and health systems. At first glance, this budget would indicate the government recognises these challenges and has tried to respond appropriately. I am grateful that, where my community and I advocated for reform, we were successful, with single parents and families with children under 16 now able to access additional support, and others benefiting from cheaper energy bills as we push to electrification. But, on deeper reflection, unfortunately there is little in this budget to take either heart or inspiration from. As a country, we need long-term structural reform which focuses on driving activity, productivity and managing cost inputs. And we need a clear vision. Neither of these were evident in the last budget. When I asked the people of North Sydney what they would have delivered in the federal budget if they were the Treasurer, priorities became clear: increased support for the most vulnerable Australians; adequately resourced climate action; driving tax and revenue reform; and addressing intergenerational inequity. At the centre of this budget, however, was the government's investment in our healthcare system—a system that is overburdened, underfunded and underresourced. I welcome the boost this budget provides to Medicare, offering the opportunity for more children under 16, pensioners and concession cardholders to see a doctor. But, at the same time, I call on the Minister for Health and Aged Care to ensure these measures actually deliver an increase in the number of GP clinics that bulk-bill. In North Sydney we currently have just 14 of 44 doing so. The greater investment in health protection and prevention measures, including the $91.1 million investment in the Australian Centre for Disease Control, is also welcomed. Ultimately, our national preventive and infectious disease management programs, along with tracking adverse events and variants, rely on clear national coordination. In this context, I look forward to seeing the Australian Centre for Disease Control develop. Much was also made of the six million Australians who need regular medicines for chronic conditions being able to access their medication at a lower cost, under the 60-day dispensing changes. I have heard from several chronically ill North Sydney residents who believe this change will improve their livelihoods. But, whilst the reform has been welcomed by some, it is a policy change that cuts two ways, and it would be remiss of me to highlight its upside without also talking about the potential negative impact this reform may have on community pharmacists nationally. Indeed, a recent round table with pharmacists in North Sydney left me in no doubt that many have very real concerns that are shared both at the community pharmacy level and at the general practice level. Ultimately, the key message I hear is clear: 'The impacts are far more complex than the government is acknowledging, and they just don't understand.' While the government has indicated the money saved will be reinvested back into community pharmacy programs, pharmacists in North Sydney are concerned the reinvestment will not compensate for the direct financial loss they face as small businesses. I ask the government to listen closely to community pharmacists, to consult and to get more than the headline right when delivering substantive policy change. Whilst there was much to celebrate in the health reform, the lack of investment in mental health support or services was extremely disappointing. At a time when three out of five young Australians report experiencing mental health distress in the last 12 months, the lack of specific funding to address what many are describing as a shadow pandemic was frustrating. An increase focused on elevating lived experience, funding digital tools— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BUSINESS 102 BUSINESS Rearrangement 102 18:30 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 102 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Murray-Darling Basin, Marine Plastic Pollution 103 18:31 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I have two matters of importance that I wish to talk about today: the scourge of plastics in our ocean and the Murray-Darling Basin—specifically, the great challenge and opportunity that is before the government right now to protect our great River Murray and the communities and ecosystems that draw life from its water. Over recent months we've all seen the dramatic effects of our majestic River Murray in flood. In South Australia we had so many people, including many people from my community, who gave their support to communities along the river. But things never stand still—not the river and not our climate. The Bureau of Meteorology has now declared the third consecutive La Nina season has ended, but, consistent with natural oscillations, an El Nino is likely to develop later this year, and that will bring drought, heat waves and bushfires to eastern Australia. While the Murray is in high flow it's all too easy to forget that the river system is, more often than not, low because of drought and because of overallocation. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, drought and low water levels will return. We have the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan designed to address this problem. Within that larger plan there are the very important efficiency measures designed to return 450 gigalitres to the Lower Lakes, Coorong and the mouth of the Murray, the end of the river. $1.5 billion was set aside to spend between 1 July 2014 and 30 June next year to recover these 450 gigalitres. We're nine years into this budget and only 4.5 gigalitres has been recovered. That's around one per cent, at a cost of around $275 million. There's one year left until the plan ends, with 99 per cent of the work left to do. You don't have to be a genius to realise that we're just not going to get there. The government have had their scientists look at it. They believe that we can maybe get to 60 gigalitres of recovery. They say that to get to the full 450 gigalitres we're going to need to spend anywhere between $3.4 billion and $10.8 billion. That's the value of the water debt that will be owed to South Australia from July next year. I know the minister cares about the 450 gigalitres—I've asked her questions in the parliament about this—but there doesn't appear to me to be a forward plan. Last month the water ministers failed to reach an agreement on how the gigalitres of water promised for the environment would be recovered. At a ministerial council meeting in February this year in Sydney, New South Wales and Victoria called for a two-year extension to deliver the water-saving projects. Our South Australian minister argued for more voluntary buybacks, but federal and state ministers were unable to agree. So there are large problems ahead. What we've seen since the millennium drought is that there has been a retreat, and people are no longer willing to go beyond their borders and think about what's needed for the whole nation rather than what's needed for their own state. We don't need another water ministers meeting to know that we need action. We really clearly need action, and we need it yesterday. Despite the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the implementation of the current Basin Plan, we still have different water rules in each state, different compliance measures, different governments distributing money for different elements of the plan, different levels of accountability measures and a general opaqueness with respect to oversight of the plan. It's a mess of overlapping jurisdictions and diffused accountability that allows vested interests to exert an effective veto through state governments over water management reforms. The Murray-Darling is a vital resource that cannot be managed on the basis of lowest-common-denominator agreements. We need a fully national framework that operates in the national interest. In the meantime, the government absolutely needs to make this front and centre and of the highest priority. It must take up the challenge, because drought will return—that is a certainty—and the gross overallocation of our water resources will again be laid bare. As the person who has the very end of the river in her electorate, I can't tell you how much concern and anxiety sits within our community now, knowing that that 450 gigalitres hasn't been delivered, knowing that the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan does not have any calculations in it for climate change, knowing that our nation will be getting drier and drier. The Prime Minister, I believe, needs to convene a special meeting with the premiers of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland and the Chief Minister of the ACT before 30 June this year in an aim to secure an agreement and to introduce new federal legislation to amend the Water Act by no later than the end of this year. This schedule would allow for debate and preparations for the implementation of a new Murray-Darling Basin Plan before the expiry of the current plan. There is a great opportunity here to show national leadership to do this. We really do need, I believe, a Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2.0; otherwise, what happens when we get to the end of the plan in a year's time and that promised water is not delivered? I would like to talk about another issue that troubles my community very much and, I think, our whole nation, and that's around plastic pollution. We have some of the most pristine beaches in the world in Australia. In fact, in my electorate, we have Stokes Bay, the beach that won the national beach competition. The kids at KI school, at KICE, go out and collect all of the rubbish pollution on the beach very, very regularly. Plastic pollution has reached epidemic proportions, with an estimated eight million metric tonnes of plastic finding their way into our ocean every year. This not only endangers marine life; it also poses a significant threat to our own health and wellbeing. The toxic chemicals present in plastic can contaminate the food chain, ultimately making their way into our bodies. It is a vicious cycle, and we must break this for the sake of our future generations as well as our own. There is hope. That hope is in the form of the proposed UN 2024 treaty and international agreement aimed at combating plastic pollution. This treaty holds the promise of a comprehensive framework that will guide nations in tackling plastic waste and safeguarding our oceans. It will establish binding targets for plastic waste reduction at a national level, compelling countries to develop and implement effective strategies to meet these targets. Focusing on waste reduction, recycling and the promotion of sustainable alternatives to single-use plastics can make significant strides in mitigating the plastic crisis. I would like to say South Australia have led the way in this for a very, very long time. We were the first ones to ban plastic bags and single-use plastics. Everyone going to the shops in South Australia either takes their bag from home or gets the recycled paper bags. It's a no-brainer for us, and I'd like to see that nationally and a real emphasis on thinking about every time we say yes to a plastic bag. International cooperation will be a key pillar of this treaty. Plastic pollution knows no borders, and no single nation can address this issue in isolation. The proposed UN 2024 treaty will foster collaboration and encourage information-sharing, technology transfer and financial assistance to support developing countries in their effort to combat plastic pollution. Working together, we can pool our resources and expertise to tackle this global challenge head on. The treaty will encourage innovation and research into sustainable materials and technologies. We must invest in the development of biodegradable plastics, recycling infrastructure and waste management systems that prioritise the circular economy. This is a problem of our own making. Looking back a century ago, plastic wasn't invented, it wasn't part of everyday life, and yet people managed to live very full and free lives, and our oceans were not full of plastic pollution. The proposed UN 2024 treaty represents a historic opportunity for us to work together as nations to preserve the health and vitality of our oceans and our livelihoods. Asbestos 104 18:40 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Australians know asbestos kills. This parliament banned the deadly substance in 2003, and this year, in December, we will mark 20 years since asbestos was completely banned in Australia—no manufacturing, no sale, no importing, no exporting. But the ban wasn't the end of the Australia's asbestos story, as we know and are reminded each and every year. It's estimated that 4,000 Australians die each year of asbestos related diseases—more than triple the annual road toll. Sadly, the numbers are increasing. Approximately 700 people annually die from the aggressive cancer known as mesothelioma, which is caused by exposure to asbestos. It takes, on average, 20 to 40 years for it to develop into this deadly cancer. Despite banning asbestos 20 years ago, cases of this cancer and asbestos related diseases continue to increase. Australia has one of the highest measured incidences of asbestos related diseases in the world. I say 'highest measured' because I do acknowledge we are one of the only countries that properly tests, properly diagnoses and tries to properly support people with asbestos related disease and cancer. It occurs through exposure to the built environment. While we still have asbestos almost everywhere, this legacy and this effect will continue. Australia's long history with asbestos dates back to the 1920s, when the mineral was first mined and used extensively in construction and manufacturing. Today it is estimated that still one in three homes in Australia contains asbestos. If your home was built before the 1990s, like so many of our homes were, it's more likely than not to contain this toxic material. This is where the challenge lies, in what we call the third wave. The current third wave of asbestos exposure and disease affects almost all in society, as people are exposed to asbestos in the built environment through DIY—the moment we try to renovate and get friends or neighbours or uncles or aunts to help out and undertake repairs to improve our homes, not knowing or realising that they may have exposed themselves to asbestos in the process. The simple, 'Don't worry; I'll sand it and paint it,' has occurred over and over again. The extent of exposure in the more recent period is something we also really need to be aware of. The increase in home prices, the COVID-19 pandemic and the focus on home renovation programs really did supercharge people wanting to do their own work. It's estimated that Australia's interest in DIY projects boomed by 800 per cent in the first year of the COVID pandemic. Bunnings reported a 63 per cent growth in DIY online content year on year. That kind of tells you how many of them were aware that their home could have been one with asbestos when they did their work. Asbestos was in an estimated 3,000 products that were being used before 1990. Many of these products were used in residential construction and fit-out. It's hard not to think that this product, this building, this wall or this tile may not have had it. An estimated 6,000 tonnes of asbestos is illegally dumped every year. That is another problem. How do we clean it up? How do we manage the ongoing legacy? One in five DIYers encountered asbestos in a previous project, but only half sought professional help to deal with it. DIYers thought it was important to manage asbestos risks, but only half felt confident in identifying and managing the risk. These aren't made-up statistics. These are statistics of the Australian government's Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. We are fortunate in this country that in 2013, post the ban, the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency was created. The National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management aims to eliminate asbestos related diseases by preventing exposure to asbestos fibres. We are through the first phase of the plan, from 2014 to 2018, and we're now into second phase of the plan. I acknowledge the leadership of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency and the partnership that it has with many organisations—everyone from the ACTU to health organisation research facilities and many of the support groups that are on the ground each and every day supporting people who have been diagnosed with deadly diseases related to asbestos exposure. The challenge is still great. Despite the work that we have got to do here, there is a bigger challenge internationally. The campaign 'Asbestos Not Here, Not Anywhere' continues but is struggling. In many countries in our region, thousands of tonnes of asbestos material are imported and used in everyday products like roof and wall sheeting. Over a million tonnes of asbestos is still exported annually to Asia, the world's biggest consumers, with most of the product coming from two producers, Russia and Pakistan. Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, all key trading partners with Australia, actively import asbestos and use it in many manufactured goods. This presents the risk to our country. While the importation of goods containing asbestos is banned, the challenge for Border Force is great. A recent report found that a majority of imported consignments that were tested for asbestos came back positive. It is simply not practical to test every container and every product. That is why the campaign for the ban 'Asbestos Not Here, Not Anywhere' must continue, in the hope that our experience in Australia and our legacy can help see change in our region. I acknowledge the work of APHEDA and its partner organisations, including International Ban Asbestos Secretariat and Asian Ban Asbestos Network, and their continued campaign for an asbestos free Australia. Earlier this month the international debate was focused on amending a proposal to amend the Rotterdam convention. The Rotterdam convention provides a mechanism for nations to decide whether to accept imports of hazardous chemicals listed on the convention and to communicate their decision to exporting parties. It sounds pretty simple, but it's not. The proposal being put to COP in May this year aims to create a pathway to list asbestos for the first time, asbestos being one of the chemicals that should be discussed more openly. The proposal required 75 per cent of parties to agree. Unfortunately, the proponents for the change, including Australia, fell short. Only 70 per cent agreed. Nations not supportive of the change included Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Therefore, the proposal was not adopted. The international community in favour of the change will regroup and think about what to do next, but it does remind all of us that we've got a lot of work to do both locally and internationally. Australia still needs to be a leading voice on the banning of asbestos, just like people in this place did 20 years ago, and just like active members of our community did for many decades. While we still have asbestos in our buildings and our built environment and while very few people are aware of its effects, we have more work to do. The work the agency is doing is great, but anything we can do to help them achieve their plan will be welcome. The work that our international agencies and partners like APHEDA are doing is great, but, again, the more work we can do will help us achieve the goal of 'not here, not anywhere'. Ban asbestos. Stronger Communities Program, Barwick, Mrs Flora 105 18:50 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler As they say: 'Grievances? Well, I've got a few!' It's good to have this opportunity. My first grievance is this: the Albanese government has stopped funding the Stronger Communities Program. We have heard this program described in various ways as 'rorts', as 'focused on particular electorates', as 'colour-coded spreadsheets'. I want to run through some of the programs that have received support, and the outrageous slurs that have been placed against them. In my electorate I have a community panel of five who review all of the applications and then make recommendations to me about those that we move on with—on occasions there are some that we change, but it's rare—so the idea that these people are rorting the system is just incredible. It has been an extremely successful program, and here's why. We funded 92 projects through the first seven rounds of the Stronger Communities Program. You need to keep in mind that in a lot of cases the only way they have the capability to raise funds is basically by selling raffle tickets to the same people over and over and over and over through their volunteers at local hotels and businesses, or by arranging sausage sizzles or lamington drives. You have to sell a lot of lamingtons to raise $20,000, Madam Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah, as you well know. This time around we've had 18 projects come through in round 8. That's what is being recommended. They are still being assessed. On 27 March 2023, I wrote to Minister Catherine King to ask if the program would continue and if funding would increase. Round 8 of the Stronger Communities Program was funded by the coalition. That has been honoured by the Labor government, and I'm very thankful for that. Round 8 in my electorate saw the highest-ever number of expressions of interest, and the largest amount of funding that we've ever received under that program. We received 100 expressions of interest—100—seeking $1,436,108 in funding with an allocation of just 150,000. That says to me that they are desperate for help. This is a program that has been well-managed and delivered some incredible resources through volunteer organisations in particular. It is always oversubscribed—always. I have asked the minister if there are plans to increase the funding for the Stronger Communities Program. I received a response on 11 April 2023. It said, 'I'm pleased to hear you've had a strong community response for the Strong Communities Program and appreciate the positive impact these small capital grants can have for the local community.' Tick. 'Decisions on the Stronger Communities Program are a future matter for Australian government consideration,' so that's a no. That is a no; it won't be continued. There is no funding in the additional rounds; there's nothing in the budget. I think that is an absolute shame. If we look at just some of the things that have been funded in my electorate, the idea that these can be even considered as rorts is outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. Outside broadcast equipment for Fraser Coast Community Radio—I mean, seriously? A new kitchen at C&K Oaks Beach Community Kindergarten providing additional services for children. Air conditioning at the Woodgate Community Hall. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might not have been to Woodgate. It's a beachside community. It's relatively small. There are not a lot of services, and the community centre is the heart of that community. They run an incredible art display every single year. They run a very, very strongly supported fundraising event for the Childers and Isis Orchid Society every single year. There is the Hervey Bay Neighbourhood Centre Community Cafe, which is used to provide training for those people looking for employment, to provide skills. There is a wheelchair-accessible bus for the Endeavour Foundation in Bundaberg. There are little libraries for Childers, built by the men's shed. There is the installation of a Liberty Swing at Hervey Bay Special School. I have an extensive list; that's not all of them. The idea that these are being provided in some sort of political way for political ends is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Everyone who is involved in these community organisations gets access to these. There is a trailer for the Bundaberg Rowing Club, a club that has been around for a very long time, to transport boats to competitions. There are new scoreboards for the Woodgate Bowls Club. There are new change rooms and amenities at Diggers Football Club. Guess why: because they have more female players and they need more facilities. This helps them get them. There is a kitchen upgrade at the Elouera Girl Guides campsite at Mon Repos. Deputy Speaker, you might not be aware that Mon Repos is one of the very rare places in the world where the loggerhead turtle nests each year. It is very well patronised by tourists from around the country and, in fact, around the world. The Girl Guides campsite just up the road has been there for many, many years. There are coldroom condensers for Fraser Coast Meals on Wheels, a service that is providing food, particularly for our seniors who are desperate for support. There is a barbecue trailer for the Hervey Bay Amateur Fishing Club so that they can raise more money more successfully to help out the amateur fishing club at Hervey Bay. There is an armoured personnel carrier on display at the Toogoom RSL. This is a Vietnam-era APC at a local organisation which is predominantly made up of veterans from Vietnam. In fact, I went there for the Delta Company reunion a number of years ago. We are coming up, of course, to Vietnam Veterans Day, and I was very pleased to see those who remain getting together with their mates from the Battle of Long Tan, including Harry Smith and the now-passed Buddy Lea, who were residents of Hervey Bay for quite some time. There are freezers for We Care 2 in Hervey Bay to help provide low-cost groceries. What a rort that sounds like! There are amenities blocks at the Hervey Bay Woodcrafts Club. There is a shade sail for Burrum & Districts Men's Shed. There are marquees for Woodgate Community Events. There is a tamping machine for the Australian Sugar Cane Railway at the Bundaberg Botanic Gardens. Guess what: they take kids for rides on an old sugarcane railway tram. There are not that many people in this building anymore who actually know what railway work looks like or how it gets done, but it was always done mostly by hand, with picks and shovels, and I have to say that the volunteers at the Australian Sugar Cane Railway at the botanic gardens are very experienced. I'm not sure they'd appreciate having to slug those around all day, so it's been very warmly welcomed. There are canteen upgrades at Bundaberg Touch and the Bundaberg Race Club. There are night vision goggles for the RACQ LifeFlight at Bundaberg. That sounds like a pretty important project to me, because, when you live in the regions and you have an incident a long way from anywhere, you are calling for the RFDS and for the LifeFlight helicopter out of Bundaberg. There is a community bus for Woodgate residents. I want to thank Deputy Mayor Bill Trevor, who handed out some community support certificates for the volunteers down there in National Volunteer Week. I want to give a shout-out to Barb Marshall of the Woodgate community bus organisation. Barb is the most senior and experienced volunteer at 96 years old, still helping, still volunteering and still working. It's a very well-patronised support for those individuals at the Woodgate community. There is Angels Second 2 None op shop. There is the Olympic trap layout and bunker for the Bundaberg Clay Target Club. That sounds as if it could be helpful in coming years. There is a driveway and courtyard upgrade at Bundaberg Players, the local amateur theatre. There is air conditioning at the children's cultural centre for the local karate club. There are fridges, freezers and washing machines for regional housing accommodation. There are kitchen upgrades for the Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club, Burrum Heads Bowls Club, Burgowan Bowling Club and Fraser Coast Artslink. There are a mower and a shed for Tennis Bundaberg and a patrol trailer upgrade for the Hervey Bay Surf Life Saving Club. These are all predominantly volunteer organisations who are embedded in our local community and who look forward to the ability to access these grants because they help them with their fundraising and deliver much-needed support for them. In the last minute and a half I have remaining, I want to acknowledge Flora Barwick of Childers. Flora passed away in recent weeks. She was an absolute bastion of the community, and she was renowned for the work that she did with local schools and local kids. She was very well known, and the memorial service for her was held in recent weeks. Her daughters, Kate and Prudence, coordinated a lovely event in honour of their mother. Steve Hoffman from Childers attended as did the local state MP Stephen Bennett and Deb Lees, one of my former senior advisers. Flora was one of those individuals that sucked you into her vortex. She was always happy, always willing to lend a hand and was very well known in Apple Tree Creek and the Childers community. She is a great loss for her family, particularly for her two daughters. She is a great loss for our party. She was a strong member for decades. In fact, I was told at the outset, when I won preselection, to forget everyone else, that if you haven't got Flora Barwick onside you've got no chance. I certainly appreciated the advice. Flora always helped out. She was one of those hardworking regional people who just wanted to help her community. She is a great loss, locally, for the Liberal-National Party and was a dedicated long-term servant of the Nationals before they merged in Queensland. Vale, Flora Barwick. You will be deeply missed in the local community, particularly by all of those kids you used to help. Albanese Government 107 19:01 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The Morrison coalition government was a sinking ship not only within Australia but also overseas. Like their polling numbers, the reputation of Australia as a fair, just and committed international partner plummeted. In the short span of a year, the Albanese Labor government has turned things around. Many take longer than this to even flip a house. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, and the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, Australia's image to the world has never been better. I was honoured to join the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and many of my colleagues at the 20,000-strong Australian-Indian diaspora reception for the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. It might not have been the first-year anniversary of the Albanese Labor government we expected but was certainly a fitting way to celebrate the occasion. The reception was an extraordinary example to friends beyond our borders that the adults are back in charge. India will soon be the world's third-largest economy, and our relationship with this remarkable and aspirational nation has never been stronger. As the Prime Minister observed on the night, he and Prime Minister Modi have met six times, beginning with their interaction in Tokyo just two days after he took office. This is extraordinary and I think a record for both prime ministers. It reflects the depth of our comprehensive relations, coming together of our views and maturity of our ties. In the words of Prime Minister Modi, our relationship has 'entered the T20 mode'. There are several pillars to our strengthening relationship, including trade, investment and business, defence and security, climate and energy, and, most importantly, people-to-people links. I look forward to an early conclusion of the Australia-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement later this year and was pleased to hear about the Australia-India Migration and Mobility Partnership Arrangement. This arrangement will promote the exchange of students, graduates, researchers and business people, expand our people-to-people ties and enhance cooperation in preventing people-smuggling. I was delighted to see that Prime Minister Modi unveiled a plaque for a foundation stone of a Little India in the Western Sydney suburb of Parramatta. What brought me more joy was that our friends across the Victorian border were following the trend set by my friends in Melbourne. We've had a Little India in the south-eastern suburb of Dandenong, in the neighbouring electorate of Bruce, for nearly a decade. Beyond agreements and partnerships, the Australia-India ties are underpinned by mutual appreciation of cultures and a firm belief in strengthening cohesion. From Guru Boulevard in the suburb of Lynbrook in my electorate of Holt, named after Guru Nanak Ji, the founder of Sikhism, to the road that would be named after the Anzac Private Singh Sailani in Perth, the melting pot of our cultures is wonderful. To our Australian Indian diaspora I want to say thank you. You have bought the spirit of the world's biggest democracy to Australia and you have helped make our democracy stronger and more inclusive. You have strengthened Australian society, bringing our country the benefits and riches of such a beautiful and diverse culture. And I am so proud that you have made Australia your home and that you see your life and your future here. You make our nation and our shared communities better. You make Australia stronger. This government has not only overseen the largest expansion of Australia-India relations for years; we have also restored Australia's image on the world stage more broadly in the last 12 months of this Labor government. The Australian people know that the Prime Minister and the foreign minister have their work cut out for them in this space. After nearly a decade of mismanagement and neglect of our Pacific and regional allies by the former coalition government, I am proud that Prime Minister Albanese has visited several nations personally to restate our international diplomacy credentials. His first official bilateral trip was made to Indonesia, a crucial neighbour of Australia in the south-east Asian region, to meet the Indonesian President, Joko Widodo. The Prime Minister was joined by Australian business leaders and government ministers for an annual leaders meeting with President Widodo, where bilateral trade and investment cooperation on climate and energy and a regional and global interest were all addressed. Our PM doesn't stop there. The very next month he was in Fiji for the first Pacific Islands Forum to be held in person since 2019. There he focused on healing the rift that had formed over the last nine years of coalition government. Instead, the Prime Minister raised important issues including Pacific unity, climate change, regional security and economic recovery from COVID-19. The PM has prioritised our South-East Asian neighbours as well, with three visits in quick succession to Cambodia, Indonesia again, and Thailand. Australia was represented in those nations for the East Asia Summit of ASEAN, the G20 summit, and the 29th APEC summit respectively. This is a mark of real leadership, a mature, responsible leader who understands the importance of Australia's role in our region. Australia must remain connected to our neighbours. If we are not seen as leaders it will only leave a void to be filled by somebody else. This leadership is certainly being felt on a national stage, with the recent breakthrough with China led by trade minister Don Farrell. Talks are back on track to review China's tariffs on Australian barley without going through the World Trade Organization. This is a significant breakthrough in our relations with China and shows that determined, mature diplomacy without needing to involve the WTO is still possible when the adults are in charge. It doesn't end there. Our foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, leapt straight into the action after the election last year and began urgently repairing the frayed relationships with our Pacific family with visits across the Pacific and South-East Asia. No time has been wasted in assuring our neighbours and the wider region that Australia is back on the international map. After extensive consultation with our Pacific neighbours, we have answered their calls for renewed cooperation with new budget measures. These include the expansion of the Pacific Australia Labor Mobility Scheme, an increase in diplomatic staffing in the Pacific, disaster relief funding, the expansion of maritime security ties and criminal justice cooperation. These form part of a $1.9 billion budget investment over five years aimed at deepening our ties and cooperation in the Pacific region. We will increase our law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation with our neighbours to better ensure stability and consistency across the board. There will also be an increase to provision of security infrastructure and maritime security capability. After several cyberattacks targeting Pacific nations, I know this investment has been well received. This government also recognises the seriousness of climate change and the significant threat it poses, in particular in Pacific island nations. Our commitment to net zero by 2050 and other environmental legislation demonstrates that we are taking this seriously domestically. We also take it seriously internationally, funding humanitarian relief and disaster preparedness across the Pacific, where there is a greater risk of permanent climate damage. This government and our Prime Minister will take seriously our international and regional obligations. We know that without Australia's positive influence in the region we leave a void that would undoubtedly be filled by someone else. I'm proud to work with this government. I thank the House. Crime 109 19:11 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today as the federal member for Durack to once again address a matter of grave concern that is gripping our regional communities in Western Australia. That is the unprecedented and extremely concerning levels of youth crime. While it is undeniable that youth crime is a complex and multifaceted problem that affects various parts of our nation, it is particularly acute in regional and remote areas. It is wreaking havoc on our towns and regions, pushing our hospitals, police forces, community organisations, local councils and families to their breaking point. In regional Australia, our towns and communities are characterised by close knit relationships and a strong sense of community. However, this crisis is threatening to erode the fabric of these communities, undermining the safety, wellbeing and cohesion that are vital for their growth and prosperity. The Kimberley, the Pilbara and the towns of Carnarvon and Geraldton, all within the electorate of Durack, are bearing the brunt of this worrying trend. The time for urgent change is upon us. There are many factors contributing to the scourge of youth crime. I believe one of the key factors in regional areas is the lack of adequate social and recreational opportunities for young people. Limited access to educational resources, training programs and employment opportunities often leaves our youth feeling disillusioned and disconnected. The sense of exclusion can drive some individuals towards criminal activities as a means of finding belonging or asserting their presence. Young children aged six, seven and eight are not naturally inclined to commit crimes or to be on the street late at night. Unfortunately, though, often, due to alcohol abuse and parental neglect, their home is not a safe place. Therefore, these kids find their family out on the streets, where it is often safer for them to be than at home. Older kids encourage younger ones to act up, to get involved, so they are included in the group. Additionally, the challenges of geographical isolation and limited infrastructure in rural areas can exacerbate the issue. Young people may feel isolated and disengaged, with limited avenues for positive engagement and personal development. These factors, combined with issues such as substance abuse, mental health and family breakdown, create an environment where youth crime can thrive. Our community leaders and local government representatives are deeply troubled by the impact that youth crime is having on their communities. While it is true that the state government holds the primary responsibility for addressing crime, the federal government plays a significant role in investing in youth diversionary programs. Prior to the last election, I was working closely with Minister Ken Wyatt on initiating a review of these investments. I wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on 3 February this year to ask him to commence an urgent review of the Commonwealth's investment in youth diversionary programs. If this work has not been commenced, I implore the federal government to take immediate action, as this is something that is within our control. The impacts of youth crime on regional communities are significant and far-reaching. In Durack, isolation is a way of life for many residents. However, due to the unprecedented levels of crime, there is now a heightened level of fear and anxiety amongst residents in conjunction with a visible erosion of community trust and social cohesion and the strain placed on local services such as law enforcement, health care and support organisations. Recent data has revealed a disturbing rise in crime across the Mid West-Gascoyne district, particularly in assaults. Compared to the same period last year, there has been a concerning 44 per cent increase in assaults, accompanied by a 32 per cent rise in police assaults. These statistics are deeply troubling, signalling a dangerous trend that demands our immediate attention. The town of Carnarvon in my electorate, which more recently has been suffering immensely from the impacts of youth crime, recently had significant alcohol restrictions imposed to help combat the violence. Shire president Eddie Smith recently quit Carnarvon's liquor accord, stating he had been unfairly vilified by some in the town for supporting the restrictions, and criticised people within the accord. I'd like to take the opportunity to commend President Smith and the Shire of Carnarvon, who I believe have done everything within their power to rectify this very troubling social issue. However, there is only so much that he and the shire can do. Among the incidents that have shocked our regional communities of late is rock throwing, which has emerged as a particularly distressing problem. In Geraldton alone, local police have had 20 reports of rocks being thrown at vehicles since April this year, endangering the lives of innocent motorists. These numerous reports include brick throwing at a woman inside her car, security guards and customers being hit by rocks in a shopping centre and a young boy killing a bird on the street. These are just a few of the alarming incidents that have occurred. We must recognise the gravity of these acts and their potential to escalate into even more serious crimes. The most recent reported rock-throwing incident was on 14 April when, police said, three youths aged 13 threw rocks at a 12-year-old boy and his friends who were riding motorbikes in Geraldton bushland. A fight allegedly occurred between the groups and a 13-year-old received an three-centimetre cut to his right abdomen plus other minor injuries. Mid West police superintendent Steve Post became a victim of rock throwing when his work car was pelted by a projectile in September last year, narrowly avoiding tragedy. Also in September last year, a local road-train driver was shaken when a rock came through his vehicle's windshield, narrowly missing his head, while he was travelling on the Geraldton-Mount Magnet Road. These incidents illustrate the seriousness of the situation. Innocent lives are being put at risk, and the time for action is now. I would say that the time for action has passed. I would like to take this opportunity to highly commend the Mid West Aboriginal corporation Bundiyarra, which has taken the initiative to address the issue of rock throwing by engaging with the broader community in Geraldton and the Mid West and, ultimately, with the parents of the youths involved. A public meeting was held recently where community members voiced their concerns and brainstormed potential solutions. Ideas such as reintroducing the Yamatji community patrol and establishing an after-hours safe house managed by Aboriginal elders were put forward. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting, because parliament was sitting. However, I had electorate staff representing me at the meeting. This collaborative approach should be encouraged and supported, and I believe it serves as a very positive model that could be followed by other Aboriginal organisations who have been impacted. Recent key Kununurra stakeholders wrote to the Western Australia state minister and Department of Communities. Their letter outlines the group's views on the necessary measures to curb the antisocial behaviour of youth in the East Kimberley region, and states, 'There is an urgent need for assistance and intervention around community safety within our town.' Their recommendations include constructing safe places for vulnerable children and youth to sleep and enjoy a healthy meal—sounds pretty simple and straightforward, doesn't it?—the recruitment of local staff to assist youth through night patrol and curfew assistance, and greater funding for police housing and a new police station, as well as lowering the age limit for engagement with critical services. I'd like to commend once again the authors of that letter: the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, MG Corporation, Wunan Foundation, Waringarri Aboriginal corporation and East Kimberley Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Investment in education and skill-building programs is essential to empowering young people in regional areas, enabling them to develop positive aspirations and a sense of purpose. Enhancing access to mental health services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs and family support initiatives is equally important in addressing the underlying issues that contribute to youth crime. Furthermore, it is imperative to work closely with community leaders, organisations and residents to develop community led initiatives that engage young people, promote positive role models and foster a sense of belonging and civic responsibility. By investing in community infrastructure, recreational facilities and youth-specific services, we can provide the necessary tools and opportunities for young people to flourish. This is urgent. We have to invest in fit-for-purpose youth diversionary programs that are specifically tailored to the needs of our regional communities, and we must do this in conjunction with the local Aboriginal organisations. Collaboration between federal, state and local governments is crucial in developing these comprehensive strategies and implementing targeted interventions that address the root cause of youth crime and provide effective support mechanisms. Sadly, many young people in my electorate end up in Banksia Hill Detention Centre. These young people ultimately are not born this way. They have no role models to help them, to lead the way or to tell them right from wrong. WA Premier Mark McGowan recently said the behaviour of the youths was 'a form of terrorism'. Premier, these comments are unhelpful and show a complete misunderstanding about how these kids have come to be in the situation they find themselves in. They are not terrorists; they are simply troubled children. We've got to do so much better. Housing 110 19:21 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Throughout Australia, people both young and old are worried about the cost and supply of housing. In my electorate of Corangamite in Victoria, many residents are facing rising rents, inflated housing prices and increasing uncertainty about whether they can afford to pay their mortgage. The Albanese government recognises we are in a housing crisis. That's why we are taking action with a suite of measures to make it easier for our most vulnerable to put a roof over their head, to increase our nation's housing stock and to make it easier for Australians to buy or rent. We know the number of Australians who rent is significant. In my electorate, over 20 per cent of residents are renters. Our median rental rate is 21 per cent higher than the Victorian average and over 33 per cent higher than the Australian average. Almost 30 per cent of those renting in our community are paying more than 31 per cent of their household income towards weekly rent. Behind these concerning statistics are the real stories of people struggling to find a stable and secure place to call home. At a recent market in my electorate, two people approached my stall and told me of a woman living rough in her car just around the corner from where we were standing. The woman has been living like this for some time, after her landlord sold the house she had been living in, forcing her to seek refuge wherever she could. Corangamite's cold, harsh winter nights are particularly brutal, and the back seat of a car is no place for anyone to be toughing it out day after day. My office has now been in touch with the Salvation Army, and we are in the process of finding accommodation for her. There are many stories just like this one right across our nation. Across our regions, the dream of secure, affordable housing has become so much harder to realise for ordinary Australians. It's particularly harder for the 116,000 Australians already experiencing homelessness. It's harder for workers forced to move further and further away from their work. It's harder for businesses that want to hire new employees but are finding there is just nowhere that is affordable for new workers to live. And it's harder for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who are on social housing waiting lists. The latest PropTrack Market Insight report shows that less than 18 per cent of rental properties listed online are available for less than $400 a week—the lowest rate of availability for affordable rental properties in Australia since 2018. Rental vacancy rates are currently at a record low of 0.8 per cent. In my region, these statistics are further exacerbated by the massive influx of visitors over the peak holiday period. In my electorate, we have some of the most beautiful surf beaches in Australia, and we are the gateway to the world-famous Great Ocean Road. So, naturally, visitors come from across the nation and the world to experience the Surf Coast, the Bellarine and everything we have to offer. Of course, this means our population ebbs and flows over the course of the year, with our coastal towns hosting up to three million visitors a year. Around 40 per cent of these visitors stay overnight, in short-stay accommodation, so I recognise how important this is to our local economy, but I believe it's also important to acknowledge just how much this phenomenon is adding to our housing supply challenge. I recognise this challenge and so does the Albanese government, and that's why we have a range of measures to improve our housing supply to make sure we continue to support our tourism operators and also improve the availability of housing. For example, our budget included funding for an additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental housing, by increasing the guaranteed liabilities of Housing Australia. Also included were incentives to increase the supply of rental housing by providing arrangements for investments for build-to-rent accommodation. And, of course, there's our National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million new and well-located houses over five years from 2024. This includes an investment of $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years as part of the accord. It doesn't stop there. From 1 July we've expanded eligibility for the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and the First Home Guarantee so that Australians who haven't owned a property in the last 10 years will soon be able to access help. We're widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million available to invest immediately in social and affordable rental homes. We're delivering the largest increase in rent assistance in more than 30 years, as well as a $1.6 billion extension of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with states and territories to tackle the ongoing problem of homelessness across our nation. We also have a very important piece of legislation to address the housing crisis: the Housing Australia Future Fund. This bill is facing opposition. So I say to the coalition and the Greens: if you want to do something about social housing and housing supply, and if you want to be part of the solution, simply vote yes for our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Four thousand of these homes will be for women and children escaping domestic violence. A portion of the funding will be for veterans who are at risk of homelessness. $100 million will be for fixing up remote housing for Indigenous communities. These are worthy, practical solutions, so I find it truly extraordinary that the coalition and the Greens come here and complain about the cost-of-living crisis, yet they're not supporting the reform this government is bringing to the table. They ask for more social housing, and this bill provides that, yet they oppose it. They ask for more housing supply, and this bill provides it, yet they oppose it. It's time for those opposite to stand up and do the right thing for those battling through winter nights sleeping in parks, under bridges and in the back seats of cars. In closing, we know that communities are more vibrant and diverse when affordable housing is available. We know that more affordable housing means a stronger workforce, more connected communities, more opportunities, a thriving economy and, importantly, a community that is secure, because housing is a necessity. We all deserve to have a roof over our heads. I urge all those in the Senate and all those opposite to support the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. Get behind the Albanese government's plan to deliver this huge, much-needed and long-overdue reform of our housing market. Our regions, our cities, our whole nation is in desperate need of more homes that are affordable. It's time to boost Australia's housing stock. It's time to put an end to the stories of people living in their cars or relying on friends and family to keep them safe and secure. In the words of former prime minister Paul Keating: There are no better measures real or symbolic of how well we are succeeding as a nation and as a society than the quality of our housing … …   …   … Look and you will see stark evidence of the fact that poor quality housing and poor urban environments mean greatly reduced opportunities … With that, I say it's time for the coalition and the Greens to support our housing bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30