2023-06-13 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 13 June 2023

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

 

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 1 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Members of Parliament: Staff 1 12:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I take statements made to this House extremely seriously—especially by ministers and, indeed, Prime Ministers—and am fully aware of the responsibility of members in this regard. I have always shown great care to ensure that any statements I have made to this House have been accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection at the time, and where I have been in error or where errors are brought to my attention I have always taken the opportunity to enter this House at the first opportunity to correct the record. This is our obligation as members. Last Saturday, the Weekend Australian reported comments by Ms Brown, a former member of my staff as Prime Minister, regarding the accuracy of an answer to a question I gave as Prime Minister on Thursday 18 February 2021, more than two years ago. Following the publication of the article in the Weekend Australian on Saturday, I took the opportunity to review and inform myself once again of the events of that week, as the Weekend Australian article was the first occasion I had been made aware that Ms Brown had a different account of the events that I referred to in my response to a question in the House on Thursday 18 February 2021. I am therefore now pleased to take this first opportunity to address and clarify these matters here to this House. I became aware of the incident involving Ms Higgins on Monday 15 February 2021. Over the course of that week I received numerous briefings and participated in numerous meetings on what was known about those events to assist me to address the issues appropriately in this House. These briefings included information drawn from discussions held between members of my senior staff and Ms Brown. There were also many corridor conversations within my office—as opposed to the corridors of this place more broadly—that occurred that week, and I note that Ms Brown's office was located directly outside my own. It was an extremely busy week, and there were many other issues I was addressing as Prime Minister at the time, most significantly COVID-19 and the advancement of AUKUS. Over the course of that week I responded to, I believe, 14 questions from the then Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sydney on the Higgins matter. On the Thursday, just before 3 pm, I responded to a further question addressing these matters on that day. The question was from the then Leader of the Opposition and asked whether I'd raised a statement with the staff member in my office—that is, Ms Brown—that Ms Higgins had alleged in a statement that Ms Brown had 'continually made her feel as if her ongoing employment would be jeopardised if she proceeded any further with the matter. In my response I confirmed that I had raised the matter with the member of my staff, and that was my recollection at the time. I preceded this by noting that 'there had been many conversations over the course of that week in relation to these issues'. In my response, I noted: … the Australian Human Rights Commission says if an employer suspects that a criminal incident has occurred the individual should be advised to report the matter to the police, and that is indeed what the minister— that is, Senator Reynolds— did at the time— obviously, supported by her office. I said: The minister arranged for Brittany to have that meeting with the AFP, and that occurred on 1 April. I responded: Everyone here— and by implication that included Ms Brown— tried to do the right thing. They took advice and followed the advice, and they sought to provide that support. Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to discuss these matters directly with Ms Brown regarding her recollection of these events, for the first time, and I appreciate the opportunity to have had this discussion with Ms Brown. While my recollection differed from that of Ms Brown, given that there have now been more than two years that have passed and given the considerable activity of that week and the presence of Ms Brown's contemporaneous note, while I believed my response to be accurate at the time, I cannot, obviously, fully discount that her recollection of those events now is the more accurate. However, I reject absolutely any suggestion of deliberate intent in any such possible inaccuracy in my response, and I am pleased to have taken the first opportunity available to me to clarify these matters to the House. The lack of any such deliberate intent is borne out by the fact that, regardless of whether an exchange between me and Ms Brown had occurred prior to my providing my response in the House, my answer regarding Ms Brown's conduct in relation to Ms Higgins and dealing with the allegation made in relation to Ms Brown's conduct had been informed by detailed discussions with Ms Brown and members of my office who were advising me on those matters. It was and remains my strong view that Ms Brown did all she could to provide support to Ms Higgins at that time and that, most importantly, Senator Reynolds's office had sought to ensure these issues were dealt with through the justice system in supporting references to be made to the police while at the same time respecting Ms Higgins's wishes for confidentiality and thereby supporting her agency. Allegations of sexual violence against women should be addressed in our justice system. They should not be cynically prosecuted in the public square for politics, as has sadly and increasingly been revealed in relation to these issues. BILLS 2 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 2

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Report from Federation Chamber 2 12:07 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 22 May 2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 is returned to the House for further consideration. Second Reading 2 Reference to Federation Chamber 2 12:07 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 22 May 2023, the bill stands referred to the Federation Chamber, and further consideration of the bill is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 2

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023

Report from Committee 2 12:08 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr KHALIL 101351 On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present to the parliament the committee's advisory report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023. The bill contains a suite of amendments to: uplift and harden Australia's highest level of security clearance in response to the unprecedented threat from espionage and foreign interference, and drive shared initiatives and investments that improve interoperability and burden sharing as the Australian government delivers critical national security capabilities. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, informed the committee that the bill would provide them with a new security vetting and clearance related function; enable the freer exchange of information between ASIO and sponsors to manage and mitigate security risks; and introduce a new review framework to ensure accountability of ASIO decisions and assessments. ASIO also explained to our committee that these reforms make it possible for security clearance decisions for clearances sponsored by other agencies. Obviously, the continued application of part IV of the ASIO Act to security vetting and clearance related communications—if it remains, and these amendments seek to remove it—would limit the ability of ASIO and sponsors to identify, manage and mitigate security threats. Further, review rights for ASIO security clearance decisions and assessments would remain fragmented and inconsistent across those affected by them without these amendments. The committee is committed to upholding Australia's national security interests by ensuring that the country's intelligence agencies have the necessary powers and resources to effectively protect the nation. The security clearance process is designed to ensure that only individuals who are deemed suitable and trustworthy are granted access to sensitive national security information. At the same time, the committee recognises, importantly, that the security clearance process must also be fair and, to the extent possible, transparent. Individuals who are subject to the process have the right to procedural fairness, including the right to challenge adverse findings and to have their case reviewed by an independent body. The committee is therefore satisfied with the merits and other review processes proposed by the bill and the involvement of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, in oversight of the powers and functions exercised under the bill. The committee also notes, and supports, the inclusion of the new Quality Assurance Office within the Office of National Intelligence and agrees with the Office of National Intelligence that this should drive the uplift of the mandatory insider threat capability across government agencies that sponsor the new TOP SECRET-PA security clearances. The committee had one concern, which was that human sources or agents assisting ASIO under what's termed 'other arrangements', rather than formal contracts, are captured by the term 'ASIO affiliate', and this bill would therefore allow a range of security clearance related functions to be delegated to them. Whilst the committee accepted evidence given by ASIO that a human source or agent would never be used as an affiliate to carry out security clearance functions, the legal possibility of this occurring still exists. The committee has, therefore, recommended that the explanatory memorandum for the bill be amended, or a supplementary explanatory memorandum be presented, specifying that, notwithstanding the bill's authority to delegate functions and powers to ASIO affiliates, human sources or agents will not be used to undertake security vetting. In conclusion, the committee reviewed this bill with a view to ensuring that the security clearance process is robust, fair and effective. Subject to the minor concerns raised above, the committee is satisfied that the bill protects Australia's national security interests while also upholding the rights and privacy of individuals. I want to thank the deputy chair and all the members of the committee for their work on this report, which went very smoothly and in a very collegiate manner, which we all appreciate. I thank them for their work. Also, on behalf of all of us on the committee, I extend my thanks to those who participated in the inquiry by providing submissions and appearing at the public hearings. I commend this report to the House. COMMITTEES 3 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 3 Report 3 12:13 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 4 of 2023: Airservices Australia—aviation rescue fire fighting facilities, navigation aids and digital aerodrome services project, Western Sydney International Airport. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—This report considers a proposal, referred in March, from Airservices Australia for the development of aviation rescue firefighting facilities, navigation aids and digital aerodrome services at the new and very impressive Western Sydney International Airport. The total cost of the proposed project is $98.9 million. The works have three components, with the first being the aviation rescue firefighting facilities. The proposal is to construct a category 10 facility to accommodate predicted air traffic levels and the runway's capacity to handle a range of aircraft sizes. The facility also includes a hot fire training ground, which will have the capacity to support firefighter training in the use of hot fires, tactical positioning and application of extinguishing agents. The navigational aids component of the project includes the installation of airfield navigational and surveillance equipment and infrastructure. This includes footings, equipment shelters, communication towers and service connections, and incorporates a new fibre-optic and communications network. The final component of the proposal includes the design, fabrication and installation of the digital aerodrome services, or DAS, system. This system will allow air traffic control services to be provided remotely. The installation includes fibre-optic cable from the camera mast to connect to the Airservices communication network, something quite common around the world. Cameras will be installed at the top of the mast to capture a 360-degree view of the airfield, and images will be relayed to a DAS operations facility, located offsite. The offsite DAS operations facility will include an air traffic control operations room capable of meeting the required aviation security obligations. The committee understands that the proposed works are a critical enabling element for the opening of the airport, which is scheduled for December 2026. The committee would like to thank personnel from Airservices Australia and Western Sydney Airport Corporation for facilitating a site inspection at Badgerys Creek. The visit gave members of the committee an opportunity to understand the layout of the airport and how this project fits into the future operation of Western Sydney international airport. The committee recommends that it is expedient for the proposed work to be carried out. I commend the report to the House. DELEGATION REPORTS 4 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 68th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Germany 4 12:16 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Germany and the 68th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, at Berlin and Madrid, from 13 to 21 November 2022. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms THWAITES 282212 The principles of supporting democracy, upholding the rule of law and promoting peace and security are very important to Australia, and they're ones that we share with our friends and allies in NATO. Together with the member for Hinkler, I was pleased to have the opportunity to take a parliamentary delegation to attend the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Madrid last November, as well as a visit to Germany. Australia is not a member of NATO, but it's a recognition of the regard with which our country is held that we were invited to participate in what was the first in-person assembly held since the onset of the pandemic. The invitation was extended to Australia, as well as other members of what is now called the AP4: South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, to both opportunities like the assembly as well as opportunities such as on the scale of the leaders' summits that our Prime Minister has been invited to. These do provide us with important opportunities to share the Australian perspective on the world and to understand what is happening with our allies in NATO. Of course, the Prime Minister will visit Lithuania next month for the upcoming leaders' summit, with a focus to again reinforce Australia's support for the global norms that NATO helps to uphold, and to demonstrate our country's solidarity with Ukraine as Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of that country continues. Certainly, those were messages that the member for Hinkler and I did our best to convey while part of this delegation. These issues were discussed at the assembly in November last year. While Australia is not a voting member of NATO, our invitation enabled us to fully participate in the various sessions and activities of the parliamentary assembly. As you'd expect, NATO's response to Ukraine dominated discussions, and as part of this Australia's support for Ukraine was recognised and appreciated by NATO members. Other topics that were relevant and that featured in discussions included the rise of cyber based warfare, the importance of defending democracy, technological developments around the world and the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region—and I know that's of particular importance to many in this parliament. Prior to visiting the NATO assembly, the delegation visited Berlin. This trip was a chance to highlight Australia's close relationship with Germany, a relationship that spans many decades, a long time; our alignment in upholding international norms and the rules based order, for all those reasons that I have just outlined; and our defence links and our emerging links in facilitating the transition to cleaner and greener energy. Certainly this was an area that many people that we met with in Germany both from a political side and from a business and industry side were particularly interested in exploring with us: the potential for Australia and Germany to work together as our country seeks to be a renewable energy superpower and as Germany seeks to benefit from that. It was a very productive trip to Germany and an excellent chance to make some of those connections. I would like to close by noting my thanks to all those involved in the success of this delegation, including Australian Ambassador to Germany, Philip Green, and his team at the Australian embassy in Berlin; Australia's Ambassador to Spain, Sophia McIntyre, and her team at the embassy in Madrid; and the team at the International and Parliamentary Relations Office and the delegation secretary, Joel Bateman, for their efforts in organising and supporting the visits. Thank you. 12:20 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler by leave—I rise to make a brief contribution on the report of the parliamentary delegation to Germany and the 68th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Can I thank the member for Jagajaga as the delegation leader. Of course, when it comes to national security we are always bipartisan and acting in the best interests of our country. Can I thank the delegation secretary, Joel Bateman, and the staff at the posts in both Berlin and Madrid, and Ambassadors Philip Green and Sophia McIntyre. We also had the opportunity to visit some quite extraordinary manufacturing facilities as part of this visit in Germany, including the VW factory. For those who are involved in heavy industry or have significant knowledge around manufacturing, this is a business that employs 60,000 people in just one town, in one location. In fact around the factory you can still see damage from World War II. It is quite extraordinary in terms of the length of time that it has survived and the way it actually manufactures cars. To give you an idea, every 18 seconds enough material arrives to put a car out the other end. In terms of advanced manufacturing, it was quite something to see. We also saw the MAN factory, which basically constructs and delivers multistage super-high-pressure pumps. They are used predominantly for carbon capture and storage around the world, and they have delivered and sold hundreds and hundreds of them. If I recall the numbers correctly, it was around 600 delivered around the world. That is quite incredible. They are expensive and they are quite an impressive piece of machinery to see. In terms of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, both I and the member for Jagajaga had the opportunity to provide an intervention to the assembly, and I'm very pleased to be able to not only put forward the position the coalition but to of course support the government when it comes to national security and the events in Ukraine. I'm very impressed with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly dedication to what is happening in Ukraine and those particular outcomes which we all strive for, and the fact that they're turning their eyes to the Pacific. For NATO to be turning their eyes to challenges in the Pacific, I think, says everything about the current challenges in the world. Can I thank the government and all those who organised the trip. It was an important part of what we do here as members of parliament. Once again I place my thanks on the record to the member for Jagajaga for leading the delegation. Thank you. BILLS 5 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 5

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 12:22 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to implement changes arising from recommendations of the independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, commissioned in November last year. The bill: Amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to: remove the requirement for the Australian Medical Association to agree to the appointment of the Director of the Professional Services Review (PSR); amend consultation requirements for appointing other statutory office holders of the PSR to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly; establish the statutory office of Associate Director of the PSR; remove the requirement for the Chief Executive Medicare to consult with stakeholder groups prior to issuing a notice to produce documents … The Professional Services Review, or PSR, is an independent statutory agency responsible for maintaining the integrity of Australia's Medicare program through investigating and sanctioning inappropriate practice by health professionals. The coalition has a strong and long-held commitment to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare. Our Medicare system underpins our world-class health system and, importantly, it is there for all Australians. We are so in fortunate in Australia to have a health system that is accessible and available to every Australian, no matter where you live or how old you are. Protecting the viability of Medicare is key to this. Medicare, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, continues to provide Australians with access to free hospital care and affordable health care and medicines. When we were in government, investment in the MBS and the PBS grew significantly under our leadership. That meant we were able to subsidise and list more than 2,900 new and amended drugs to allow more Australians more affordable access to potentially life-saving and life-changing medicines and treatments. The coalition have been stewards in ensuring the viability of Medicare and supporting access to affordable health care for all Australians, having introduced this legislation in the last parliament. In fact, we oversaw record investment in this area and we were committed to continuing that record through our commitment to investing $133 billion, over four years, in Medicare. The coalition will always be committed to supporting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare to ensure all Australians have access to the critical support provided by Australia's healthcare system into the future. In fact, this bill continues the important reforms started by the former coalition government to strengthen the PSR's review mechanisms, particularly for claims relating to the MBS. We were glad to see the government pass the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022 in December. This was a coalition bill that we proudly introduced in the 46th Parliament to strengthen the compliance powers of the PSR and add a degree of flexibility to the PSR's ability to address any inappropriate practice. We understand that it is vital that there continues to be rigorous and effective health practitioner compliance to protect the financial integrity of Medicare. We also have a strong track record of supporting our hardworking healthcare practitioners and peak bodies to correctly claim health payments, with a clear focus on education, engagement and consultation. Australians rightly expect their tax dollars to be used appropriately and effectively, particularly when they are being spent on our health system, which is facing increasing pressures. We need to support practitioners who are doing the right thing by the taxpayer and their patients but also to identify the healthcare practitioners who are not acting in good faith. So we acknowledge that this bill builds on the coalition's work to strength the PSR and protect the viability of Medicare through additional reforms; however, we do have concerns with the amount of consultation undertaken prior to the introduction of this bill, particularly in regard to the review on which these reforms are based. Dr Philip stated in his report: Given the timeframes set for this Review, my formal consultation with stakeholders has been necessarily limited, supplemented by informal discussions with participants, and I have based most of my work on desktop analysis. Considering the limited time frames set for the review resulted in Dr Philip having restricted time to undertake thorough consultation and being forced to run a largely desktop exercise, the opposition believe it is critical to ensure we gather more information from stakeholders on the impacts of these reforms. This bill contains some significant changes to longstanding arrangements, and it is important that we explore those changes thoroughly through proper consultation. Time and time again we are concerned by the government's refusal to allow for appropriate levels of consultation on their policies and to follow proper process. The coalition will not stand in the way of good policy, but we need more information on this bill so that we can be certain it will uphold our record of protecting the integrity and viability of Medicare and our world-class healthcare system. The opposition will support the passage of this legislation through the House but we will take the time to explore these reforms properly in the Senate. 12:28 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I welcome the opposition's support for this important legislation, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. In my role as Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health I visit towns and suburbs around Australia and have the great privilege of meeting with healthcare workers and the communities they care for. In the last few months I've been to Mildura, in north-west Victoria; Burnie, in Tasmania; Gordonvale, in Far North Queensland; and Coffs Harbour and Lismore, in New South Wales. Everywhere I go I hear the same thing. People cannot get the health care they need when they need it. Medicare is in the worst state it has been in in its 40-year history. That doesn't just happen; it's a result of a decade of cuts and neglect. But we're turning that around. We're doing what should have been done a decade ago: strengthening our healthcare system and Medicare. At the centre of Medicare is bulk-billing. As the health minister, Minister Butler, has said, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare, but, after nine years of neglect, that beating heart needs more than a pacemaker. It needs a defibrillator. Thankfully, our $6 billion investment in Medicare is just what the doctor ordered. We are strengthening Medicare so that Australians will have better access to care and a stronger healthcare workforce. In the budget, we announced that we are tripling the bulk-billing incentive. This is the largest increase in the incentive in the history of Medicare. We are also indexing the Medicare rebate. It is the largest increase of the Medicare rebate in 30 years—three decades. This will transform our healthcare system. In our major cities, it means a 30 per cent increase in investment, and, in rural and regional centres, it's a 50 per cent increase. And we're not stopping at bulk-billing. We announced a comprehensive package of measures to rebuild Medicare. This includes supporting health professionals to work at the top of their scope of practice, using all of their skills and training; expanding our essential nursing workforce, right around Australia; improving access to crucial after-hours care; providing flexible funding for team based care—the right kind of care; and investing in digital health, including initiatives to support the sharing of pathology and medical imaging across the entire health sector, so that vital information is at the fingertips of healthcare professionals when they need it most. As I visited the outer suburbs and regional towns after the budget, I met with healthcare practitioners. This is what they has to say. In the Illawarra, I met with Dr Katherine Michelmore, a GP and the medical director of South Eastern NSW Primary Healthcare Network. She told me: 'It's perhaps the first time in a long time that we've had cause for optimism.' When I was in Lismore, I met Ken from the Lismore GP SuperClinic, who told me: 'What the government announced in the Medicare increase is exceptional. It is going to bring back bulk-billing. It is going to encourage those who have recently changed maybe to private billing to go back to bulk-billing, and I really think it's a step in the right direction.' When I was in the Hunter, I met with Dr Yasas, a fellow of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. He said: 'It has been a lifeline thrown at us with the budget because we've been struggling to continue bulk-billing patients, especially the vulnerable parts of our community, especially children and elderly and those people living with disabilities.' These measures are going to work. The Australian Labor Party have a proud history with Medicare. After all, it was the Whitlam Labor government that founded Medibank in 1975, before it was axed by the Liberal coalition under Fraser. Thankfully for all of us, it was reinstated as Medicare in 1984 by the Hawke Labor government. It seems that it's the role of Labor governments to throw the lifeline to our universal healthcare system time and time again when it has been left to the perils of the Liberals. For those on this side of the House, health care isn't just what we do; it's who we are. The member for Higgins is an infectious disease specialist and general physician. The member for Newcastle is a former disability support worker. My good friend the member for Macarthur is a paediatrician. The member for Cooper trained as a nurse on the floor of the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne all those years ago. The member for Robertson is an emergency doctor in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales. The member for Kingston is a psychologist. The member for Ballarat started her working life as a social worker in Victoria. The strength of our health care system is that it's universal—that no matter who you are or whatever your background, you can get the care you need when you need it. This amendment, in practice, will remove the veto power of the Australian Medical Association in the appointment process of the Director of the Professional Services Review, also known as the PSR. As an independent statutory agency, the PSR is responsible for protecting the integrity of Medicare—our universal system of care—by investigating inappropriate practice. The PSR is critical to ensuring that patients are protected, as we all must be, in our clinical care and that dodgy conduct, when it occurs, is stamped out. Integrity must underpin our universal system of care. The changes will remove potential conflicts of interest to enhance public perceptions of the PSR scheme and ensure the PSR process can operate with impartiality and independence. These measures are essential to maintaining public confidence and strengthening the integrity of Medicare. The amendment will make sure that our healthcare system remains public, by Australians for all Australians. I am proud to be part of Labor's healthcare team. It demonstrates Labor's investment and the priority of health care that we have five ministers and assistant ministers working in health care. I'm very proud to support the member for Cooper, who introduced this bill. As the member for Cooper said, Australians are rightly proud of Medicare and of the committed group of doctors and other health professionals who deliver Medicare services right around Australia. The member for Cooper has also said that bulk-billing is at the heart of Medicare. It is the beating heart of Medicare. We know, and I know from my visits to suburbs and towns around Australia, that it has never been harder or more expensive to see a GP. We as a government are investing in making Medicare stronger for all Australians, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, and in delivering critical funding and investing in reform for the healthcare system of tomorrow. The budget handed down in May delivered more than $6 billion in new investments to strengthen Medicare, as well as the indexation boost to Medicare rebates that I mentioned. The value of that is more than $1.5 billion, the biggest increase in 30 years. It is absolutely critical that all Australians, wherever they live and whatever their age, have access to care when and where they need it. That's why strengthening Medicare was the centrepiece of our budget. This package is worth $3.5 billion. As I mentioned, it triples the bulk-billing incentives for GP visits, the largest ever investment in bulk billing incentives. In our major cities, it means a 30 per cent increase in the payments to a bulk-billing GP, and, in the many rural and regional parts of Australia where I have had the chance to visit and hear from healthcare professionals, it will mean an increase in bulk-billing of around 50 per cent. That will transform health care right around Australia, particularly in the most regional and remote parts of Australia. It will mean five million children and their families, and seven million pensioners and concession card holders, will all benefit from the increase in the bulk-billing incentive. This historic investment means three out of five visits to a GP will be bulk-billed. That is why this legislation today is absolutely critical, because every Australian must have confidence in our Medicare system, our universal system of care, and the legislation that we're discussing today is important in protecting the integrity of Medicare. This bill makes several priority amendments in response to the recommendations from the review. As I mentioned, the measures in this bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, as well as improving the effectiveness of the current process for auditing payments relating to Medicare services. It means in essence that the bill removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association, known as the AMA, in the appointment process for the director of the PSR; amends consultation requirements for appointments of other statutory office holders of the PSR, including deputy directors, panel members and members of the determining authority, to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly; enables the appointment of associate directors of the PSR; and removes the need for engagement with stakeholder groups as a prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. The PSR is an independent statutory agency responsible for protecting the integrity of the Medicare program by investigating whether a person has engaged in inappropriate practice. In doing so, the PSR protects patients and keeps us safe, and the community in general, safe from the risks associated with inappropriate practice, if and when it occurs. As a healthcare professional myself, I understand the importance of these measures—as, I'm sure, millions of people around Australia do as well. The PSR addresses the behaviour of a person who may have engaged in inappropriate practice through a review by the director or by committees made up of clinical professional peers. Currently, the director of the PSR cannot be appointed without the agreement of the AMA. The government considers that this veto power isn't consistent. It's not aligned with public expectations and could undermine confidence in the independence of the PSR as a regulator. The veto power, it's important to note, has never been exercised, raising further questions of the need for this requirement. Given the potential conflict between the PSR's objective to safeguard Medicare and the AMA's role in representing the interests of medical professionals may be subject to the PSR review, it's appropriate for the veto power to be removed. I am very pleased to support the member for Cooper and the legislation that we're putting through the House. As I mentioned earlier, it is absolutely critical that all Australians have confidence in Medicare, in our universal system of care. That's so they know they're receiving the right kind of care and that all health practitioners will conduct themselves professionally and behave in a way in accordance with the professional standards of their discipline and the community expectations of healthcare workers. So I'm very pleased today to be able to support this legislation. In conclusion, these changes I have mentioned will remove potential conflicts of interest, enhance public perception of the PSR scheme and ensure that the PSR process can operate with impartiality and independence so that Australians can have confidence in the impartiality and independence of the PSR. These measures are essential to maintaining public confidence, so that every Australian, wherever they live and wherever they're accessing care, will know that their healthcare professional is conducting themselves appropriately, meeting professional standards and meeting the community's expectations of them. The amendment will make sure that our healthcare system remains public, by Australians for Australians. Thank you. 12:42 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Today I'm really pleased to speak about the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. This bill implements changes arising from the recommendations of the Philip review, an independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance conducted by Dr Pradeep Philip of Deloitte Access Economics. The review was undertaken at the request of the current Minister for Health and Aged Care, with its purpose being to focus on the payment system of the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the MBS. The five terms of reference for the review of the MBS were, broadly, to look at high-level ways of reducing fraudulent behaviour; integrity risks around payment and claiming channels; non-compliant or overservicing risks; ways of improving the Practitioner Review Program and Professional Services Review functions; and a review of the Health Insurance Act to identify potential improvements to strengthen both compliance and penalties for fraud and inappropriate practice. Importantly and alarmingly, the Philip review concluded that, in relation to our current Medicare system, legislation, governance, systems, processes and tools are currently not fit for purpose, and that without significant attention they will result in significant levels of fraud. These governance failures are real and they are concerning. Unsurprisingly, the recommendations arising from Dr Philips's review were wide ranging, but they can be categorised into four broad areas: governance and structure; operational processes; modernising technology; and strengthening legislation. These are all very important recommendations, but today's bill addresses only a small fraction of them. Firstly, this bill removes the requirement for the Australian Medical Association, the AMA, to agree to the appointment of the Director of Professional Services Review, the PSR. This recommendation was made on the basis that the current arrangement is inconsistent with public expectations regarding the independence of the Professional Services Review. The Philip review recommended removing this veto power because of the breadth of health professionals whose members are now potentially susceptible to review by the PSR. The fact is that a veto power from the AMA—a single professional body—no longer reflects the fact that there are a wide range of professionals who could potentially be referred to the PSR. The review described this veto as an anachronism which has never been exercised and considered that its removal could bring about a measurable enhancement to the perception of the PSR by the sector, and it could remove perceived conflicts of interest. I have to note that, recently, I met with the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, which noted that there's also no consumer representative on the PSR. Despite the clear advantages and documented impacts on health and on medical research, consumer involvement is often undercooked in our government administration structures. I believe the addition of a consumer representative to the PSR would add an additional, important voice. It would give comfort to patients and their families that the issues considered by the PSR include their perspectives, and that those perspectives inform the PSR's responses. The bill also amends consultation requirements for appointing other statutory office holders of the PSR to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly, rather than via the AMA. That seems entirely appropriate. It makes no sense that an external advisory body—a peak body of medical professionals, of doctors—can exercise any other veto power or effect over other office holders of the PSR. The bill establishes a new statutory office of Associate Director of the PSR, who will assist with managing conflicts of interest and workload pressures. That associate director will have the same functions and powers as the director in reviewing inappropriate practice but will not have a role in administering the PSR agency. To streamline the audit process, the bill removes the requirement for the chief executive of Medicare to consult with relevant professional bodies prior to issuing a notice to provide documents. This will ensure clear and accountable natural justice to the regulated entity under investigation without the unnecessary involvement of a non-regulated entity. It has to be said that these amendments to the bill, worthy though they are, are relatively confined. They're very modest when viewed in the context of the very wide-ranging recommendations set out in the Philip review. Indeed, Dr Philip sets out a 10-year plan for ongoing, continuous improvement initiatives and activities within the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Whilst we can look forward to this ambitious reform agenda being addressed in future policy development and legislation, rather than concentrating on each of those recommendations and the journey towards widespread Medicare reform, our focus should be on the broader conclusion drawn by Dr Philip: that the governance of Medicare, as the minister has said and as the member for Dobell has already told us, is out of date, and Medicare is in its worst shape in its 40-year history. Dr Philip said: As the health system has evolved, governance … is now inadequate, running the risk of piecemeal approaches to compliance and fraud and no holistic understanding of major trends … in the nature of healthcare delivery. This is deeply disturbing. A sound and well-functioning compliance and integrity system is critical for all Australians. We have to give Australians trust in the Medicare system and, by extension, our health system. We also have to ask ourselves, 'What does integrity in our health system look like?' As we've seen in recent days, trust in the integrity of our governments and the system of our government is taking a battering, day by day, month by month. The report released last week by the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, into the $2 billion Community Health and Hospitals Program wasn't just scathing; it was utterly damning. The point of that ANAO audit was to assess the effectiveness of administration and compliance within the grants and rules of the CHHP. The audit found that executive oversight and risk and fraud management in that scheme were deeply deficient. Only two of 171 programs in the CHHP were highly suitable. The health department was found to have repeatedly fallen short of ethical requirements and to have repeatedly and deliberately breached guidelines in disbursing taxpayers' funds. In some cases, the department administered grants that it first found out about from ministerial press releases. More than a billion dollars of taxpayers' money was allocated from what was essentially a ministerial slush fund. We only found out about it after the fact—five years later, after the money was gone. This is why I am deeply concerned about the Philip review's 10-year time line for administrative change. We need stronger mechanisms now. We need stronger legislative mechanisms to ensure that substandard funding allocations and deliberate breaches of the Medicare system are prevented, not identified five years after the fact. And, when those breaches do occur, as they inevitably will, they should be identified quickly and bad actors penalised accordingly. The practices illuminated in the ANAO's report and, to a lesser but still concerning extent, in the Philip review have had the unfortunate effect of eroding public confidence in our healthcare system. Somewhere along the line, some people who work for our Commonwealth have forgotten that the Commonwealth must use and manage all of our public resources properly. 'Properly' in this context means efficient, effective, economic and ethical use of taxpayers' money. When we see that in this light, we have to ensure that the executive oversight, risk and forward management of our Medicare system does not fail as it clearly has for the CHHP grants program. Trust in government is at an all-time low. We have to do what we can to restore it. Our Medicare system is world class. It supports the health of every Australian, but it needs world-class governance and oversight to keep it strong and to make sure that it is fit for purpose. Dr Philip makes the observation that the overwhelming majority of health practitioners are well-meaning and ethical people who are concerned primarily for the health and welfare of their patients. I could not agree more. But the system that they inhabit and in which they work is no longer fit for purpose. We have to have a system that's not reliant solely on the goodwill and altruism of health professionals to properly manage our public resources and meet the needs of the Australian people. Our Medicare system desperately needs to adapt to changing health needs and health services delivery. Australians deserve to be able to trust in Medicare. Our young and future generations have to be assured that it will be there for them. Sunlight is the best medicine, and we need it now to ensure that our Medicare system and our health system more broadly remain an international exemplar for what modern health care should look like. I commend this bill to the House. 12:52 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I would like to firstly thank the members for Cooper and Dobell, the assistant health ministers, for introducing the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. I thank the member for Dobell, in particular, for speaking so well on it. I also thank the member for Kooyong, who is a highly respected medical practitioner. Her contributions in health care and in this parliament have been fantastic, and I thank her for her speech. I'm very proud of our nation's healthcare system and of Medicare in particular. I started my private practice on the same day that Medicare was introduced into Australia. I'm very proud of that. I saw the difference in what happened pre Medicare and post Medicare. I won't go into the history of it. Suffice it to say that the most common cause of bankruptcy prior to Medicare was medical costs. That changed dramatically with the introduction of Medicare. I know that people in my community who had previously not been able to access care by paediatricians such as myself and who were put on long waiting lists or missed out on care altogether for their children could see a paediatrician without a huge financial impost. Equitable access to health care became incredibly important for our community since that time. However, Medicare was designed a long time ago, as were many of the regulatory mechanisms involved in making sure it works correctly. It's very important to note that two people I know very well—Dr Tony Webber, who was head of the Professional Services Review, and Professor Julie Quinlivan, who also was head of the PSR—were very critical of the role that the PSR has played in reducing medical fraud and mismanagement over the last 30 years. They both had some very significant things to say, as reported recently in the Fairfax press and on TV by the ABC on Four Corners. They were very critical of the lack of ability to prosecute poor practice and medical fraud in this country. I should point out that Dr Webber was a very well respected GP. In fact, he used to refer to me many years ago. I respect him as a doctor but also in his previous role as head of the PSR. Professor Julie Quinlivan is a well respected obstetrician and gynaecologist who has worked for women's health for many years. She now has a university appointment as a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology and is highly respected. She also brought up many issues involved with the PSR. The Philip review, which was introduced by Mark Butler, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, found that there was need for a review of the integrity and compliance processes in the PSR, and this bill is the result of that review. Dr Philip found that changes were needed to ensure the compliance system that underpins Medicare is modernised, effective and rigorous, and that certainly has not been the case. I relied on Medicare for my income for almost four decades. In that time, I was approached by a number of colleagues to provide character references for them when they were being reviewed by the PSR. In every case that I was involved in giving a character reference for, the review was appropriate and the action taken also was appropriate, but there is a view in the profession that these reviews are too infrequent and do not look at the overall practices that have crept into medical practice over a number of years since the corporatisation of medicine and since access to care has become increasingly difficult in the last 10 or 15 years. I must stress that the vast majority of medical professionals that I've worked with in my career were honest and always did the right thing, but it was quite clear to me that there were some people who were outliers who could have been better regulated by the PSR and should have been better regulated by the PSR, and I think most medical professionals would say that. This bill makes several priority amendments in response to the Philip review and its recommendations, and I applaud it, as I applaud the health policy analysis and developments made by the present health minister in response to 10 years of neglect by the previous government. This bill specifically removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association, the AMA, over the appointment of the Director of Professional Services Review. Surely no-one in this day and age could argue with that. I have been a member of the AMA for 45 years, and I think none of my colleagues who are members of the AMA disagree with this fundamental change in the PSR. The PSR will now have oversight of a whole range of different professionals providing health care and support for health care in our community. It's not appropriate that the AMA continues to have a veto power, a veto power, I might add, that it has never used. It does seem a little silly that it is still there. The bill also amends the consultation requirements for the appointment of other statutory office holders of the PSR, including deputy directors, panel members and members of the determining authority, to enable direct consultation with peak bodies rather than just being coordinated through the AMA. This is, of course, appropriate, and it is appropriate that this bill has been introduced by this government, a government committed to Medicare and committed to equitable access to health care for all Australians. Concerns have been raised that the objective of the PSR, which is to safeguard the integrity of Medicare, may conflict with the AMA's objective to represent the interests of medical practitioners subject to the PSR. I know my colleagues want our system to be as rigorous as it possibly can be, so I don't think these concerns are well placed. I know that the AMA has done an enormous amount of work to ensure the compliance and transparency of medical care in this country and will continue to do so. The AMA will be one of the bodies consulted before any other major changes are made, and it will also be consulted when medical practitioners are subject to review. The removal of the AMA's veto powers is appropriate. It has previously not been consistent with public expectation and undermines confidence in the independence of the PSR as a regulator if the AMA has veto power. Last year, at the same time our government commissioned the Philip review, I spoke in parliament on the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill that amended the PSR arrangements to manage and review the practice of corporations and not just single practitioners. I think that is vitally important if our system is going to be fit for purpose. This bill is part of our government's work to strengthen Medicare and to ensure there is equitable access to health care for all Australians. At the moment, because of ten years of difficult behaviour by the previous government, equitable access to health care has been allowed to fall away, particularly in rural and regional areas but also in outer metropolitan areas. Dr FREELANDER 265979 I see that the member for Riverina is arcing up a little, but it is quite true; there is a huge difficulty in accessing equitable health care in rural and regional areas. We, as a government, are committed to making sure that equitable access is available to all Australians. Our 2023 budget was very important in the improvement of access to equitable health care; the indexation boost to Medicare rebates, costing over $1.5 billion; and the tripling of bulk-billing incentives for many practices in outer metropolitan and rural areas. For many doctors, this will make the difference between staying in practice and leaving those practices. The centrepiece of our strengthening Medicare package is $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive for GP visits. I can't emphasise how important that is. The government is also looking at ways of trying to improve the want of medical students to go into general practice rather than specialty practice. I've always seen general practice as the hardest of the medical specialities. It's important that we continue our Medicare review process because there is much more to be done, and, as Dr Philip said of the PSR, there's still much more to be done. But we need to do it in a methodical and organised manner. We need to bring the professions with us. We need to make sure that Australians can access equitable care around the country so that it's not just in the inner cities where people can get access to the best care. We know that statistically mortality rates increase the further you go from the centre of our major cities. This is certainly true for people in rural and regional areas, but it's also true for people in outer metropolitan areas. It is imperative that vigorous arrangements to identify and address poor compliance in the medical field and inappropriate practice are seen as essential to the ongoing commitment to improving Medicare. This bill will benefit all Australians by supporting the integrity of Medicare. It is very important that we, as politicians, understand the importance of making sure that Medicare remains the centrepiece of our healthcare system in Australia. We've had it now for a long period of time—40 years—but it is very important that we see that Medicare has underpinned Australians having some of the best health care in the developed world, and we don't want access to care to deteriorate the way it did under the previous government. It's very important. Medicare is the centrepiece of our healthcare system and must remain so. I commend this bill to the House, I thank the minister for moving it and I look forward to health reforms, in the future, that will improve equitable access to health care for all Australians. 13:05 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Australians deserve a healthcare system they can trust. They deserve to know that when they go to see their GP or access any form of medical service those delivering the service are operating with the utmost integrity. This government and this Minister for Health, Mr Butler, are serious about delivering a radical improvement to our country's health system. It is well and truly needed after nine long years of cuts and neglect from those opposite, those opposite who can't help themselves but undermine the health system that Australians hold so dear to their hearts. That's why we're getting on with strengthening the Medicare system that Australians value so highly. Strengthening Medicare also means safeguarding the taxpayer funds that underpin it, and this government is committed to that task. This Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 responds to the Independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip. The provisions within the bill will bolster confidence in Medicare integrity and remove a potential for undue influence over the professional review process. In short, the bill removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association, the AMA, over the appointment of the director of the professional services review, known as the PSR. It amends consultation requirements for appointments of other statutory office holders of the PSR, including deputy directors, panel members and members of the determining authority, to enable direct consultation with peak bodies rather than this being coordinated through the AMA. It enables the appointment of associate directors of the PSR, and it removes the need for engagement with stakeholder groups as a prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. The PSR is a peer review scheme established to investigate and sanction against inappropriate practice by health professionals under Medicare. The PSR's objective, to safeguard the integrity of Medicare, may conflict with the AMA's objective to represent the interests of medical practitioners who are subject to the PSR review. The removal of the AMA's veto power is appropriate, as it is not consistent with public expectations and it undermines confidence in the independence of the PSR as a regulator. I note my colleague the member for Macarthur commented that the AMA has never used that veto, and I'd like to stress that this is in no way a criticism of the AMA. The bill will enable direct consultation with peak bodies on the appointments of the deputy directors and panel members of the PSR, rather than making arrangements through the AMA as an intermediary for other professional groups as is currently the requirement under legislation. Similarly, the bill removes the requirement to consult with the AMA on the appointment of the chair and other members of the determining authority. Instead, the minister is to consult directly with the relevant peak bodies on appointments of medical practitioner members of the determining authority, which is consistent with the current requirements for other non-medical health practitioners. These changes remove any perceptions of inappropriate influence over the operation of the PSR scheme and ensure the PSR process can operate with impartiality and independence. The bill also enables the appointment of associate directors of the PSR, who will be able to make decisions and exercise the same powers as the director in reviewing inappropriate practice. This is necessary to assist in managing conflicts of interest, unexpected absences and workload pressures as, currently, the director is the sole decision-maker, and there are no fallbacks if the director, for some reason, cannot make decisions due to a conflict of interest or unavailability. Associate directors will not have a role in the administration of the PSR agency. The director remains the sole statutory agency head and the accountable authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Finally, the bill removes the need for engagement with stakeholder groups about documents relevant to substantiating Medicare payments as a prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. This amendment will strengthen Medicare compliance powers without limiting the types of documents a person may provide during an audit of payments. It will also speed up these processes. There will be no impact on procedural fairness protections for a person being audited; they will continue to have the opportunity to make submissions about the compliance matter, and to provide any information or documents they consider relevant to their matter. The measures in this bill will strengthen the operation of the PSR, as well as improving the current process for the auditing of Medicare payments. Australians are rightly proud of Medicare and of the committed work of doctors and other health professionals who deliver Medicare services. They know that the overwhelming bulk of Australia's doctors and health professionals are honest and hard working, and comply with Medicare rules. Before entering this place, I worked in the health sector for many years, including as a member of the Medical Board of Australia. In this role, we dealt with matters of registration and of complaints made against medical practitioners across Australia. From time to time we made referrals to the PSR, when allegations fell into their jurisdiction. I took this role very seriously. Australians are justifiably proud of our health system, and our health practitioners are world class; the majority of health practitioners do the right thing by their patients and by the system. But there are those few who do not. In order for Australians to maintain their confidence in our health system, we need to have places where notifications can be made and investigated. Australians need to have the confidence that these regulatory bodies are not subject to undue influence. Health practitioners, those who are actually subject to the review, also need to have confidence that the regulatory bodies are not influenced and that they will do the right thing. And that is at the heart of what this bill is about. Our regulatory bodies not only need to be robust and fair but also, clearly, need to be seen to be so. Labor is the party of Medicare, and this government has no higher priority than strengthening Medicare. It is why a centrepiece of this month's budget was the Strengthening Medicare package, the $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentives for GP visits—the largest-ever investment in bulk-billing. When I speak to people in Boothby about the healthcare system, what I most often hear about—apart from hospital ramping—is bulk-billing, and also being able to get in to see a doctor and able to afford to see that doctor. In Boothby I think we have about 25 per cent of doctors providing bulk-billing. Once you get out into rural areas, of course, it's much lower. Bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare, and after nine years of cuts and neglect by the former government we know it has never been harder or more expensive to see a GP. So this government is making Medicare stronger for all Australians, delivering critical funding and investing in reform for the healthcare system of tomorrow. The May 2023 budget delivers more than $5.7 billion in new investments to strengthen Medicare, as well as an indexation boost to Medicare rebates of more than $1.5 billion, delivering the biggest increase in 30 years. But that's not all we've done. We've reduced the costs of prescriptions by $12.50; we've reduced the PBS safety net thresholds so that more people are able to access cheaper medications; we've cut the price of more than 2,000 medicines; and we've added more medicines to the PBS. We've given more self-funded retirees access to the Commonwealth seniors healthcare card so that they can access cheaper medicines themselves and we've committed to 50 bulk-billing urgent care clinics across Australia to relieve the stress on hospital emergency departments and to enable Australians to get urgent but non-emergency care quickly. I'm looking forward to one opening in Boothby before the end of this year to support the Flinders Medical Centre, which is our major tertiary hospital for the southern suburbs of Adelaide and southern regional areas. This government is committed to building back our health system after a decade of neglect by those opposite, and this bill is part of that. This bill contributes to the government's work in strengthening our healthcare system in the interest of patients and also in the interests of health practitioners. I know that being subject to an audit, a review or a complaint is an extremely stressful experience for a practitioner to go through, whether they think they've done something wrong or not. It is important for them to have confidence in that system, confidence that the system is unbiased and not subject to undue influence by any particular body. So this is something that's not just good for Australians; it is good for our health system, it is good for our health practitioners and it adds to the other things that we are doing to support Medicare, to build back our health system and to build back the system that we have been so justifiably proud of since it was set up initially by Whitlam and then, of course, reformed and re-established by the Hawke government. It is one of the things that I spoke about in my first speech; it's something that I've worked on for a long time. I worked in the health sector for close on two decades, both on boards and also in running non-clinical projects. The health system that we have in Australia is world class, in both its accessibility and its affordability. Those are very important things to Australians. This is part of people having confidence in their health practitioners, confidence in the system and confidence that our taxpayer money is going where it needs to go, which is to delivery of those services that we need. The PSR, I know, has come under a bit of criticism for some of the estimates of Medicare fraud that have come out. I repeat: we know that most health practitioners do the right thing. But it is important that we can identify those who don't, because we need our health dollar to go as far as possible. We are an ageing population and we have increasing chronic disease; we need to ensure that we have health services that are accessible and affordable for all Australians, wherever they live, and this is part of that. I commend the bill. 13:17 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. This is a classic Labor bill. It's a classic Labor bill because it seeks to strengthen Medicare, which every year enables millions of Australians to access our country's world-class health care. And it's a classic Labor bill because it seeks to improve integrity and trust in our public institutions. This bill will do that by enabling direct consultation with peak bodies when it comes to the appointment of statutory office holders of the PSR, rather than consulting through the AMA. It does that by creating the position of associate directors to make the director of the PSR more accountable. And it does that by removing the veto power of the Australian Medical Association over the appointment of the Director of Professional Services Review. In short, it means more accountability and more transparency through more independence. This bill and the changes within come in the aftermath of the Philip review. Commissioned by the Albanese government and conducted by independent expert health economist Dr Pradeep Philip, the review was tasked with looking at the integrity of Medicare and its compliance mechanisms. When the Philip review was released, one journalist said of its findings: The report … does not pull any punches about the train wreck Medicare has become after decades of Band-Aid solutions and a lack of scrutiny … We're a Labor government. That means we're serious about protecting Australia's health care and we're serious about protecting Medicare. The report found that the legislation governance systems, processes and tools are currently not fit for purpose, leaving the door wide open for significant levels of noncompliance, fraud and billing errors. Dr Philip found that this noncompliance currently costs up to $3 billion. At a time when the cost of living is hitting households hard across the country, and in my electorate of Paramatta, Australians simply can't afford that, and the government can't afford to continue the pattern of neglect. When this report was released, in April of this year, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, said: 'We are determined to act on this as soon as we appropriately can. We're not going to let the grass grow under our feet in responding to this report.' This bill does just that. It signals the end of that pattern of neglect set in place by the former coalition government. It begins the process of closing loopholes and doors for fraud and noncompliance in our healthcare system. Importantly, it continues the work of bringing back integrity into government. It's important to know that this bill also comes at a critical time in our nation's history. It comes at a time when trust in our medical professionals, our doctors and nurses in particular, faces a decline. Roy Morgan research between 2017 and 2021 showed a decline in trust in our health professionals and our health system, with doctors down seven per cent and the health system down more broadly. It won't come as a surprise that faith in public institutions and government suffered crippling blows over a decade of neglect and abuse of authority in the previous government. Trust in government reached an all-time low in 2019 and has only risen since the election of the Albanese Labor government. This bill has been described as making a small change to the Professional Services Review, but it's the neglect of risks over time—small weaknesses, lack of integrity—that now represents one of the biggest risks to accountability and transparency in government. This bill takes a step to end that. My electorate of Parramatta is home to thousands of stellar professionals who make our community a world-class destination for health care. I recently visited the Good Street Medical Centre in Westmead, a suburb of Parramatta, and met Asha Kandiban, the practice manager. Asha told me about her experiences in running the practice. It's a fully bulk-billed clinic and helps to make up part of the world-class medical precinct of Westmead, alongside the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead Hospital and the fantastic Westmead Institute for Medical Research. Bulk-billing is the beating heart Medicare, and after nine years of cuts and neglect by the former government we know it's never been harder or more expensive to see a GP. Asha has been caring for local residents at Good Street for years and throughout the COVID pandemic. Asha's dedication to her community is not only inspiring but reflective of the thousands of medical practitioners and healthcare workers across Australia who comply with Medicare and health regulations. Australians are rightly proud of Medicare and the committed group of doctors and other health professionals who deliver Medicare services. Australians know that the overwhelming bulk of Australia's doctors and health professionals are honest, hardworking and comply with Medicare rules. But the neglect of compliance measures is a disservice to those healthcare professionals and frontline workers who do their best for Australia every day. I'm proud to see the Albanese government putting an end to that pattern. More broadly, this is another step in our work to create a better future for Australians, which will yield dividends for those in my electorate of Parramatta. In this year's budget we acted to strengthen Australia's healthcare system. We invested a historic $6.1 billion into Medicare, including $3.5 billion to triple the Medicare bulk-billing incentive, benefiting the 84,537 locals who already bulk-bill across the 64 local GP clinics in Parramatta. We've also halved the cost of medicines for more than six million Australians. In January we delivered cheaper medicines, and Australians can now pay up to 30 per cent less for prescription medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, with the maximum co-payment dropping significantly. Finally, I'm proud to be delivering a bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinic to Westmead, helping locals access emergency health care quicker and reducing waiting times in existing emergency rooms locally. The government is making Medicare stronger for all Australians, delivering critical funding and investing in reform for the healthcare system of tomorrow. I commend this bill. 13:24 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I would like to thank everybody for their contribution to this important bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023. We need to make sure that our Medicare program is modern and fit for service and that it meets the needs of our communities, and I recognise the passion that everybody has spoken with. Thank you very much, everybody. The Medicare program provides universal access for all Australians to most healthcare services. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 is a timely and appropriate response to issues raised in the independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance. The bill removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association over the appointment of the Director of Professional Services Review, known as the PSR. The bill also amends consultation requirements for appointing other statutory office holders of the PSR, enabling direct consultation with relevant peak bodies. This will ensure the regulator can operate with impartiality and independence and will improve public perceptions of the fairness and integrity of Medicare. The bill also allows for the appointment of associate directors of the PSR, which will provide for the alternative decision-makers to manage conflicts of interest, unexpected absences and workload pressures for the director. This will allow PSR matters to be finalised more quickly in some cases. One of the key issues identified in the review of Medicare integrity and compliance was the length of time the compliance processes currently take. Both practitioners under review in the community will benefit from faster resolution of compliance issues. Finally, the bill will remove the need for engagement with stakeholder groups before requesting documents, which will improve processes used to audit payments relating to Medicare services. This will also strengthen and speed up Medicare compliance functions without limiting the types of documents a person may provide during an audit. The person being audited will continue to have an opportunity to make submissions about the compliance matter and provide any relevant information or documents. The measures in this bill will strengthen the regulatory framework, supporting the integrity of Medicare to ensure that all Australians can continue to receive necessary health services. I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 15 13:28 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 15

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 15 13:29 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I'm delighted to stand today to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, which is a cognate bill with the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. I'm happy to speak today for several reasons, the foremost of which is the fact that the bills before the House, with a few exceptions, largely are taken from legislation previously put by the former— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech has been interrupted, you will be granted leave to continue your remarks. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Nambour 15 13:30 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax 'I am Nambour.' That is the branding and the rallying call for the town of Nambour. The town of Nambour really is the gateway to the Hinterland for Australia's most important and most beautiful region: the Sunshine Coast. Every single time I am in Nambour, I am reminded why there is such pride in that town. They can boast such pride in their past but indeed their future will be greater still, and the reason is local leadership. There are very few places in this country other than the Sunshine Coast that have local leaders that do the heavy lifting, and you see that in Nambour. I saw it only last week when I was proud to launch the streetscape project, and I will see it again at the end of this week when I attend the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show at the Nambour Showgrounds. That's right: the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show is back, and it is going to be better than ever. It runs from Friday to Sunday on 16, 17 and 18 June—this month—and it has it all. If you've got family and especially if you've got little kids, there is no better place. I can't wait to leave parliament this week. I'm going back to Nambour, and I'm going to the show. See you there! Dress for Success 15 13:31 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I also wish the Nambour show all the very best! Dress for Success is a registered charity that many in this place are familiar with. They play a vital role in my community by supporting women in the workforce by instilling confidence, building resilience and restoring dignity. Their work also aims to bridge the gap for vulnerable women by addressing unconscious bias and creating fairness and equality for female jobseekers. The not-for-profit also prides itself on sustainable clothing practices, where they style clients in preloved and end-of-the-line workwear, committing to the circular fashion economy and the ethical disposal of clothing that may otherwise end up in landfill. I recently attended the annual Bubbles and Bargains event at the Fraternity Club in Fairy Meadow, hosted by the Dress for Success Illawarra branch. For one day only, the branch opened up a pop-up boutique to onsell luxury second-hand donations, recycling over 1,000 pieces of clothing. This year was another raging success with ticket prices and sales allowing Dress for Success to support an additional 107 women to face their job search with confidence, clothing and the tools to get hired. Led by Illawarra operations manager Bonnie Comber, the branch has approximately 20 volunteers that assisted on the day from set-up to packdown as well as being assisted by family, friends and five students from the Illawarra Grammar School. This year's sponsors were Skin Correctives, One Agency JD Property Agents, Blue Spinach, the Fraternity Club and blackMILK Candles. Australia's Biggest Morning Tea, Rural and Regional Health Services 16 13:33 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker This year marks 30 years of Australia's Biggest Morning Tea. I joined more than one hundred people at the Biggest Morning Tea hosted in Mount Gambier late last month, which was one of more than 22,000 events held across the country. The Mount Gambier morning tea alone raised $5,000. A huge congratulations to Karen Petersen and the organising committee in Mount Gambier! For those of us living in regional Australia, fighting cancer can be particularly challenging, as we don't have the access to the same treatment and services as our city cousins. It's one of the reasons the survival statistics differ between city and country. The further from a metropolitan centre a patient lives the more likely they are to die within five years of a cancer diagnosis. With a population of around 65,000 people, the Limestone Coast has chemotherapy services situated in Mount Gambier, but we don't have radiation therapy, and many patients are forced to make a very difficult choice between travel for the treatment they need or going without it. Thirty per cent of the Australian population live in regional Australia, and 50 per cent will get cancer before the age of 85. It's no wonder that 14.2 per cent of Australian cancer patients who would benefit from radiation don't get access to it. Fighting cancer is hard enough, but for regional patients it's even harder. Hunter Valley: Bus Crash 16 13:34 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson At 11.30 pm on Sunday night 37 people were aboard a bus, after a wedding on what was a magnificent Hunter day at Wandin Valley Estate in Lovedale. I can't stop thinking about those 37 happy souls. Thirty-six of them, including the driver, had been to a wedding. Wandin Valley, for those of us old enough to remember, was named after the TV show A Country Practice because the producer, back in those days, bought a vineyard. Those people travelling on that bus very tragically were involved in an accident, where the bus toppled onto a guardrail. Nine died at the scene and one later in hospital. Fourteen of those people remain in hospital and two are in ICU. The Hunter is a place that sticks together. Deputy Speaker Claydon, with you being the member for Newcastle, I know that I can extend your condolences and my own to our neighbour, friend and colleague Dan Repacholi. This accident happened about 200 metres from the border of our electorates. The driver was from my electorate of Maitland, and I know this will have ripples throughout our community. I want to thank those first responders, who must have gone onto an unspeakable scene. They acted swiftly and professionally. To those families whose lives have been changed, we send you our deepest condolences. Mayo Electorate: Asbestos 16 13:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last Wednesday I attended a memorial service in Mount Compass to remember those who have died from asbestos related diseases. We know asbestos kills. While we banned, in this place, the manufacture, sale and importation of it 20 years ago the legacy of asbestos will be with us for so much longer. Approximately 4,000 Australians die every year from asbestos related diseases and around 700 die to mesothelioma. The memorial was emcee'd by June Taylor, a very familiar name to people on the South Coast, and was organised by Catherine Wegener and Ruth Goddard who have created the Fleurieu Support Group for Asbestos Victims Association. Both Catherine and Ruth lost their husbands to asbestos related diseases. I was struck, on the day, by how many widows were sitting at that lunch. They were women who'd lost their much loved husbands. Those men were going to work and earning a living to support their families and the exposure took their lives prematurely. I'd like to sincerely thank Catherine and Ruth—and June—for their tremendous work in raising awareness about asbestos and for supporting others experiencing grief and loss. Kennedy, Ms Janette (Jan) Mary 16 13:37 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I rise today to celebrate a life well lived and to honour the remarkable contributions of Janette Mary Kennedy—Jan—who passed away on 26 May. Jan made not only an exceptional contribution to the Labor Party but also to women's rights and community health. She was a beacon of inspiration within the Labor Party, tirelessly advocating for the rights and empowerment of women and for all marginalised people. Jan recognised the importance of gender equality not only within our own ranks but also in the broader fabric of society. Her efforts have left an indelible mark on our party and have paved the way for progress in the important area of women's rights and for people like me to be involved in politics. Jan's contributions extended far beyond the party, with her involvement in community health exemplifying her deep commitment to serving those in need. Jan trained as a nurse and midwife and understood the significance of accessible and compassionate health care, particularly for the most vulnerable members of our society. Her tireless work in establishing the Waverley Community Health Centre demonstrated her dedication to those who required support, embodying the essence of community care. Jan's impact on our community both within the Labor Party and beyond was so significant and was so cherished. Let her legacy be a reminder that change is possible and that each of us has the power to create a better world. I extend my sympathies to Cyril, her beloved husband, her children, her grandchildren and her extended family. Vale, Jan Kennedy. Cost of Living 17 13:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne We are in a cost-of-living crisis, but we can't tackle it unless we actually admit what's driving it: corporate greed lifting the prices of everything. Big corporations are making record profits. The two big supermarkets are making record profits, the big energy corporations are making massive profits, and the big banks are making record profits passing on interest rate rises. But what's Labor's solution? Leave it to the Reserve Bank. But the Reserve Bank has only one move. It's sociopathic, and Labor's backing it—whack up interest rates and force people who have just purchased a home and renters to pay even more. This plan will deliberately force over 100,000 more people into unemployment, but it won't tackle corporate profiteering. Accord to Labor's 'leave it to the RBA' plan, rents are going to increase by 10 per cent over the next year and the cost of everything else is going to go up by over five per cent. You can't tackle the cost-of-living crisis without tackling the corporations that are putting up the prices. We need to make these big corporations pay their fair share of tax. We need a proper superprofits tax and a proper mining tax, and we could use the money raised to raise the rate of income support, wipe student debt and freeze rents and mortgages. If we actually tackled corporate profiteering and greed, we could reduce inflation and the cost of living. If the corporations paid their fair share, everyone would be better off. Make the big corporations pay. Words on the Waves Writers Festival 17 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to congratulate Words on the Waves Writers Festival on its third year of operating on the New South Wales Central Coast. This year's line-up enticed avid readers and literature lovers to a range of programs, including author panels, book launches, a family fun day and much more. This year's festival theme was 'the mind swims', and it had people thinking about the human urge to move and explore. People also reflected on how change is the only constant in life. The writers festival not only enriches the Central Coast's cultural landscape but also provides a significant boost for local small businesses. Visitors to the festival then go on to stay in local accommodation and support the local hospitality industry and other small businesses. I would like to thank Words on the Waves Writers Festival co-founders Benny Agius and Jacqui Barton and the following members who ensured this year's festival was such a spectacular success: program director Angela Bennetts, and founding committee members Mandi McIntosh, Margaret Crane, Fiona Lloyd, Raelene Chatten, Marie Davies, Helen Hayden, Clare Keogh, Kirsten Paterson, Kaye Wright and Greg Coleman. I'd also like to thank the board members: Mary Jane House, Sue Beveridge, Cathy Williamson and Lyndal Keevers. Thank you, and I look forward to next year's festival, which I know will be just as full of excitement and enrichment of our cultural landscape as this year's festival was. Braddon Electorate: Leighland Christian School 17 13:42 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon It's with great pride that I inform the House today that the Leighland Christian School in the electorate of Braddon are international champions. The school's Lego robotics team, the Techno Warriors, have just returned from the first Lego League Razorback Open Invitational in the United States. There they competed against the best of the best from across the world over seven different challenges. Leighland's team of robotics superstars won two sections and was placed fourth in another. To put icing on the cake, their robotics teacher and coach, Jacob McNab, was introduced to the member mentor hall of fame. But this small school on the north-west coast of Tasmania isn't done yet. This month the junior team, the Techno Turtles, will head off to the Asia-Pacific open championship to compete against 50 teams from around the world. The team has developed a concept robotics solar panel hydroelectricity-generating turtle that can be launched in local areas during emergency events in order to provide power. My visit to Leighland Christian School reconfirmed what I've already known: that sitting in those classrooms right across those rural and remote areas of the north-west and west coasts and King Island in Tasmania are some of the best, brightest and most grounded kids in the entire world, and all they need is a fair go. ASHA Global Foundation 18 13:43 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I had the pleasure of presenting certificates in recognition of the fantastic work done by ASHA Global Foundation and their community partners towards improving digital literacy among older migrant Australians. An initiative led by Vic and Kavita Narula, ASHA Global Foundation was founded with the aim of ensuring older Australians were not isolated or left behind in the technological revolution. To make this aim a reality, Asha Global Foundation conducts weekly digital literacy classes in my electorate of Holt and across Melbourne free of cost. Their digital literacy training is supported by the eSafety Commissioner's Be Connected program, an Australian government initiative that is delivered by the Good Things Foundation. This program adopts a community centred approach to assist individuals aged 50 years and over who have little or no experience with digital technology. I want to say thank you to the community partners in my electorate of Holt which make AGF's Seniors Digital Literacy programs a success. A huge shout out to Compassionate Hands, Cardinia Senior Citizens Group, Seniors 60 Clyde North and Clyde North Australian Indian Resident Association. Thank you all for making Holt and Australia a better place for our older Australians. I thank the House. Medicare: Mental Health 18 13:45 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I recently had a Year 12 student from Redlands College, Sarah Brittain, join my office for work experience. She has raised an important issue that I'd like to share with the House. Sarah writes: The issue of mental health in our society, especially among the younger generation, needs to be brought to more people's attention. Our current system falls short in providing sufficient support, and I believe that its time people receive the support they need. Through the experiences of family members working in the field, a common issue raised is that the Medicare rebate for mental health services isn't always sufficient. The other issue is the limited number of visits that fail to meet the growing demand. It is important to recognise the value of mental health care and ensure accessible support without financial burdens. The current government's decision to reduce subsidised psychology sessions from 20 to 10 per year needs to be rectified. This change leaves many without the continued essential support, compounding their struggles. At my school amongst some of my close friends, I have witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of mental health issues. Anxiety and depression are becoming more prevalent, especially among my generation. We must create a society that nurtures mental well-being, offers accessible resources and promotes early intervention. We urgently need to address mental health, ensuring an adequate Medicare rebate, reinstating the 20-session allowance, and confronting the prevalence of mental health issues. I'd like to thank Sarah for raising this important issue and the work she's done in my office this fortnight. Medicare 18 13:47 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Growing up there were two quintessential Australian things that my parents treasured most: their Australian citizenship—they framed those certificates, such was the value they saw in them; it meant that they were welcomed in this country and that they belonged here—and their Medicare card. The little green card meant they could see a doctor, go to the hospital and get the help they needed, regardless of their income. Medicare was a big Labor reform that has benefited generations of Australians, cementing universal health care as a feature of modern Australia. It's hard to imagine an Australia without Medicare. And yet, for nine years, those opposite tried their hardest to make that a reality as they eroded our universal healthcare system. Whether it was through a GP tax, by ripping $50 billion out of our public hospitals, or by freezing the GP rebate, they tried to strip away Medicare. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that is now strengthening and boosting Medicare after a decade of neglect. We're providing the largest investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare by tripling the GP incentive for kids and concession card holders. Only Labor can be trusted to strengthen Medicare for all Australians. Energy 18 13:48 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler We heard it here, we heard it there, we heard it everywhere in the election campaign. I'm talking about the commitment from the now Prime Minister Albanese for a reduction in power prices of $275. What do we hear now? Nothing, not a whisper, not a whimper, not a peep, not a peekaboo. And guess why? Because prices are going up and they are going up astronomically. That commitment has been kicked to the curb. We have seen the Australian Bureau of Statistics say that in Brisbane and the south-east corner of Queensland alone, prices went up by more than 30 per cent in just the March quarter. A recent Queensland Competition Authority report says that retail customers of Ergon Energy, who just happens to provide electricity north of Gympie for most of regional Queensland, Tariff 11 will pay $1,926 a year for power, an increase of $429, or 28.7 per cent. What's the big solution from the Palaszczuk government? They are going to spend $14 billion on a pumped hydro system at Borumba, a 40-gig dam at the moment which provides—guess what?—drinking water and irrigation water to deliver 2,000 megawatts for a grand capacity of 24 hours—just 24 hours.That is extraordinary—$14 billion for 24 hours of capacity. God help Queenslanders if it rains, the monsoon comes down, there's a cyclone or it stops blowing, because there will be no power and there will be blackouts. Corangamite Electorate: Education 19 13:50 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Education is the catalyst to a rewarding career and a life well lived. That's why the Albanese government is heavily investing in education in growing regions like mine. In the last two weeks I visited St Catherine of Siena Primary School and Geelong Lutheran College. Each has received more than $3 million in federal funding for learning and sporting facilities. I've also dropped by St Ignatius College to open a $2.1 million learning centre. In visiting these facilities I get to do what I love. As a former teacher I love meeting teachers, because ultimately it is more than the bricks and mortar that delivers a quality education. It is what happens inside schools that counts—the teachers, who work around the clock to give our students a better future. I also get to have enlightening discussions with children. They're open, honest and smart, and they ask the hard conversations, like, 'How are you going to save the planet?' and, 'What do you think about politicians' behaviour in question time?' Our education minister wants to better harness the potential of these young people. To do so we need input from teachers, parents and students: How do we better support teachers? How do we get better outcomes for students? The government review will consider these questions, so get on board, fill out a survey and help improve our education system. Port Hedland, Durack Electorate: Hedland Well Women's Centre 19 13:51 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak about a diverse and economically important town in my electorate, the town of Port Hedland. I would argue it is the economic capital of Australia. Port Hedland is home to Australia's largest bulk export, and I agree with the Pilbara Ports Authority that the port drives the fiscal welfare of our nation. I've visited Port Hedland several times in the last month, and many times over the last 10 years, and as always, I've had a fantastic time engaging with the wonderful community. This dynamic town boasts an impressive level of ethnic diversity, and last week I was thrilled to welcome our newest Australians at the town citizenship ceremony. This is an honour I thoroughly enjoy, and I have always said it has got to be one of the best parts of our job as parliamentarians. For those who choose to call Australia home, I simply say, 'You are very welcome.' I also had the pleasure of attending the Hedland Well Women's Centre community morning tea, where I had the chance to speak to many dedicated local women. The centre, made up of health professionals and volunteers, provides free health and wellbeing services and does an incredible job of supporting women in all aspects of their lives. This centre is a wonderful haven for women young and old and from all corners of the globe who have decided to make a life in Port Hedland. I am disappointed that, due to parliamentary commitments, I will be unable this year to attend their fabulous Pink Pilbara Breakfast, which is this September, but I'm very privileged to be able to be a sponsor. I'm sure it will be an event to remember. Well done to the centre for playing an integral— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. The member for Canberra. Canberra Electorate: Pink Hope 19 13:53 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about the important work of Pink Hope, an incredible national organisation based in my electorate that supports people with a high risk of hereditary breast, ovarian or prostate cancer. I recently met with Robyn Smith from the organisation to talk about their work. One in 400 people currently face this risk of hereditary cancer, particularly those carrying the BRCA gene. Pink Hope is there to help people understand and reduce that risk, providing evidence based information, support and advocacy. People faced with finding they are at risk of dealing with these difficult decisions, including about surgery to reduce their risk, can go to Pink Hope to help navigate that difficult path. There are currently approximately 20,000 BRCA carriers in Australia, meaning that in each of our electorates there are around 280 individuals carrying the gene mutation, with most of them not being aware. Carriers will have a 50 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they turn 70 and a 30 per cent chance of developing ovarian cancer. Currently, only around 4,000 Australians undergo publicly funded genetic testing each year. Knowing your genetic status can have a huge impact on your treatment options and surgery decisions. I congratulate Pink Hope on their work to break the cycle of hereditary cancer in Australian families. They are making a difference a real difference every day to create a brighter, healthier future for us all. Grey Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 20 13:54 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'm pleased to report that, after a 72-year hiatus, the King's Birthday honours have returned to the electorate of Grey. There are no fewer than five wonderful residents who have given their lifetime to their fields. Congratulations to Anthea Pavy AM. Anthea spent 17 years as the CEO of Uniting Country SA, based in Port Pirie. She has spent a lifetime helping people less fortunate than she is and has been determined to help children wherever she can. Michele Smith has spent the last 30 years in health administration. She first came to my notice when she came to my local town as the DON. She has risen to such lofty heights as Chair of the Governing Board of Eyre Far North Health Network and member of the Statewide Clinical Support Services Committee. She has a list of achievements as long as my arm. I congratulate Michele. Pam Ashman in Port Pirie has given her life to netball as an administrator over 30 years. For more than 20 years she has been a life member of the organisation. Peter Blacker was the member for Flinders, a National Party member, for 20 years, and I congratulate him. Gerard Quigley is a long-term serving doctor in Cummins. Gerard came to Cummins with his wife 30 years ago. They will be in parliament later today, because Jo-Anne is here as the chair of the Eyre Peninsula council at the local government week. (Time expired) Woods, Constable Anthony 20 13:56 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Today I stand before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a heavy heart, burdened by the tragic loss of a young police officer who gave his life in the line of duty, Constable Anthony Woods. Anthony, just 28 years old, served the community with bravery and dedication, and we mourn his untimely passing. As a former police officer, I understand and have lived through the daily risks our brave men and women are facing in the line of duty. Police officers face many challenges in doing their job, putting their lives on the line to serve and protect our community 24-hours a day, seven days a week. The loss of Anthony, who embodied the very essence of our profession, weighs heavily on my heart. To Anthony's wife, friends and colleagues I offer my sincere and deepest condolences. I know the pain you feel and I mourn with you. Anthony's sacrifice will forever be etched in our memories, and we stand beside you in this dark hour. Vale, Anthony. May you rest in peace. Albanese Government 20 13:57 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Australians are poorer under Labor. The Prime Minister promised before the election that he would deliver a $275 reduction in power prices. What do we see, Mr Speaker? We see prices up by at least 30 per cent. The Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be cheaper mortgages. What do we see, Mr Speaker? We see, for the average mortgage in Australia, $22,000 higher interest repayments now, after a year of Labor—$22,000, nearly $2000 a month, when we were promised cheaper mortgages from Labor. We see uncontrolled inflation and a Treasurer who comes to this parliament every day and says, 'We've done nothing to make it worse.' He doesn't even try to argue that Labor has tried to make inflation better. And that's what's driving mortgage rates for the average Australian. In this parliament today we see nothing from Labor to address the cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis being faced by Australians. We see dwelling approvals down, we see the number of first home buyers down and we see the number of dwellings being built down—all under the watch of the Labor Party. What do we see here today? We see no answers; just a plan for 1.5 million more migrants, with nowhere for those migrants to live. The coalition calls on the government to develop an economic plan to help Australians who are hurting. (Time expired) Health Care 20 13:59 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I've been in this place for a little time now, and since I've been here I've always been passionate in raising the issue of primary health care; in particular, Medicare and making sure that people in our communities have access to GP services when they need them. Probably one of the hardest visits I've ever done as a local MP is to go to a local clinic in my electorate. It has a patient load of about 20,000. It's the largest clinic we have. They had the tough decision last year of moving to a private billing model. It meant that a concession card holder would have to pay $69 and get a Medicare rebate but be out of pocket by about $30 to $39, depending. That's tough. Probably the hardest thing I saw was somebody who was there on a disability pension to whom they said, 'Sorry, we can't book your next appointment until you pay that gap fee.' They were like: 'How am I going to pay that? I need to book to see my GP.' So I can tell you how excited I was to meet with them on Friday to discuss our changes that are in the budget—the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive and what it would mean for their clinic. What's really exciting is that what the GPs at this clinic will get is about $72 per visit. It knocks out the need for charging a gap fee at this centre. I really want to thank the Treasurer. I want to thank the minister for health. I want to thank the government for doing this. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 21 CONDOLENCES Hunter Valley: Bus Crash 21 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Today we pause as a parliament to mark a loss beyond words, a tragedy beyond comprehension and an unfairness beyond understanding. What happened at Greta in the Hunter Valley was a cruel end to what should have been one of the happiest of days. We all know that joy of going to a wedding, and so many of us know that feeling of getting on a bus with fellow guests, partly as a chance to share the excitement but partly because the bride and groom organised that in order to keep their guests safe. We know that feeling of getting together with friends and family to celebrate the happy couple—to celebrate the love between two people and their declaration of spending a lifetime together and around those friends and family, gathering around them and holding them at the heart of what is their local community. A wedding is about both the seriousness and the joy of commitment. It's about a beautiful new beginning, and every wedding is filled with such a sense of possibility about the future. It makes what happened on Sunday night all the more cruel. We hold on to the memory of all those whose lives were tragically cut short. Our hearts go out to all the survivors and to all the loved ones who now have this most terrible of burdens. Our thoughts and love are with the newlyweds, who will never know the easy joy of an anniversary. May everyone around them somehow find a way to lift them up. We think, too, of the tight-knit community that is the Hunter. They are hurting so badly right now. I do want, on behalf of the parliament, to give our thanks to the first responders. We again have been reminded by those who arrived at this terrible scene that we cannot imagine what they were confronted with or what they had to deal with, but, as they always do, they did their job. They did their best looking after people, trying to save lives and to assist in the recovery at what was clearly just a horrific scene. So to them but, as well, to those who continued to assist in the following hours and days—the doctors and nurses, the police and emergency services, those who transported the injured to the hospital, the counsellors and those on Lifeline who undoubtedly have received so many calls from people affected by this tragedy—I say, once again, thank you. I also say thank you to those people who will continue to assist in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. The hard truth is that the mental and emotional scars of this will not fade with time. They will live with people forever. We have a responsibility to make sure that, when the spotlight leaves, the care doesn't, for the people who have witnessed this and for the people who have experienced this tragedy firsthand. To everyone who has been touched by this tragedy: I do want you to know that Australia wraps our arms around you. Australians' hopes and Australians' prayers are with you at what is an extraordinarily difficult and traumatic time for our community. 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt words and I join with him in reflecting on the tragedy of Sunday night. Since the news of this horrific event broke, the outpouring of our national grief has been palpable—our heartbreak for those who lost their lives, our heartache for the families and friends whose lives will be forever altered by this disaster and our heartfelt hopes for those injured to make a speedy recovery. Our profound national sadness, which surrounds this terrible event, comes from a deep human empathy. A wedding day, as the Prime Minister rightly points out, is one of the most joyous occasions we know. But the happiness of this wedding day has been eclipsed by a dreadful, dreadful event. Life's terrible moments are all the more tragic when they sit adjacent to life's most beautiful moments, and we empathise with those affected all the more. For so many of us, who've been passengers on a bus journeying home from a wonderful wedding, we can picture how those aboard that fateful bus would've been fondly reminiscing about the evening's festivities—the stories, the speeches, the music, the dancing and the smiles of the bride and groom. What all those involved are going through, what they will have to endure, is simply awful. As news of this disaster spread around the nation, I'm sure that, for so many Australians, their phone calls with family would have felt even more precious. Their embraces with loved ones would've been a little tighter. Their time together with those dearest to them would've been all that more special. This tragedy reinforces to all of us to never take our precious relationships for granted, to value the moments we have with family and with friends and to always cherish those closest to us because life can be unpredictably cruel. I echo the Prime Minister's thanks to our first responders, whose courage and composure is nothing short of heroic. We often comment in this parliament, following a tragedy of this nature, about the fact the first responders run into harm's way when the instinct of most Australians would be to run from it. Australians have heard the audio of the ambulance officer calling for help in a calm and measured way—a reflection of his training—not really giving rise to the pressure that he was under and those around him were feeling. I want to thank all of those in our hospitals and our healthcare system who will support those affected over the coming days, months and years. In moments such as these, our expression of thoughts, prayers and hopes to those affected can feel powerless. But, on the contrary, there is power in those sentiments because they show those affected directly and indirectly that we care for you. We are here for you. It's our promise to you that you will never have to travel the road of tragedy alone. We bind ourselves to you in this duty, driven by the empathy and love we have for you as fellow citizens. Wherever and whenever you need strength and support, you'll find it unconditionally. We send our heartfelt sense of grief for those in the Hunter region at the moment, as the Prime Minister pointed out, who are doing it particularly tough—those at the wedding venue, those who were involved in photographs and those who were involved in preparations for other weddings over the course of that weekend—and make sure that we promise, as a country, to provide support to those in their darkest hour. 14:08 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter on indulgence—I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind words. I rise to address the tragic incident that occurred in my community on Sunday night, the tragic bus crash in Branxton-Greta, that has left us deeply saddened and shaken. My heart goes out to the victims, their families and all of those affected by this terrible event. On Sunday night, shortly before midnight, a bus carrying 35 people overturned whilst approaching a roundabout on Wine Country Drive near the small towns of Branxton and Greta in my electorate. Ten of the bus passengers have passed away and 14 passengers are still currently in hospital, with two in intensive care. The passengers were travelling back to their accommodation, having just celebrated a wedding. Loss of life is always painful, but the abruptness of this event makes this tragedy particularly shocking and difficult to process. First and foremost, I want to offer a huge thank you to the first responders who attended the crash site on Sunday night. They arrived at a confronting scene and worked hard into the night to save lives and minimise injuries. They are heroes. I would like to thank the New South Wales ambulance, the Branxton Greta Fire and Rescue New South Wales team and the police officers from across the Hunter Valley Police District, as well as many other first responders who attended the scene on Sunday night. I would also like to thank staff at the hospitals across the Hunter and New South Wales who are caring for the hospitalised. You are not only in the minds of the people across the Hunter but also those of people across the entire nation. Our community is in the early stages of grieving, and my heart goes out to everyone affected by this tragic event. Either directly or indirectly, we are all impacted by this tragedy. Being a wedding, victims of this bus crash were not just from the Hunter; victims came from all other parts of Australia as well. The grieving is not just happening in my electorate but all over this country. The outpouring of support from across Australia is a tremendous resource for everyone affected. We know that we are not alone, and I would like to thank all of my friends in this place from both sides of the chamber who have reached out to me over the last few days. We know we are in the thoughts and prayers of so many people. My office has received offers of accommodation, transport and other practical resources for the loved ones of victims who have had to make their way up to the Hunter and the hospitals in the wider area. One of the many things that makes the Hunter special is that we are a tightknit community, and events like this bring us even closer together. This event has brought out the best in our community. I am so grateful to see that; it's a source of comfort for so many. But this is a tough time for everyone; it's okay not to be okay, and support is available for you if you need it. Local emergency management committees for Singleton council and Cessnock City Council have been set up, and these committees have support resources available, including drop-in clinics staffed with mental health workers. If you're any having trouble getting access to any of the support you need, another option is just to reach out to my office. Please do not hesitate to ask for support if you need it. We'll get through this together. As a community, we'll mourn, undoubtedly, the lives we have lost, but we must strive to heal and rebuild. As a community, we will come together and support one another during this difficult time. Whether it will be through organising counselling services, fundraising efforts or simply just being there for each other, we can provide strength and solidarity in need to overcome this tragedy. Our hearts are heavy as we mourn the lives that were lost. Let us remember the victims with love and respect, and honour their memory by committing ourselves to creating a safer and more compassionate community. Together, we can emerge from the dark of this moment stronger and more united than ever before. My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of the victims of this terrible event. No words can adequately convey the pain and grief you are all experiencing right now. Please know that our community stands beside you in this time of immense sorrow, and we offer our support in any way we can. By looking out for each other and by coming together we will be okay. In memory of the victims, please take the time today to call loved ones who are far away, to hug someone that you love and remember just how precious life is. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 As a mark of respect for those who have lost their lives, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— MINISTRY 23 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 23 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Social Services will be absent from question time this week. The Minister for Education will answer questions on her behalf. I inform the House that the Minister for Skills and Training will be absent from question time this week. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for the Arts will answer questions on his behalf. I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for International Development and the Pacific will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living, Energy 23 14:15 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the cost-of-living crisis is the biggest issue facing Australians today. Doug lives on the Gold Coast and his electricity bill has increased by more than 53 per cent from last year by $308. Electricity prices are continuing to spiral out of control under Labor with new increases of up to 25 per cent for households from 1 July. Why are the Prime Minister's broken promises making it harder for middle Australians? 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question, and I hope that the member for Moncrieff tells Doug why she voted against energy price relief, why she voted against one of the five million families that will get relief on their power bills, the one million small businesses that will get relief on their power bills, and the 111,000 households that will pay less to make their houses more energy efficient and lower their energy bills. They're just some of the measures that we've put in place. More than 1.2 million families will pay less for child care from 1 July, and 11 million Australians will pay less to see a doctor as a result of our tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. In the first four months of this year, Australians paid $76 million less for their prescriptions because of our cheaper medicines plan. And because of our budget, another six million Australians will pay less for their medicines, a measure that those opposite are once again saying no to. Four hundred and eighty thousand Australians will pay absolutely nothing for TAFE in dealing with the skills crisis; 3.7 million small businesses will be able to access an expanded instant asset— Mr Wallace 265967 What about that $22,000 in additional mortgage repayments? The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause for a moment. Order! The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Ms Bell 282981 On relevance, Mr Speaker. It was about election broken promises. A $275 reduction in power bills was promised. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the question went to cost of living, it went to energy prices and it went to millions of Australians. The Prime Minister's in order. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about a number of issues. It also went to the Prime Minister's commitments and promises and a question around making it difficult for middle Australians. The Prime Minister is giving examples about why it is and answering that part of the question. So, whilst he's talking about cost-of-living issues, he's being relevant, and I bring him back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Nothing says middle Australia to me more than aged-care workers, and 250,000 of them are going to get a pay increase as a direct result of this government's commitment, a commitment we took to the election, a commitment that arose from the royal commission into aged care, and just one of the many measures that those opposite didn't act on. We provided $11.3 billion in the budget to make sure that that was delivered. Last week, of course, again, we saw people on the minimum wage get a pay increase. It's something that we know those opposite are horrified by, and, during the election campaign, they said the sky would fall in if people got a dollar an hour extra. Well, we on this side of the House understand the cost-of-living pressures which are there. We on this side of the House are taking practical measures, which were there in our budget, and those on that side of the House stand in the way or try to do their best to block every single positive measure that is brought before this parliament. Community Health and Hospitals Program 24 14:20 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What were the findings of the Australian National Audit Office report into the administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program? How is the Albanese Labor government acting on the recommendations of the Audit Office? 14:20 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Pearce for her question. She's right. Last week the Australian National Audit Office report into the Morrison government's community health and hospitals fund was tabled in this parliament. It's the latest in a long line of scandals around programs run by the former government that breached the most basic principles of public administration. This program allocated $2 billion of taxpayer funds to more than 170 projects. Mostly, there was no process seeking expressions of interest or making a formal assessment of the suitability of those projects. Indeed, the Audit Office found that 'the department was forced to monitor the media to know which projects had been selected'. Of the 63 major projects funded, the Audit Office found that only two were rated as highly suitable—only two out of 63. The Audit Office found that the administration of more than 100 grants under the program was 'not appropriate and involved deliberate breaches of the relevant legal instruments'. One of those grants was to the now infamous Esther Foundation in Western Australia—a foundation that former Prime Minister Morrison gushed had 'completely, completely captured' his heart, but which has been the subject of complaints of psychological and emotional abuse, among other things, to WA health authorities dating back to 2018. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting across the chamber. Mr BUTLER HWK This grant was ultimately approved without a financial viability assessment, audited financial statements or even legal authority in place to make the grant in the first place. That wasn't the only grant that this foundation received in the lead up to the 2019 election, of course. They also received $630,000 for security, signed off under the now Leader of the Opposition's Safer Communities Fund, which, of course, was the subject of a separate but equally scathing Audit Office report. We know on this side, now more than ever, every single dollar spent in health is precious. I'm glad that my department has accepted each and every one of the Audit Office recommendations. I've directed them to examine, line by line, each of the remaining projects under this program which have not yet been fully acquitted, but the stain from this long line of funding scandals—this, car park rorts, sport rorts and so many others—won't be washed so easily from the Liberal and National parties. Members of Parliament: Staff 24 14:23 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office become aware of allegations concerning sexual assault as broadcast by The Project in 2021? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The Leader of the Opposition asks a question about when did the Prime Minister's office know about this, and, indeed, that is the question. When did the Prime Minister's office know? There was, of course, an inquiry into what the Prime Minister's office knew and when and who was told, and we still have never seen the Gaetjens inquiry. We know, indeed, that the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, but I'm surprised, because he knows that he informed the Prime Minister's office days before there was any public announcement of this. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 If someone interjects one more time on my right they will be removed from the chamber immediately. I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance. This is a tricky answer. The Prime Minister was asked a question. I asked with respect to your office—I framed it in that way. If he wants to play these silly, juvenile games, the Australian public— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order. He will cease interjecting immediately. The member for Deakin is getting close to being warned. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW On the point of order: the question from the Leader of the Opposition was completely in order because it asked about the Prime Minister's office. If he wants to ask a different question to get a different answer, then page 555 of Practice will tell him how to do that. The Prime Minister is simply answering the question he was asked. What the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed about is that he couldn't work out how to get a question in order. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right! The House will come to order so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B On the point of order and responding to what the Leader of the House has said: the question from the Leader of the Opposition clearly referred to the Prime Minister. That's the Prime Minister of the day; the Prime Minister today; this man sitting here. He knows what he needs to know to answer. All kinds of sneakiness and trickiness does not get around what he's supposed to be answering. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to deal with this matter before I return to the Prime Minister. As members know, including the manager and the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister cannot be asked, under standing orders—and the manager is correct: page 553 to page 555 of Practice makes clear that ministers or prime ministers cannot be asked questions about their actions in a former role or as a private member before becoming a minister. The question was lineball in terms of what the Prime Minister is responsible for. Moving forward, questions will be ruled out of order in terms of actions or issues before ministers or prime ministers came into these roles. The Prime Minister is answering the question. I'm going to listen carefully to his answer to make sure he's being relevant to the standing orders but also being relevant to the question. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI I thank you for your instruction to the House. I seek clarity in relation to the points that you've just made. I understand the standing orders in Practice, but my clarification of you is to ask: given all of that, is it still open to the Prime Minister to answer honestly and openly the question that was put to him? The SPEAKER 53517 The question, as I explained, was in order; lineball. I'm going to listen carefully. He's one minute into his answer about the important, serious issues that were raised. I'll listen to him carefully. If he strays or if he is not in line with the standing orders, he will be brought back into order. I give him the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about what the Prime Minister's office knew. The truth is that that goes to the heart of what this issue is. The heart of this issue goes to an alleged sexual assault by a Liberal staffer against another Liberal staff member in a Liberal minister's office in 2019, metres away from the then Liberal Prime Minister's office. When these allegations became public, two years after the Morrison government became aware of the security breach, the truth is that it sent shockwaves not just through the parliament but through the nation, as it was the first step in exposing a problematic culture in what should be Australia's safest building, the one right here. Scott Morrison had an inquiry led by Phil Gaetjens, his former chief of staff, who was then the head of his department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, into who knew what and when in his own office. That report has never been released. What we do know is that the Leader of the Opposition informed the Prime Minister's office prior to that information becoming public. But he didn't reveal that until 10 days after news.com.au published this information at 8 am on 15 February, and The Project aired an interview with Ms Brittany Higgins that evening. For 10 days the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about what he knew and about the fact that he informed the Prime Minister's office on that day. Housing Australia Future Fund 25 14:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund help ease the housing shortage and strengthen the economy? What is the impact of delays? 14:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to my friend the member for Bendigo for her question. This government understands that one of the biggest challenges in our economy which we are addressing is housing supply. That's because a shortage of homes is pushing up rents in our economy in unacceptable ways and adding to our inflation challenge. That's why building more homes is central to our first two budgets and central to our economic plan as well. The Housing Australia Future Fund is an important part of our efforts, and we need to see it pass through the Senate as soon as we can. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a $10 billion fund to build 30,000 social and affordable homes in the first five years. It's part of our broad and ambitious housing policy over the course of two budgets. In October we had a National Housing Accord as well as another $575 million under the NHFIC to unlock an additional 5½ thousand new dwellings. In the May budget, we had new tax breaks to increase the supply of rental homes built to rent; we had an increase to the NHFIC cap by $2 billion to support the construction of more homes; we had increased eligibility for the first home buyer guarantee and the regional first home buyer guarantee; and we had extra funding for the states and territories via the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, in addition to the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in around three decades. The Housing Australia Future Fund is not the only part of our housing policy, but it's absolutely an important part of our housing policy. So much of what we are doing addresses or responds to consideration of issues raised with us in good faith in the course of recent weeks and months. I pay tribute to the housing minister for her work with crossbench colleagues. We have low expectations of those opposite. They made a mess of housing, and now they refuse to help clean it up. That's standard across the economy. We need better here from the Greens. It's time to end the ambit claims and political games being played on housing in the Senate. I say to the Greens: don't put the politics of product differentiation ahead of a policy outcome which would make a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable people in our country. Don't do in the Senate what you do in your electorates, which is to give speeches about social housing but then oppose it when it really counts. If the Greens want more social housing, voting against a $10 billion housing fund is a pretty bizarre way to go about it. I say to the Greens and I say to everyone in the Senate: if you want more social and affordable housing, it's time to actually vote for it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Local Government Association 26 14:33 The SPEAKER 53517 As members would know, this week the meeting of the Australian Local Government Association will be gathering in Canberra. I am pleased to inform the House, as I will be doing each day, that present in the gallery today are representatives from the Victorian and Queensland shire councils. We warmly welcome you to parliament. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pharmacies 26 14:33 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I support consumer access to cheaper medicines. However, many of my Mayo pharmacists are genuinely worried that 60-day dispensing without adequate compensation will leave them to lay off staff, reduce services or close. I ask the minister: what modelling has been done on the impacts on regional pharmacies? Will the minister assure the House that no pharmacy will be forced to lay off staff or close as a result? 14:34 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Mayo for her question, and for her engagement in a number of discussions about the impact of this policy on community pharmacies in her electorate in the Adelaide Hills and a bit beyond that, and also on her constituents. We went to the last election promising cheaper medicines, and we're very proud of the record of delivery we already have on making that happen in 12 short months. But we recognise there is more to do, which is why, unashamedly, we accepted the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in the budget to move to a 60-day dispensing limit for certain common medicines that are used for chronic disease. This is a common practice around the world and recognises the changing nature of patient profiles. Thirty-day dispensing makes eminent sense in a patient profile which sees people get single bouts of an infectious disease, a single dispensing of a prescription and then they're better. It doesn't make as much sense when people are on the same medicines for years or even decades. Most obviously, this is going to be good for the hip pockets of patients—six million patients across the country. It's also going to be very good for their health, because we know from evidence overseas that in other countries which have adopted this, the most likely time people go off their medicines is at script renewal time. In those jurisdictions that have adopted 60- or even 90-day dispensing— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting or will be warned. Mr HWK medicine compliance lifts by around 20 per cent. That's why this is supported by doctor groups, by patient groups and by other groups, including in rural— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause and I'll hear from the Leader of the Nationals. Mr Littleproud 265585 On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific, about modelling and if the minister undertook any modelling. He's doing everything he can but answer the question. He's putting people's lives at risk— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The Leader of the Nationals is warned! You raise a point of order; you do not continue with your argument. If you interject one more time you will be removed from the chamber, it is highly disorderly. The SPEAKE 53517 The Minister for Cyber Security is getting close to being warned as well. The question was about cheaper medicines, about pharmacies and about modelling and the impacts. I will give the minister the opportunity to conclude his answer. Mr BUTLER HWK Thank you. In addition to the hip pocket benefits, the health benefits and the freeing up of millions of GP consults, there's also the improved convenience for people who live in rural communities. I live within about 100 metres of a pharmacy, but people who live in rural Australia have to travel vast distances to reach their pharmacy. That's why this measure has been supported by the College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the Rural Doctors Association and the National Rural Health Alliance. To the last part of the member's question: of course we are committed to the viability of the community pharmacy sector, which is why we have committed to fully reinvest all of the savings that we make here. The most substantial focus of us in designing that reinvestment package is the impact, particularly, on small rural pharmacies. We've had a couple of good discussions on this, the member for Mayo and I. We are doubling the rural maintenance allowance, which is, essentially, a payment that rural pharmacies receive simply to stay open. That will have differential impacts, depending on which part of rural Australia they live in—like the member for Maranoa, for example. There are areas where pharmacies will receive an increase from $40,000 in their allowance to $90,000—a 120 per cent increase in the payments they receive simply to remain open. We're still consulting about the final design of the package and I look forward to further discussions. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland on a point of order? Mr Chester IPZ I'd like to move an extension of time to allow the minister to actually talk about the modelling as well. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded his answer; you need to do that while he's speaking. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right: if this level of interjection continues there will be a general warning issued. People warned so far are the Leader of the Nationals. I will hear the next question, from the member for Hawke. Economy 27 14:39 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Prime Minister. What are the Albanese Labor government's plans for economic growth and security, and to ensure that Australia is well placed to seize the opportunities in front of us? 14:39 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hawke for his question. I spoke at CEDA today, which was a conference being held here at Parliament House talking about the challenges that are there in the global economy and about Australia's opportunity to seize the advantages that we have going forward. We know that international inflation is causing major pressure on households, including here in Australia. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Indeed, in all of the Anglo countries interest rates are higher—in the UK, the US, New Zealand and Canada, for example—than they are here in Australia. But we know that people are under real pressure. So the task of government is to look after those Australians who are doing it tough, to help people under pressure here and now, but also to not take our eye off the future—how we take advantage of the opportunities which are there before Australia and, indeed, the opportunities that there where we need to break new ground. We need to attract new sources of international investment. We need to diversify our future exports, and the government has been working on that with countries like India and Indonesia and other agreements that have been put in place. We need to boost the skills of our workforce. That's why we have fee-free TAFE making a difference and 20,000 additional university places. We need to build greater resilience in our supply chains, because we know that the Reserve Bank governor has identified that as a big pressure which is there. We need to move more of our businesses up the international value chain, and that's what the National Reconstruction Fund is about: helping existing industries to boost their productivity and to boost their investment but also the creation of new industries, particularly those that will benefit from the clean energy transformation that is occurring. We need also to support the full, equal, respectful and overdue participation of women in the economy. One of the things that child care is about is boosting participation but also boosting productivity. We are seeing some positive results: the most jobs created in the first year of any government in Australian history; record levels of participation, including a record number of women in full-time work; and wages growing at the fastest rate in a decade, with real wages growth forecast for next year. We're proud of those achievements. but we're certainly not resting on them, because we know that after a wasted decade there is not a day to waste. We need to seize the opportunities which are there. My government is determined to do just that. Members of Parliament: Staff 28 14:42 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, has Senator Gallagher misled the Senate? 14:42 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler No. Housing 28 14:42 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund's guarantee funding stream complement the Albanese Labor government's ambitious housing agenda, and what is standing in the way? 14:43 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do want to thank the member for Holt for that important question. I know that she is very concerned about her constituents dealing with housing challenges in her electorate and, of course, those in this place that are taking seriously the housing challenges right across the country, whether it be for renters, for buyers or for those trying to find a safe, affordable place to call home. Indeed, we did inherit significant housing challenges after little action from those opposite, and we've been working incredibly hard to try and turn that around. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause for a moment. The member for Deakin is now warned. So that means, if you interject one more time while the minister is speaking, you'll be removed from the chamber. I give the minister the call. Ms COLLINS HWM We are trying to turn this around, but it will take coordinated action and, indeed, significant investments. Our ambitious housing agenda is ambitious because it needs to be. We're investing more than $8 billion in the coming year on housing and homelessness services. It's why we unlocked $575 million immediately to help social and affordable rental housing get on the ground. We have homes under construction today right across the country today, including some homes in my home state that will be taking tenants in coming weeks. That's why we're working with state and territory governments to deliver tens of thousands of new rental homes through the Housing Accord and the $1.7 billion through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement for the coming year. Our budget, as you've heard from the Treasurer, did make changes to build to rent, and the $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental homes, and the largest boost to Commonwealth rental assistance in more than 30 years. We've also helped more than 50,000 Australians into home ownership over the past 12 months. We're working right across the housing spectrum. The member for Holt also asked whether the Housing Australia Future Fund could be relied upon to provide a predictable and perpetual stream of funding that this country needs for housing, and, indeed, it can. All of the experts agree that one of the best ways to provide certainty for ongoing Commonwealth investment is for the establishment of a dedicated future fund, like the Medical Research Future Fund, like drought relief. Social housing is just the same. But it's not just the experts who support this. Those opposite did exactly this when they were in office. Indeed, most of the future funds were under the Liberal government, but they're not the only ones who support future funds. Back in 2012, the now Leader of the Greens party moved, in the House, to establish a future fund. He said: … I do believe the Future Fund has shown that it is possible for such a fund to function effectively and with fairly wide support in Australia. I agree with him. I do agree. A future fund is a good idea to fund important social infrastructure, like housing. Sadly, this has become all about the politics. And it shouldn't be. This is not an opportunity for doorknocking. It's not an opportunity for campaigning. It's about people on the ground, people that need homes the most. We're going to continue to stand up for people that need the homes, and the Senate should support the bill. Members of Parliament: Staff 29 14:46 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to her recent interviews on Channel 7's Sunrise. Was the minister or her office aware, prior to 15 February 2021, of the allegations aired on The Project that night? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House is seeking the call. Mr Burke DYW I refer to pages 554 and 555 of Practice. There are a number of occasions, and we've been through this a lot over the years and there are many precedents under Speaker Smith, where, if a question is asked about someone that goes to a period prior to them holding the portfolio, the first question that can only be asked is to refer to the quotation where as a minister they have reference back to it and to ask whether that is correct. Simply referring to it and then asking a different question—certainly, in our whole time in opposition, that never got it over the line. The first question always had to be providing the quotation exactly in line with that precedent, asking whether that was accurate and, then, subsequent questions could come based on the answer the minister had then given. That's the way it's worked here the whole way through. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Practice is very clear at page 555: … where Ministers have made statements either inside or outside the House about matters that may concern their actions before becoming a Member and/or a Minister, questions have been permitted on those statements. The question was, very specifically, in relation to quite extensive statements the minister who's received the question made about this matter on Sunrise on Monday and, indeed, prior to that. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for McEwen will not interject. I just want to be clear on this point of Practice. Questions of this nature are problematic because, as members know, standing orders are clear that ministers can only be asked about questions about which they are currently responsible for. Whilst the deputy leader did frame the question around media statements and comments that were made, I want to be clear, and the minister has indicated she's happy to take the question, moving forward, that members can only ask questions about issues, in the statement, around page 555, 'where ministers have made statements either inside or outside the House about matters that may concern their actions before becoming a member and a minister', that questions have been permitted on these statements, twice. I'm going to allow the minister to be careful with her answer to make sure she's conforming with the standing orders but also in making it relevant to the question regarding her statement, not regarding anything before she was a minister but regarding her statements as a minister. I give her the call. 14:50 Ms 83M Sydney PLIBERSEK (—) (): I 100 per cent stand by what I said on Monday, and I 100 per cent stand by what I have done at every stage. I'll tell you what really shocks me and what really disappointments me about this is that, once again, we are missing the point here. A young woman who worked in this place has made a serious allegation that she was sexually assaulted in her workplace. She has made serious allegations that it was not properly investigated or dealt with— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Newcastle. The deputy leader, on a point of order? Ms Ley 00AMN The question was within the standing orders. The minister indicated her willingness to answer the question. The point of order now is on relevance. The direct question was: was the minister or her office aware prior to 15 February 2021 of the allegations aired on The Project that night? So, if she is answering the question, she needs to answer the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The deputy leader will resume her seat. For clarity for the deputy leader, if that were the question, it would have been ruled out of order. Moving forward, because you're asking a question about a decision or an action that was taken before she became a minister. Your question was framed around her media interview. That's why it was permitted under the standing orders. You can only ask the Prime Minister or ministers questions about what they've been responsible for since they've become Prime Minister or a minister. So, the minister is being relevant. I'm going to listen carefully to what she says to make sure she is within standing orders. So far, she is. I'll give her the call. She has two minutes remaining. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me if I stand by what I said on Monday, and I do. I'll tell you why I do. Because it shocks me that, in this place today, we have these sorts of questions when, what the issue here is, a young woman who worked in this place has made a serious allegation that she complains and has further alleged that her complaint was not dealt with appropriately by her employer. You bet I asked questions; you bet I took it seriously. Would I do the same again? I 100 per cent would. There is a reason that only 13 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to police in this country. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for North Sydney, on a point of order? Ms Tink 300124 It's on standing order 91, which is about disorderly conduct. This is a conversation that is highly emotive, and there are questions to be answered here, but I do not think it's appropriate for any member of this House to be yelling across the chamber at another member to just simply 'shut up'. I don't think that's appropriate. If I could call the House back to order and ask that that be addressed. The SPEAKER 53517 Has the minister concluded her answer? Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Yes. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lalor is on her feet. The member for Lalor will resume her seat for a moment. The House will come to order. I agree there is far too much noise, particularly regarding this subject. So I'm going to ask all members to reflect on that point, and I will hear from the deputy leader on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN It's on your ruling, Mr Speaker. The minister's non-answer to the question relates to your ruling. I want to ask to your ruling and quote from practice: where ministers have made statements either inside or outside the House about matters that may concern their action before becoming a minister, questions have been permitted on those statements. I am not sure what in your ruling narrows the answer that the minister was entitled to give so that she could not address the question I was asking her. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded her answer, but I'll hear from the Leader of the House on this matter. Mr Burke DYW Just to the point of order, because there's no doubt this issue will arise again at other times—it has over the last 10 years. The key point is the final two words that were just read out by the deputy leader, which is about questions having been permitted on 'those statements'. The question can only be asked about the statement that has been made while the person was a minister. The 53517 Just so everyone is clear if there are going to be further questions— Ms Ley 00AMN It says before they were a minister. The SPEAKER 53517 Just to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I'm happy to go through this with her after question time if that assists as well: questions can be asked of a minister. The point of Practice is about statements that they've made as a minister regarding another issue. Whatever the minister may or may not have said on that interview, you can ask questions about. Mr Fletcher L6B Just to be clear on this point: what the minister said in her interview on Monday went specifically to the question of who had known what prior to the episode being broadcast. I'd suggest to you that the deputy leader is entirely within the standing orders in the question she's asking. The SPEAKER 53517 That's why it was allowed. That's correct. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been allowed. We will move forward. I give the call to the member for Lalor. Commonwealth Procurement 30 14:56 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of the serious findings of the Watt review, what information can the minister provide about procurement investigations and tainted contracts? 14:56 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong The findings of Dr Watt's review of procurement practices under the previous coalition government are extremely troubling. The review examined 95 contracts awarded to de facto Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 clients, and it identified irregularities in 19 of those 95 contracts. In other words, about one in five of the contracts were found to be questionable. As we know, a common ingredient in this was the former member for Fadden, Stuart Robert. Just last week, in a critical report from the Auditor-General, Stuart Robert's name again popped up, this time in relation to a procurement for the permissions capability system. For the benefit of the House: on 17 October 2020, Home Affairs commenced a new procurement process for the broader permissions capability system that was to extend beyond visas, to citizenship, customs, functions and personnel security clearances. The announcement was via a joint media release issued by the then Acting Minister for Immigration, Alan Tudge; and NDIS government services minister Stuart Robert. However, at this time, Stuart Robert appears to have had no official responsibility, portfolio or otherwise, related to the project, but he's on the press release. Then, on 15 April 2021, ExCo signed off on the then prime minister Scott Morrison's transfer of responsibility of the Digital Transformation Agency from Minister Linda Reynolds to—guess who? Minister Stuart Robert. Then, on 13 July 2001, Stuart Robert met with Accenture. They were subsequently awarded a contract that the ANAO states would have cost $111 million. The Auditor-General has found that Stuart Robert's meeting with Accenture was contrary to probity plan and protocols. At page 44: the minister held a meeting with personnel from the preferred tenderer before the commencement of contract negotiations. Contrary to probity plan and protocols, the meeting was not recorded on the probity register. The latest troubling revelation is relevant to Australians and an upcoming public audit committee on June 23 for several unanswered questions: (1) did Mr Robert have a series of undisclosed or poorly disclosed relationships with private interests seeking to make profit from taxpayer dollars; (2) did Mr Robert's associates seek to monetise Mr Robert opening doors, providing privileged, commercially advantageous insights and access; (3) did Mr Robert's associates have a scheme to digitise government services worth billions of dollars, starting with Home Affairs and then across the government, with Mr Robert as their 'special friend' inside government; (4) did Mr Robert's former colleagues, now silent in the House, endorse his actions and conduct; and (5) why do 114,000 Gold Coast voters have to go to an unnecessary by-election on 15 July merely because Mr Robert was feeling the heat in the kitchen at long last? Members of Parliament: Staff 31 14:59 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. In the last parliament, the member asked 16 questions in question time relating to the serious allegations aired on The Project. When asked about this questioning on Sunrise on 5 June this year, the minister stated, 'Nobody tells me what to ask in question time.' Did the minister engage with any third parties regarding the content of these questions before she asked them? The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW In terms of the earlier ruling and Practice, Mr Speaker, the final tag of the question has to be about the statement, not about taking it somewhere else. You can't refer to the statement and say, 'Having done that, now I'm going to ask about this.' The question has to be about what was said in the statement, because the statement is what was said as a minister. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the manager. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, the question very specifically went to what the minister said in her interview on 5 June this year, describing her practices in relation to question time. The SPEAKER 53517 That part of the question is in order. As to the last part, or the hook, that the deputy leader was adding into that, regarding another subsequent question, I just want to remind all members Practice allows questions only to what the minister has said as a minister. She is entitled to answer that question. I'll listen to her carefully to make sure she's relevant to that part of the question. The deputy leader? Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I submit to your ruling that there is one question that I have asked that relates to one statement that the minister made in a media interview, and my question directly relates to that statement. With respect to your comment that there's a hook of some alternative question, it is simply not present. It is a straightforward question about—'I don't take instructions about questions I ask'—whether she had any engagement with any third parties about the content of those questions. Mr Alba R36 Two separate questions. Ms Ley 00AMN And I submit they are not two questions, Prime Minister. The SPEAKER 53517 I just call the minister to the dispatch box. She can answer the question, and I'm going to listen carefully to make sure she's being relevant to the question and to standing orders. 15:02 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say again: nobody tells me what to ask in question time. But is it any surprise that the shadow minister for women, when she hears in the media that there has been a sexual assault in Parliament House, a very serious allegation, and then also hears in the media that that has been inappropriately dealt with by the employers in this place, would ask questions? Is there any wonder? In fact, I would say I would not have been doing my job at all if I had not asked questions about this. Can I take us back to the issue at hand here once again. Is it any wonder that only 13 per cent of sexual assaults in this country are reported to police when we see what has been happening in the media this week, with SMS messages leaked to the media and with private conversations taped and leaked to the media? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I'll hear from the member for Goldstein, who was on her feet first. The member for Goldstein on a point of order? Ms Daniel 008CH Mr Speaker: section 91, disorderly conduct. I would remind the chamber how triggering this conversation is for the woman involved, the staff in this building and the women around Australia who are victims of sexual assault. I also remind the chamber that we have young people in the gallery listening to this behaviour. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to remind all members that we have a role to play in setting the standard for an inclusive, respectful and professional workplace here in Australia and across Australia. I'm going to ensure that we display exemplary individual leadership, as was agreed by all members of this parliament in February this year. I'll hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. The points that the member for Goldstein raised around the content of the conversation would be respected better by the minister if she simply answered the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister is being relevant because the question was about her statement about these issues, which she is answering. She has the call. She's halfway through her answer. She's going to be heard in silence. The minister has the call. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I want to thank the member for Goldstein for bringing us back to what matters here. This conversation is an incredibly difficult conversation for many thousands of people who are watching this right now. They find it distressing because they know that, when victims of sexual assault report these matters to the police, they often go into a process which is revictimising and retraumatising. In every instance, I behaved ethically and completely properly, respectful of the issues at hand and respectful of the people involved. Homelessness 32 15:05 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to combat veterans' homelessness? 15:06 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for Tangney for this important question and for the work he's doing with veterans in his community. I know that he has visited with organisations in his electorate that are looking to provide homelessness services to support veterans in Western Australia, which is really important. We learned how important it is in March, when the census data was released that showed that, on census night in 2021, 1,555 individuals who have served our nation were homeless. In the first 12 months of this Albanese Labor government, we've been working to deliver on our commitments to build a stronger foundation for a better future for veterans and families. That includes things like, in the October budget that we handed down, $3.6 million for the Scott Palmer Services Centre in Darwin, which will provide homelessness services for veterans in Darwin and which is very important. But I want to draw members' attention to the report by Housing All Australians that was handed down in May this year, Give me shelter:leave no veteran behind. They said: Australia is in a housing crisis. We don't have enough social, affordable and public housing for the people who need it most, including our veterans and other key workers. This has long-term implications for Australian society as we know it today. Doing nothing is just not an option. That report made a key recommendation: Alongside the investment required by governments to address the lack of public, social, and affordable housing supply, investment in outreach services and the development of more targeted and intensive care programs that provide comprehensive and ongoing support could be considered. I'm very proud to be part of a government that wants to do exactly that. Part of our commitment at the last election, as part of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—the legislation for which we are trying to get through the parliament right now—was that $30 million would be allocated to build housing and fund specialist support services for veterans experiencing homelessness. After a wasted decade, we are now running out of time. RSL Australia says, 'The time for action is now.' Vasey RSL Care says, 'We urge the parliament to come together and reach agreement.' I met with the RAAFA in WA only yesterday about this important issue. They would like to be able to fund services in a state which currently has no specialist veteran homelessness service, yet we can't do that. It's not because we don't want to. We can't do it because the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens party are saying no. They are saying no to funding veterans homelessness services— Honourable members interjecting— Mr KEOGH 249147 They can shout about it all they like, but the reality is that it is those parties that are holding up providing these services that are desperately needed right now. (Time expired) Personal Information and Privacy 32 15:09 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Attorney-General. Media publication of leaked private material produced for a police investigation undermines trust and confidence in the criminal justice system for victims. Both the Privacy Act review and the Australian Law Reform Commission have recommended strengthening the privacy standards that media organisations should consider prior to publication. What steps are the government taking to review the exception to the Privacy Act for journalism, as journalists have an inadequate, self-regulated code of ethics and Australia does not have a statutory tort for the breach of privacy? 15:10 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Warringah for raising some very important questions, particularly her question concerning the Privacy Act review. The review made a range of recommendations for law reform, as did the Australian Law Reform Commission. Both of those have been subject to a further consultation process, and the government is now considering all of that. As Attorney-General, I am deeply concerned about the apparent unauthorised publication of material produced as a result of a subpoena in the criminal trial of Mr Bruce Lehrmann. Material produced to a court in response to a subpoena is subject to an implied undertaking from the parties who receive it that it won't be used for purposes other than for those court proceedings. It's a rule known as the Harman rule or the Harman undertaking. To breach it may constitute a contempt of court. I do understand that the Australian Federal Police has received a complaint in respect of this matter and that the AFP is currently assessing that complaint. In terms of my own portfolio, I'd say this: it's vital that victims of alleged sexual assault have confidence that, if they come forward and report what happened to them, they will be treated fairly by our justice system. And I would add that all who come forward are entitled to be treated with complete respect by everyone. We know that rates of reporting sexual assault are low, and conviction rates are even lower. Many victims are deterred from ever talking about what happened to them, which means that perpetrators are more likely to escape responsibility. It's an issue that the Albanese government takes extremely seriously. In the most recent budget, we announced $6.5 million for measures in my portfolio to strengthen responses to sexual violence. It'll include an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence, with a focus on law reform proposals to strengthen sexual assault laws and improve experiences of victims and survivors in the justice system. It'll include a ministerial-level national round table on addressing sexual assault, which will bring together victims-survivors, relevant services and advocates, and state and territory ministers. It's in addition to other work which is underway in the Standing Council of Attorneys-General with the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. We all have a responsibility—those of us in this parliament and in the media—to discuss this issue in a careful and responsible way which properly respects the interests of victims. Defence 33 15:12 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring defence spending will be invested in the critical capabilities the ADF needs, and how does this compare to what was inherited? 15:13 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his contribution to Australia's national security. During the course of the last 12 months, the Albanese government has been making generational decisions in defence, establishing the pathway by which Australia will acquire a nuclear powered submarine capability and retasking the Australian Defence Force for the first time in 35 years. Underpinning this have been difficult but real funding decisions, which have seen $7.8 billion of spending be reprioritised over the course of the next four years and a growth in the defence budget of 0.2 per cent of GDP above what we inherited from those opposite over the course of the next decade. These decisions have been hard. They have been painful. They have apparently been opposed by those opposite. But the outcome has been that spending is now focused on where Defence needs it the most. This is a process which is wholly unfamiliar to those opposite. When those opposite were in government and faced with a problem in defence, their solution was to make an announcement without any money behind it—$42 billion of unfunded defence announcements—which put an intense pressure on the Department of Defence, who were effectively asked to engage in planning around eventualities for which there were no dollars. Over the course of the last two months—with the Defence strategic review and affirmed just two weeks ago at Senate estimates—we've also learned that the former government regarded the defence budget as their piggybank, a piggybank that they were very happy to raid, with the effective outcome of a significant cut in defence spending—cuts that were very deep indeed. In their last five years in government, we saw $20 billion of effective cuts from the defence budget, the bulk of which occurred through a strategic reserve adjustment worth billions of dollars. So on the one hand, they were making announcements without any funding behind them, while on the other, they were ripping tens of billions of dollars out of the defence budget—and none of that adds up. Thankfully, all of that is in the past. None of this can be undone overnight, but during the course of the last year, we have started to get the defence budget back into order. We have sharpened defence spending. We have reprioritised it so that we will see a much greater quality of outcome in the defence spend, and we will grow the defence budget over the course of the next decade. This is hard, but the moment requires nothing less, because the Albanese government is committed to— (Time expired) Regional Australia: Infrastructure 34 15:16 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In the gallery today are Glenden Watts and Bill Baldwin, and many other farmers from Mallee who will be impacted by the government's fast-tracking 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires across regional Australia. How many more farmers like Glenden and Bill will be impacted by Labor's arrogant policy to steamroll local communities in pushing forward 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines? 15:17 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question, but say to her and the House, it would've been better if that question was more anchored in the facts. The facts of the matter— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Gippsland. The minister will continue with his answer and be heard in silence, otherwise people will leave the chamber. Mr BOWEN DZS The honourable member made a number of assertions in her question. It is appropriate to point out that those assertions are incorrect. In relation to VNI West I'll say this: the number of farms affected will depend in no small part on the final routes selected. AEMO made an announcement two weeks ago that they had changed the proposed route based on community feedback. That is no bad thing. The new Option 5A pivots away from its original path, heading north-west instead of through Charlton and the broad irrigation district, to skirt around Kerang and hit the Murray River downstream of Barmah. This is the result of community consultation. Community consultation is something we take very seriously in the government. In fact, in the last sitting week, I met with the Murray River Group of Councils, who came to me to talk about the route. I accepted the meeting request, of course. They asked to speak to me about it. They said to me that they appreciated the consultation that AEMO and the federal government had engaged on. They appreciated the engagement with the government. They made that point to me. They requested a meeting and they got one. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. Order! The member for Mallee is entitled to be heard in silence. Dr 281688 Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked how many other farmers will be impacted like Glenden and Bill, with their farms. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant by explaining the process. I'm listening carefully to his answer. He has only been going for about half his answer, and I'm listening carefully to make sure he's relevant. He is being relevant to the question and he has the call. Mr BOWEN DZS As I was saying, I met with those mayors in the impacted area. They made clear to me their support for the project. In fact, they announced in response to the government's announcement of Rewiring the Nation that, with local supply chain investment estimated to be in excess of $1 billion and with more than 3,000 jobs in the construction phase, this investment will deliver stimulus effects and long-term economic and social benefits. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS Why don't you care what the mayors say? I'm wearing this support badge which they gave me, and they thanked me for the engagement of the federal government. I'll tell you what— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Fairfax is warned. The Leader of the Nationals is on a warning. The minister, in continuation, will be heard in silence. Mr BOWEN DZS I say to the honourable member that if she wants to meet with me to talk about these issues, she's welcome to, as other honourable members have, and as the member for Eden-Monaro regularly has on similar matters in her electorate. That is what good representatives do—seek a meeting with the minister and talk the issues through. But we'll talk about the facts. The fact of the matter is that this VNI West link has been discussed for many years. We are getting on with the job. But we aren't, to be fair, the first government to focus on this issue. The previous government also focused on the issue. In fact, my predecessor, the then minister for energy, said: We are investing in VNI West because it is expected to generate $1.9 billion in net market benefits … That's what the member for Hume, my predecessor, said about this project. He was backing it in, saying how important it is. This is an important project that will be delivered properly by this government. (Time expired) Aged Care 35 15:21 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How has the Albanese Labor government addressed the crisis it inherited in aged care, and what is the government doing to build a more equitable and sustainable future that puts older people at its centre? 15:21 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Boothby for her question, and I know her passion and commitment to lifting the standard of care for older Australians in Boothby. The Albanese government inherited an aged-care system on the brink. We had to act with urgency, and that is exactly what we've done. Today, as we speak, we have more than 100 urgent reform projects on the go to deal with the extent of the crisis that we inherited. In our first 12 months, we have addressed 69 recommendations of the royal commission. That's almost half. We've legislated new standards for increased care minutes and for 24/7 nursing to improve care. We've introduced a star-rating system to provide more transparency and to help older people make more informed decisions about their care. With capped fees in home care to stop the rorting, we've committed $11.3 billion to lift the wages of our dedicated workers to help build and retain the workforce needed to care for our ageing population. We've committed to building an aged-care system where older people are at the epicentre. It's why we are drafting a new Aged Care Act that focuses on the rights of older people. This new act will address another 24 recommendations of the royal commission. It's why we'll deliver a new support-at-home system that helps people age at home for longer, and that will address another 21 recommendations of the royal commission. It's why, last week, I announced the members of the Aged Care Taskforce, who will look at how we set up the aged-care sector to succeed, equipped to face the future. They are 15 Australians with experience and expertise in economics, finance, public policy, ageing and aged care. The task force features First Nations people, consumers, providers and workforce advocates. The task force seeks to answer the unanswered questions from the royal commission about how to create an equitable and sustainable sector. The task force will help the Albanese Labor government's seismic shift in aged care from provider focused to person focused, and from funding focused to care focused. We are already seeing renewed optimism. Pat is a retired aged-care worker. Following the Press Club address last week, she contacted me to say that, after working in aged care for 45 years, this is the most hopeful she has ever felt about aged care. This government recognises both Pat and Pat's service, and the scale of the challenges that we inherited. There is no doubt in my mind that every day we draw heat, or I draw heat, from those opposite just for striving for a higher standard of care for older Australians is a day in office better spent than one tinkering around the margins, merely striving to avoid scrutiny in the first place. That is exactly how those opposite spent their time in office thinking about aged care. The royal commission recognised that, and we won't repeat their shameful legacy. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 35 15:24 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, you aver that your pharmaceutical initiative halves prescription costs. It also halves the incomes of pharmacists, destroying owner-operator pharmacies and creating a Chemist Warehouse and Terry White duopoly. They already have 40 per cent of market share. Careful, Minister! Isn't this really about greedy doctors wanting medical centres and Terry White and Chemist Warehouse CEOs on a paltry $1.7 million a year wanting the Woolworths CEO's $8 million or the Qantas CEO's $25 million a year? Government-created duopolies to give us cheaper prices—Minister, pharmaceuticals won't help us when we die laughing. 15:25 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for his question. I don't agree with a number of the assertions in it. This measure will go nowhere near to halving pharmacy income. On their own data, pharmacists as an industry will earn about $100 billion over the next four years, assuming no growth. They got 30 per cent growth over the last four. These measures, depending on which modelling you accept—the industry's, the guild's or the government's—are somewhere in the vicinity of one or 1½ per cent of that revenue, again assuming no growth. We make no apology for recognising we've got more to do to deliver cheaper medicines. We've made huge inroads into making medicines cheaper at a time of unprecedented global inflation that's hitting Australian households as it is hitting households right around the world. That's why we accepted the advice—which had been on the books for five years from the advisory committee that oversees pharmaceuticals—to allow people who are often on these medicines for decades, not just years, to be able to get 60 days supply. It's something that will be of particular benefit to patients in rural communities that often travel vast distances to get to their pharmacies. I don't accept that this is something only sought by doctors groups, although this will have the benefit to the entire health system of offering up millions and millions of GP consults that are currently used just for routine repeat scripts to be used instead by GPs for much more complex health conditions. That's why you're right that all doctors groups have supported this, but so has pretty much every single patient group you can think about: Breast Cancer Network Australia, the Heart Foundation, Asthma Australia, Diabetes Australia, the Lung Foundation, and groups like Council on the Ageing and the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. I could go on and on. But of particular interest to the member for Kennedy will be the endorsement from rural health groups, particularly the National Rural Health Alliance that represents dozens of health groups working in rural Australia. I agree with the member for Kennedy that it is critically important to maintain a vibrant community pharmacy sector, whether it's operated under a franchise like Chemist Warehouse or Terry White or whether it's fully independent. That is particularly important for small rural pharmacies. As I said in response to the question from the member for Mayo, that is a particular focus of the reinvestment plan that we have. We are talking to members and to other groups in the pharmacy sector about the particular needs of rural pharmacies that might be relatively close to the cities in Modified Monash areas 3 and 4 or areas like the member for Kennedy's, which would be area 7. We'll have more to say about that in due course. Workplace Relations 36 15:29 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, what is the labour hire loophole that the Albanese Labor government is acting to close? 15:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Paterson, who's been making speeches about this issue for a very long time. When people ask what 'same job, same pay' is about, the best way to explain it is that we're trying to close a labour hire loophole. It's not the concept that was depicted in some ads I saw last week where, somehow, some employers might have to pay somebody who's been there for six years the same as someone who's been there for six months. That's something that is not government policy, that the government is not legislating and that I'd never though about before. Now that I've thought about it and seen the ads, it's a really bad idea. But there is a loophole that needs to be closed, and it's this. When you have an enterprise agreement in place and you have agreed that this is the rate of pay that is appropriate for each classification, the employer should not then be able to use a labour hire company to undercut that rate of pay. People say, 'What does this mean for productivity?' It means the employer has already agreed in the enterprise agreement that that's the productivity value of the work and, having agreed to that, then wants to go off and use a labour hire company to undercut what they have already agreed is the value of that work. That loophole needs to be closed. Senator Cash said in an interview last week: 'Show me where the loophole is and then close it.' That's where the loophole is. Most employers aren't on enterprise agreements. For those who are on enterprise agreements, most employers aren't using this loophole. This is not something that ricochets in a massive way across every wages budget across the economy. For those employers who are using it, it results in a radical cut in the pay for people who work there and creates a situation where you have people working side-by-side, who've been there for the same length of time, who are doing the exact same job, often in the same uniform and working to the same supervisor being put on different rates of pay. Why? Because there is a loophole that says, 'Well, technically, you're employed by someone else, so we can ignore everything that has been agreed to.' There are a series of loopholes that undercut wages. If a worker steals from the employer it's a crime, but if the employer steals from the worker it's not. That loophole needs to be closed and wage theft needs to be made unlawful. It's a loophole that you can be working for a shop riding your bike delivering and have the protection of the awards system and all minimum rates of pay, but if you have the same lack of power while working on a gig platform you have no right to minimum standards at all. That is a loophole and it needs to be closed. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 36 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 31 to 36 of 2022-23 36 15:32 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 31 to 36 for 2022-23. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 36 15:32 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable the Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's failure to take effective action to reduce inflation after 11 interest rate rises under this Prime Minister. 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— 15:33 Mr L6B Bradfield FLETCHER (—) (): Before the election, the Prime Minister promised Australians the bright, shining uplands. He promised that they would have cheaper mortgages. He promised: 'You will be better off under me.' He promised that power bills would fall by $275. So Australians might well have expected, in light of those promises, that more than a year into the tenure of this government they would be enjoying cheaper mortgages, they would be enjoying lower interest rates and they would be enjoying a cost of living that was improved and more addressable and was easier to deal with. But the simple fact is that, despite these claims from the Prime Minister and from the Labor Party, there has been a complete failure to take action and deliver on what Australians are crying out for, which is relief from the relentless increase in prices that all of us are facing every day—power prices and grocery prices—a relentless increase in what those Australians with a mortgage are paying on their mortgage and a continued increase in what Australians who are renting are paying for rent. Across the economy, we are seeing prices rise, area after area after area, and the bad news just keeps coming. Last week we saw the Reserve Bank lift the official rate by another quarter of a per cent, raising the official cash rate from 3.85 per cent to 4.1 per cent—the 11th rise under this Prime Minister—and the Reserve Bank governor has warned that it may need to lift rates again, in coming months, if the Reserve Bank is to get inflation back down to its target of two to three per cent. I say 'if the Reserve Bank is to get inflation down to the target rate' because the fact is, right now, the Reserve Bank is out there on its own. It is getting no help from this government, no help from the Treasurer, no help from the Prime Minister and no help from the budget that was brought down recently, which went in precisely the opposite direction. Surely, the first objective of any government with pretensions to responsible economic management must be to get inflation down, because inflation insidiously and remorselessly affects every Australian, from the highest earning to the lowest earning. That is the urgency of the challenge that we face as a nation, a challenge that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is fully seized of, but there is no evidence at all that this government is fully seized of it. Indeed, we saw a troubling breakout of 'shoot the messenger' from the Prime Minister just last week, because the Governor of the Reserve Bank expressed some home truths about how difficult the challenge is that we face as a nation in reducing the insidious threat that inflation presents. For his troubles, you certainly couldn't say that the Prime Minister backed him in. On the contrary, the Prime Minister seemed very keen to white ant and undermine the Governor of the Reserve Bank. It is not just the opposition making these observations about the dire situation we face as a nation. Many economists are making similar forecasts. Westpac, one of our biggest banks, has indicated that they now expect a further two rises in interest rates as the Reserve Bank struggles to get inflation under control. We've seen economists and we've seen the markets react. What that now means, amongst other things, is that the budget—only a month or so old—is already out of date. It assumed a peak cash rate of 3.85 per cent, because the Treasurer was going to wash his hands of that. He had other things to do. He was going to renovate capitalism. Remember that? Bold aspirations—all to be done within calendar year 2023, by the way, which makes you wonder why he thought it was a good idea to write that remarkably pretentious essay. The simple fact is that already, a month or so in, the budget that was brought down by the Treasurer is already exposed as being hopelessly out of date, out of touch and not producing the policy remedies that we desperately need as a nation. The simple fact is, if you have a $500,000 mortgage—and many Australians have mortgages of that size or higher—this decision adds another $75 a month to your repayments. Your monthly instalments, compared to May 2022, compared to the change of government, now are $1,130 higher. If your mortgage is $750,000—and many Australians have mortgages of that magnitude—you'll now be paying $1,856 more each month. That's more than $22,000 a year, in addition, that needs to be found. Is it any surprise that the data, therefore, says that a record number of Australians are struggling to pay their mortgage? According to new research by Finder, 40 per cent of Australian mortgage-holding households admitted that they struggled to pay their home loan in May. That is the highest number recorded since tracking began in 2019. We've just recently had the former governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Glenn Stevens, say that inflation was 'way too high' and that interest rates could remain elevated for some time yet. We face an inflation crisis, we face an interest rate crisis, and of course we face a cost-of-living crisis. A recent report from the Commonwealth Bank describes the scale of the challenge we now face under this indolent and hopeless government in very stark terms. The report's author, Wade Tubman, said: The cost of living pressure … has started to rapidly pick up since Christmas and certainly the trends are that financial pressure will continue to rise. What have we seen as to the social impact of this economic managerial incompetence from those on the other side of the chamber? According to the Queensland Council of Social Services, demand for free food and meal vouchers has skyrocketed this year, in their words. Neighbourhood Centres Queensland have reported that food relief need has nearly quadrupled between 2019 and 2022. According to the Australian Automobile Association, for the first time, weekly transport costs have exceeded $500 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. As the association accurately said, that is a heavy burden for Australian families to bear in this cost-of-living crisis. Neighbourhood Centres Queensland have revealed that demand for their food relief packages has gone up and up and up. We also know that the economy has been shown to be growing at the slowest rate since September 2021. At the same time, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the cost of food and groceries has gone up by 7.9 per cent in the past year. What is this government doing in response to these extraordinary challenges we face as a nation? One thing they're out there doing is busily encouraging, cheering on, the award of markedly higher wages. The Reserve Bank governor has rightly warned that this risks a wage price spiral. He was quoted as saying that the recent 5.75 per cent wage increase was 'higher than we'd factored into our forecast'. We hear claims from the other side that wages are increasing and it's all great. It's a cruel con, because real wages are falling. We heard them talk about this repeatedly in opposition. They're in government. They've got their hands on the levers. What is the disastrous outcome that millions of Australian households are now experiencing? Real wages are dropping. Apparently this is one of their highest priorities, and what's the genius outcome they've delivered? They've delivered the very opposite of what it is that they claim to be concerned about, the objective they claim to be delivering—just as they have delivered the complete opposite of the cheaper mortgages that the current Prime Minister promised when he was Leader of the Opposition; just as they have delivered the complete opposite of the $275 reduction in power prices that they have claimed; just as they have delivered the complete opposite of making Australians better off, which the current Prime Minister claimed that he would do. This government has no plan to deal with the pressing economic challenges that our nation faces, and they need to admit that reality. 15:43 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Government MPs certainly understand that inflation and interest rates are affecting cost of living and squeezing household budgets. They certainly understand that this government, through both of its budgets, is acting to help households and small businesses get through this difficult period. The Australian people also understand the reality that neither side of politics is to blame for the recent bout of inflation and interest rates. The Australian people certainly understand that interest rates are determined independently by the Reserve Bank of Australia, not by the Liberal Party and not by the Labor Party. They are determined independently by the Reserve Bank based on market economic conditions. The reality is that there are many reasons why inflation has increased in Australia over the recent years. Those facts relate to supply chain constraints associated with the COVID pandemic, increased government expenditure that was undertaken by all governments throughout the world to support jobs when economies were being locked down—and there was bipartisan support for those policies in this parliament—and, of course, the recent effect that the war in Ukraine has had on international energy markets. They are the reasons why inflation increased over recent years, and they are the reasons why the Reserve Bank, independent of government, had to act on those factors. It's a fact that Australia is not the only economy in the world that is experiencing inflation. It's been a widespread effect of the pandemic worldwide. New Zealand, the United States, Canada, most of Europe and most of Asia have all been experiencing inflation increases and interest rate increases. All of these nations have also had increases in their interest rates, most of them at a higher rate and a higher level than Australia. In the United States, in Canada, in the UK and in New Zealand, interest rates increased at a much higher pace than they did in Australia and have been at higher levels than they are in Australia. The reality regarding inflation and interest rates is that they predominantly relate to the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine and that no political party or government is to blame for that. But what the Australian people do want to know, and where political parties do have a responsibility, is what you are going to do about it and what policies you will develop and implement to assist households and small businesses to get through this difficult period. It is here where there is a stark contrast between the approach of the Albanese Labor government and the Liberal coalition. The government is not seeking to come in here and move juvenile motions and shout at each other and point fingers across the chamber or, indeed, to blame the previous government. We're not seeking to do that at all. What we are doing is developing and implementing policies that will assist households and small businesses to get through this difficult period and hopefully see pressure taken off inflation over time and interest rates come down. That is the approach that we've taken since day one after the election last year. There are a number of policies that we're implementing to assist households. When it comes to energy prices, we put price caps on gas and coal prices. We've partnered with the states to provide energy relief in the form of household and small business rebates. What was the approach of those opposite when we brought those policies into the parliament? They voted against them. Ordinarily, that's okay; that's alright. You can vote against them, but you've got to have an alternative, you see. You've got to have a policy that you're going to put in place as an alternative. I still don't understand or know what their policy alternative is. They're only going to come in here and vote against our policies for pure personal political interests. They're putting their political interests ahead of the welfare of the Australian people, and that is what is wrong with this opposition. When it comes to health care, we've introduced policies that reduce the cost of medicines: reducing the co-payment and introducing 60-day dispensing of stable, dependable pharmaceuticals on the advice of a general practitioner. This is providing real relief, particularly to people who rely on medicines on a daily basis. What is the approach of those opposite? To vote against it and to rubbish the policy. We all know that families are dealing with the cost of child care and that it's a big impost on household budgets. The Albanese government has a policy to assist Australians and to reduce some of that pressure on household budgets with our cheaper childcare policy that begins in less than a month's time. We will increase the rebate for the childcare subsidy, and we're removing the cap that ensures that there's a disincentive for families to continue working on a weekly basis. What's been the policy of those opposite? To oppose it but not to offer an alternative. When it comes to health care, we know that the cost of seeing a doctor increased dramatically under the previous government because they had frozen the bulk-billing rebate for GPs over a number of years, forcing many general practitioners to charge a co-payment for a visit to the doctor. This government has responded to that in our recent budget by tripling the bulk-billing incentive for children and concession card holders, again providing real policy relief for Australians doing it tough around their healthcare costs. Housing is a massive issue in Australia at the moment, and we have policies to deal with it. In the budget, we increased rent assistance for the most vulnerable Australians, who are having difficulties paying their rent. We've got a housing future fund that's aimed at building 30,000 new houses throughout the country, predominantly in the social and low- to middle-income areas. Again, that was opposed by the opposition, who had no alternative policy in place and nothing as an alternative to what the government is offering. In energy efficiency, we're increasing rebates for households and small businesses to ensure that they can install appliances that reduce their energy costs. We're even introducing vehicle emissions standards to ensure that Australia keeps pace with the rest of the world and that we can reduce the cost of motoring for Australians over time. These are but some of the policies that the Albanese government is introducing and implementing to help Australians deal with inflation and reduce the impact of interest rate rises. But what are the opposition's policies? We don't know—and the Australian people don't know—because the opposition haven't announced anything. Another important factor when it comes to the cost of living is incomes. People want to make sure that their incomes are increasing so that they can deal with the cost-of-living pressure that they're facing. The approach of the previous government was to do everything they could to dampen the real incomes of Australians. Do you remember when penalty rates were cut? What did the previous government do? They supported it, while Labor opposed it. Do you remember when minimum wage cases were undertaken under the previous government? Did they put in a submission supporting a wage increase for low-income workers? No, they opposed it. In the recent minimum wage cases that have been undertaken by the Fair Work Commission, you've had a government that actually supports them and that puts in a submission saying, 'We support a wage increase for low-paid workers,' in stark contrast to the previous government. We've agreed to fund an aged-care workforce wage increase, as recommended by the royal commission, and we're fixing the bargaining system to ensure that Australians have the opportunity to bargain in their workplaces. The government is also taking responsibility when it comes to government expenditure. Any revenue upgrades that we received in the recent budget could have been spent on shiny announcements by the government, but we didn't do that. We took the responsible approach, with 87 per cent of revenue upgrades being returned to the budget in both our recent budgets. We won't be pouring fuel on the fire of inflation on this side. That led the Reserve Bank governor to say: 'I don't think that the budget is adding to inflation. It's actually reducing inflation in the next financial year.' That's the view of the independent Reserve Bank. The government takes these inflation challenges very seriously. We're implementing policies to assist Australian households and small businesses, and we are showing government restraint. What you'll hear from the opposition is a lot of yelling, screaming and finger-pointing, but what you won't hear is one policy to assist Australian households and small businesses to get through this difficult period. 15:53 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff In the lead-up to the last election, those opposite, Labor, promised Australians that life would be cheaper under them. I ask Australians: do you remember that? Labor promised cheaper mortgages, cheaper electricity and cheaper child care. All of those have been broken promises, because all we've seen in the last 12 months is the cost of living and the cost of everything continuing to increase under this Labor government. Families are simply struggling. Bills are piling up, grocery costs are skyrocketing and those who own a home or are looking to buy have watched 11 consecutive interest rate rises under this Prime Minister. Australians are concerned about what those interest rate rises mean for their budgets and about the difficult decisions they face over the coming months. Under the latest rate rise, Australians with a typical mortgage of $750,000 will now be paying $1,856 more per month. That's huge. That's more than $22,000 a year that they'll need to find. Where are they going to find it from? And what is this Labor government doing to support you and to support your family? Nothing. In fact, this month's interest rate increase is just further proof that Labor's budget did nothing to fight inflation. Labor has been in government for more than a year now—more than 12 months—and they've delivered two budgets. This is Labor's rate rise. It's a fail. This rate rise belongs to this government. The Reserve Bank has made it very clear that there's more interest rate pain on the horizon. There's more pain coming for you if you have a mortgage. This is the genie out of the bottle. It's the inflation genie that has been let out of the bottle. It's the failings of this government to take leadership on addressing the biggest economic challenge faced by all Australians, which is inflation. It's not coming from the war in Ukraine. It's not coming from Vladimir Putin, as those opposite like to claim it is. Ms BELL 282981 I hear scoffs from those opposite. It's not coming from there; it's coming from here! Inflation is coming from Canberra. It's coming from this government, and it's about time this government did something to address it. Unless the government limits its spending, Labor will continue to add to the cost of your mortgage, rent, groceries and just about everything else that you're spending your hard-earned money on. Australia has one of the highest rates of core inflation amongst similar advanced economies. Millions of Australians are hurting and have just simply been forgotten by this government. They're feeling the pain of the cost-of-living crisis. According to realestate.com.au, some Queensland homeowners are cutting back on early childhood education just to pay the bills. They're taking their children out of care so that they can meet their bills—something the government promised families would be cheaper under them. That's another commitment they won't be able to follow through on because fees are going up and subsidies will be eroded. We know that. We have been warning against this. The government has benefited from the last nine years of the coalition's strong economic management. We created over two million jobs in nine years and left Labor with the lowest unemployment rate in almost half a century—50 years. We also bequeathed interest rates at historic lows. It's an undeniable true fact. Labor also benefited from company tax receipts and the revenue generated from soaring coal, gas and other mining commodities, and they've squandered it all. The decisions made by this Prime Minister and his government are causing the economy real damage and causing Australian families real damage. Labor have had the chance to deliver a budget that reduced inflation and reined in spending to combat the cost-of-living crisis facing all Australians. Instead, their budget makes life harder for Australians, small businesses, self-funded retirees and those mortgage holders. Their budget also confirmed that real wages are stagnant, that the cost of living will continue to rise, that gas and electricity bills will continue to skyrocket, that the unemployment rate will rise, that inflation will remain stubbornly high—it's all in the budget papers—and Australians will continue to face higher taxes. Many Australians are asking themselves whether they are better off under Labor after just one year. This is just 12 months under Labor; imagine what it will be like in two or maybe even three years time. Three things are clear when it comes to this government: you can't trust Labor, you can't trust Labor to run the economy or to keep their promises, and Australians will always pay more under a Labor government. 15:58 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to rise to speak on this matter of public importance. It was put forward by the member for Bradfield, for those playing along at home. Then there was a great response from the member for Kingsford Smith to the suggestion of 11 rate rises. He didn't mention 12 rate rises; he mentioned 11 rate rises. The member for Kingsford Smith, who I know is a little bit unhappy after the Dragons beat his team on the weekend, put forward a great response. Then came the member for Moncrieff, who didn't hear anything that the member for Kingsford Smith put out there in terms of how we're addressing cost-of-living issues. This MPI put forward by the member for Bradfield is a little bit disingenuous, really, because it's that deliberate great big fear campaign that has been the No. 1 strategy of the Liberal and National parties since they got into opposition. This MPI is all about conflating monetary policy and the independent Reserve Bank—I don't think the Reserve Bank governor sits in the Labor caucus— Mr Gosling 245392 No, he certainly doesn't. Mr PERRETT HVP he certainly doesn't—and fiscal policy, the things that the Commonwealth government does in terms of borrowing, spending, taxation and all those things. Those opposite, hopefully, do know that the Reserve Bank is independent, though certainly when we came in there'd been 10 years of appointments to the Reserve Bank by the coalition. Let's go back to why we've had these interest rate rises. That is what the MPI is about. The last time we saw a CPI jump of 2.1 per cent, the largest quarterly rise in inflation this century, who was in government? The Morrison government. That was in the March 2022 quarter. It was a record inflationary increase, and the member for Cook was Prime Minister. He was also the Treasurer and the finance minister, so he was certainly responsible for it. I think some guy called Josh Frydenberg might have been involved as well, but it was mainly the member for Cook. Cast your mind back to that last budget before the election last year, where they sprayed money around like it was champagne after a grand prix. Do you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker? They were obviously shameless endeavours by the Liberal Party to win votes, and we've seen from Audit Office report after Audit Office report that it was not done with anything like sensible government but with all sorts of rorts and weird priorities. Those opposite don't mention in this MPI the first interest rate rise. I will give some credit to the coalition in terms of responding to COVID. I've been in government when we've been responding to a budget emergency. Measures have to be rushed, they have to be quick, and it's hard to be precise. When the global financial crisis hit, we rushed money out to people. It was a difficult time. So responding to COVID meant that some budget measures were a case of spraying money around. I acknowledge that and accept it, and there was bipartisan support from us in opposition for those endeavours; in fact, we suggested some of them. But the budget before the election last year was not a COVID budget. That was a case of running into the cabin with the fire hose and spraying water everywhere. And now they sit over there and say, 'Gee, its wet in here.' Everything's damaged, we've got to repair everything, we're paying interest on the repair bill, and they've got the hide to say, 'Gee, look at that; there've been a couple of interest rate rises from the Reserve Bank governor'—the independent Reserve Bank governor. We are against inflation because we know that inflation hurts workers first and hardest. We know that. We know that some of their core voting groups actually like inflation—some of them do. That's not our core constituency. Workers are first and foremost in our considerations when it comes to economic policy, and we know that workers will be hurt. That's why we put out a responsible budget that did so many things that weren't inflationary: cheaper child care—not inflationary; cheaper medicines—not inflationary; increased bulk-billing rates—not inflationary. Do you remember when the member for Dickson was the health minister? He was going to put in place a GP tax, which would have been inflationary, if he'd got his hands on the budget. Fee-free TAFE and expanding the paid parental leave scheme also are about increasing demand, but both are devoted to boosting flatlining productivity, which is what any sensible government does. Those opposite have no idea. 16:03 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders The government has had ample opportunity to address inflation. They've had more than a year in the job now, and we're still hearing that it's someone else's fault. We've just heard it was the coalition government's fault. It was COVID's fault, it was Kyiv's fault, it was America's fault, it was even the fault of the floods for a while there. It's been everyone's fault—everyone but the Labor government. Remember a year ago when the Treasurer said that 5.1 per cent inflation was 'a full-blown cost-of-living crisis'? Today, inflation sits at around seven per cent—higher than in the United States, Canada, Germany or Japan. So whose responsibility is this? In May 2022, just before the election, the Prime Minister made this solemn promise to the Australian people: … as your Prime Minister—I won't run from responsibility. I won't treat every crisis as a chance to blame someone else. I will show up, I will step up, I will bring people together. Then his Treasurer to be jumped up on the same bandwagon. He said: … we want to show up every day and take responsibility. Not just for the good things, but for the difficult things as well. Well, through you, Deputy Speaker, to the Treasurer, I've got news for this government: it's time to show up. As a result of the government's inability to tame inflation, its constant stoking of the economic engine with brand-new spending, Australians have confronted 12 interest rate rises in almost as many months. The average Australian household is now more than $25,000 worse off each and every year following the last budget. And Australian families are paying more for everything: their mortgage, their energy bills, their tools, their groceries, their kids' school needs, their clothes and their shoes. So what is this government doing to address inflation? Ask them and, literally without blinking, they will list a stream of handouts—handouts which, in turn, risk making inflation worse. Anthony Walker, a director at independent rating agency S&P Global Ratings, noted in May that handouts in the most recent budget may add to inflationary pressures. Former RBA governor Glenn Stevens has conceded the Albanese government's budget would have an expansionary effect. This government needs to be exerting downward pressure on inflation, not upward. What it needs is a comprehensive economic plan to boost productivity and to tame inflation. Without an economic plan, the Reserve Bank is having to do all the heavy lifting along. Without an economic plan, Australian families and our struggling small businesses will have to keep paying the price for Labor's laziness. I see my local residents paying the price for Labor's failures—Labor's inability, in their own words, to step up. So many residents of Flinders are on fixed incomes. Indeed, more than 22,000 of my electors are pensioners, with very little room to absorb increased costs. About one-third of dwellings on the peninsula, roughly 34 per cent, are owned with a mortgage. Back in 2021, when we had the last census, 15 per cent of them were already spending more than 30 per cent of their income on their mortgage interest repayments. Those who were lucky enough to secure interest rates in the high ones or low two per cents during the last government's tenure are now facing their interest rates shooting up to more than eight or nine per cent the day after their fixed term expires. A few weeks ago AGL came to visit me and told me that the default price for gas in Victoria for homes and small businesses will be going up by about 30 per cent midyear. What will that do to local businesses like Bass & Flinders Distillery, which I visited on the weekend? A thriving local business, it makes the best gin in the country—as I see that the member for Casey is not here to correct me, I proclaim it to be true! How will businesses like Bass & Flinders in Dromana, or Chief's Son and Original Spirit Co in Somerville, who all run their gas-fired distilled spirits stills on the peninsula for days on end, absorb a 30 per cent price increase overnight? What will it do to Sealite, a world-leading business in marine technology and safety which manufactures giant ocean buoys and navigation moulds from molten plastic produced exclusively by gas? Labor's failure to act to address inflation has a real impact on the ground across my electorate. Just after the last Labor budget back in May, I received an email from a constituent which summed up the impact this government's policies are having. She allowed me to share her words here: 'Dear Zoe, I have been in business since March 1980. In the late eighties we had that recession. I remember clearly what it was like: high interest rates and cost-of-living increases. Many people lost their houses, jobs and businesses and could not sell the house for months. At the present time I feel we are going full circle. Business has dried up. People are really tightening the belt to pay their mortgages and bills. I know I am saying what you already know, but what a sad state of affairs our beautiful country is in.' (Time expired) 16:08 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak on what is a ridiculous matter of public importance topic from those opposite. It simply exposes that they have no ideas and are all about politics. Inflation right now is public enemy No. 1 when it comes to the economy. It makes the money in all of our pockets less valuable. It means we can buy less with the same amount than we could a year ago. That the opposition would have you believe that Australia exists in a vacuum, that we are in our own world, is simply nonsense. They would have you believe that we are the only place going through these significant economic headwinds, but we are not. They would have you believe that inflation is the result of higher wages, when all evidence points to the contrary. The unfortunate fact for those opposite is that the Australian people are far smarter than they give them credit for. The Australian people see straight through these fibs from the opposition. They know when they're being taken for fools. So let's get some facts on the record. The inflation that we see permeating through the economy did not begin when this government took office. The first rate rise actually took place under the former government, before the election. We know that the rates have risen as a consequence of persistently high global inflation, caused by several factors. First is the war in Ukraine and second is the completely broken global supply chains, which have been neglected for far too long—including by those opposite when they were in government. We also know that the rate rises in Australia have been comparatively less severe than those seen in comparable countries, such as the US, Canada, the UK and New Zealand. Of course, that isn't of huge comfort to Australian mortgage holders and borrowers, who are copping the rises and doing it tough, but it does paint a clear picture which contradicts pretty much all of the arguments of those opposite, and the idea put forward by them that the government is doing nothing to get on top of this issue is beyond ridiculous. Tackling inflation is an essential focus of our economic plan and, in particular, in the budget that the Treasurer handed down last month. It's a budget that was specifically designed to take the edge off some of the cost-of-living pressures while driving down inflation. The independent Reserve Bank governor has made it abundantly clear that this budget addresses inflation and doesn't add to it. In Senate estimates he said: I don't think that the budget is adding to inflation, it's actually reducing inflation, it's actually reducing inflation in the next financial year. In fact, advice from the Treasury is that our policies to ease the cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. What a contrast to those opposite! If they were so concerned about the impact of inflation on cost-of-living pressures, maybe they would back some of our policies. Did they back us when we capped power prices? No, they didn't. Are they backing our measures to lower the cost of medicines for Australians? No. Did they back $2.8 billion invested in the incomes of the lowest-income Australians through our increases to JobSeeker, rent assistance and moving single parents onto the parenting payment? No. Do they support our cheaper childcare policies that will begin in a matter of weeks and will take so much pressure off Australian families? No, they don't. Besides criticising from the sidelines, what have the coalition actually proposed? What solutions have they come up with? A big fat nothing. They just say no. You'd think that if they had anything substantive to offer or actual questions to ask that they might have done so during the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, or throughout the two weeks of budget estimates. Did they do that? No. Instead they wasted everyone's time with disgraceful lines of questioning about whether a public servant was wearing a tie. That's where these people are: no vision, no ideas and no clue from the no-alition. But why would they start now? They weren't doing anything while they were in government so why would they propose ideas from opposition? As I said, the Australian people are smarter than these people give them credit for. What they want to see is an alternative government. They want to see ideas and solutions, and they want to see their representatives supporting measures that this government is putting in place to help them with their costs of living and to drive down inflation. So they should start listening to people in their electorates and looking after them. 16:13 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's interesting to note that the member for Canberra couldn't even use up her full five minutes in trying to rebut the arguments in the member's excellent MPI. Just to correct the record for the member for Canberra in relation to the piece of legislation she referred to: the opposition actually did support that piece of legislation. We moved an amendment to actually allow people who are on unemployment benefits to earn more money than what the government was proposing under their legislation. So if she's looking for something positive that the opposition has put on the table, there is example No. 1. In addition, in the Leader of the Opposition's budget-in-reply speech to the government's first budget—bearing in mind that the May budget was their second budget—we also moved a similar proposal for those on pension incomes to increase the income-free amount that they could earn before their pension started to be reduced. So we have put positive items on the agenda for discussion. It was actually the government that voted down people on unemployment benefits being able to earn more money before their unemployment benefits were cut. This at the very time we have four hundred and something thousand vacancies in this country and 800,000 people on unemployment benefits. The coalition has always been focused on seeking to provide the environment and framework for people who are unemployed to get back into work. We know the benefits that that provides to Australians. More importantly, in relation to this MPI, we have seen 11 interest rate rises in the past 12 months and inflation stuck at nearly seven per cent under the current Prime Minister and this government. It's worth reminding the chamber that this government increased spending in the latest budget by $185 billion over and above what it was spending previously. If we think that is any way to reduce the pressure on the inflation rate, then think again. And it's hardworking Australians who pay the price. When they want to get ahead, they are actually going backwards. We see that each and every day, whether it's in grocery prices or in mortgages going up. We still have another $880-odd thousand people on fixed rate mortgages who will come off their fixed rates in the second half of this year. I know from talking to my constituents that they are extraordinarily worried about the impact on their finances of moving from a fixed rate to a variable rate. We are slowly seeing first home buyers' dreams evaporate and slip away as interest rates rise under this government. We are seeing renters continue to struggle as the housing crisis continues. We're seeing them forced to deal with higher and higher rents. This is in addition to ever-growing costs in electricity, groceries and a range of other ordinary day-to-day expenses that people can't do without. We see each and every day Australians struggling and going backwards. And those opposite want to say that it's imported. Well, it's not. It's coming from those opposite and their inability to rein in their spending to take the pressure off inflation. We have seen consumer confidence cratering, and the most significant concern for consumers is that continued inflation. To look at that more locally, in the last four weeks alone, in my electorate of Forde, Lighthouse Care Loganholme have had some 500 families come through their doors requiring assistance. They now provide over 200 home deliveries each week. Last month, the Twin Rivers Centre at Eagleby had 900 families who needed emergency relief, up from 80 in April. All of these are examples of this government failing to do its job and look after vulnerable Australians. 16:18 M 129164 Lyons r BRIAN MITCHELL () (): What those opposite have failed to remember or, in fact, have conveniently forgotten is that interest rates started going up under them. We've inherited the mess, and we're cleaning it up. Every credible economist and commentator acknowledges that inflation is a global challenge. It is not restricted just to Australia; it's a global challenge. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand's rate is 5.5 per cent; the US Federal Reserve's rate is five to 5.25 per cent; the Bank of Canada's rate is 4.75 per cent; the European Central Bank's rate is 3.25 per cent; and the Bank of England's rate is 4.5 per cent. Clare Lombardelli, the Chief Economist of the OECD—who worked for a bloke those opposite know all too well, Mathias Cormann, the Secretary-General of the OECD—said: The global economy is turning a corner but faces a long road ahead to attain strong and sustainable growth … G20 inflation is expected to drop from 7.8 per cent to 6.1 per cent and then to 4.7 per cent in 2024. This is a global challenge, not just restricted to Australia. It is these global pressures from the war in Ukraine and neglected, broken supply chains that drive the higher inflation that is leading to these globally higher interest rates. The situation in Australia was only made worse by the previous government due to its wanton neglect of energy policy and skills shortages, its wanton vandalism of the national finances and its failure to back advanced manufacturing. The coalition presided over a decade of missed opportunities and misguided priorities, resulting in deliberately lower wages, increased cost-of-living pressures and a trillion dollars of debt, without enough to show for it. They voted for higher energy bills for millions of households. They had the opportunity in December to come in here and vote for energy relief, and they decided not to do it. They voted against that relief for households and small businesses. They want more expensive medicines, and they won't support more affordable housing. There is a bill in the Senate right now that will deliver 30,000 homes over the next five years, including 4,000 homes for women and children escaping domestic violence. It would increase housing supply in this country, bringing down those pressures, and those opposite are voting against it, or they're blocking it in the Senate. Get on the phone to your senators and tell them to stop getting in the way of increasing housing supply. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was a minister, wanted a GP tax. By contrast, the Labor government's economic plan prioritises controlling inflation while making sure we look after people who need it most: cheaper child care; cheaper medicines; expanding paid parental leave; tripling the bulk-billing incentive; wage increases; fee-free TAFE and more university places, especially for kids from the regions; building more affordable homes; providing power rebates; and increasing the base rate for eligible recipients of JobSeeker, Austudy, youth allowance and other working-age payments—effective action and structural change, not a grab bag of giveaways and rorts such as those opposite subjected us to. It has to be said the Liberals are the eshays of Australian politics. It's free pizza and beer for their mates, except it's not free pizza and beer; it was all put on mum and dad's credit card. They trashed the house, they racked up the bills, they upset the neighbours and they left behind a whopping big mess. Well, mum and dad have come home. We're cleaning up, we're paying the bills and we're repairing relations with the neighbours. But it's going to take time. The Albanese Labor government has carefully tailored its budget to ease cost-of-living pressures while tackling the inflation issue that Australians face. In fact, Treasury's advice is that our policies to ease cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. It is still higher than we'd like and more persistent than is ideal, but it's down from where it would have been, making a meaningful difference to families around the country, and I've got it here it on the front page of the latest edition of Our Lyons Community. Labor is tackling the cost of living: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, power bill relief, rent relief, fee-free TAFE, backing high wages, homebuying support and more support for over-55s. We're getting on with the job of delivering the relief this country needs while also making sure we don't contribute to higher inflation, because we know inflation is bad for the country and we're determined to tackle it. 16:23 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I hasten to interrupt the member for Lyons quoting the member for Lyons in a publication that the member for Lyons produced and disseminated, seeking to hoodwink his electorate into believing it was a community newspaper. In any event, in the lead-up to the last federal election, the now Prime Minister said voters expect leaders to 'take responsibility'. I agree with that statement. Leaders need to take responsibility. But the problem is that that rhetoric that was provided in the lead-up to the election, no doubt as a last-minute attempt to make sure that undecided Australians voted for him to become Prime Minister, isn't matched by his actions now as Prime Minister, because as Prime Minister, rather than taking the responsibility for the circumstances we find ourselves in, which I'll provide some detail about in a moment, he says: 'Oh, no, no, no. This problem about inflation hasn't come from Canberra. It's come from the Kremlin.' That's not a leader taking responsibility. As for the Treasurer, the Treasurer says, 'Well, we're not making it worse.' No, you're not, but you're not making it any better, either. With respect, this is like the CFS volunteer who turns up to the fire with the equipment to put the fire out and says: 'Don't blame me; I didn't start it. I didn't start the fire.' Fair enough, but you've got the means to put it out. So it's time you pulled those levers. What do Australians face right now? Don't take it from me. Take it from those opposite and their budget. What does their budget say about what Australians can expect over the next four years, or at least over the next 12 months? Next year real wages will be stagnant. They are stagnant and they will remain stagnant. The budget makes it clear that the cost of living will continue to increase. It goes further, and it assumes that gas and electricity prices will continue to go up, that unemployment will rise—these are the assumptions that those opposite have made in their own budget—and that inflation will remain stubbornly high for longer. But, as we heard today in question time, the assumption those opposite have made for a peak cash rate have already been exceeded within a month. And Australians will continue to face higher taxes. That's what those opposite have baked into their budget. Real wages will be stagnant, the cost of living will continue to increase, gas and electricity prices will continue to go up, unemployment will rise, inflation will remain stubbornly high and Australians will continue to face higher taxes. And that's after 12 months. Imagine a poor, hardworking Australian out there today thinking to themselves, 'Well, if this is how much harder it is under Labor after 12 months, imagine what it will be like after three years.' All the while, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, those opposite obfuscate responsibility and blame the Kremlin while they pursue the Voice. I have a suggestion for the leader of our nation, the Prime Minister. He can start dealing with this issue. Australians are unquantifiably more concerned about the cost of living than they are a referendum around constitutional change to implement a voice to parliament. So why don't we do this: why don't we pull back from that proposal. Why don't we spend the next six months not arguing about the Voice but seeking, in a bipartisan way, to address the cost-of-living issues. Australians would thank the Prime Minister if he were to make that his priority. They would absolutely thank him. Instead, what's going to happen—I'll predict it for those opposite—is that we will have a referendum around the middle of October. I estimate—nay, I expect—it will fail, and Australians will wake up with a hangover, a referendum hangover, on 15 October. They will turn to their government and say, 'I cannot believe that you have spent the last six months pursuing this idea instead of addressing cost-of-living challenges.' An average Australian household is $25,000 worse off today than it was when the coalition left government. For the benefit of those opposite, that's $25,000 after-tax. That's more money then you can fly a rocket ship over. 16:28 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Australia is caught up in an inflationary challenge that is indeed sweeping the world. Yes, our headline inflation rate is too high, at seven per cent. In the UK it is currently 8.7 per cent; in New Zealand it is 6.7 per cent; and in Germany it is six per cent. The only bright spot here is the United States. The United States's inflation has drastically come down. It is sitting at around five per cent. It peaked in June of last year at nine per cent. That should offer some hope for us. The issue here is that Australia is in this position when it didn't need to be struggling like this. We're in this position because those opposite removed the shock absorbers from our economy. What were those shock absorbers? They were around energy, they were around housing and they were around supply chain, including labour and skills. Had they actually been addressed then our country would have been able to buffer itself from these economic headwinds and from a black swan event, which we all know about, the pandemic. Now we are also affected by the threat multiplier of climate change, which is very much upon us. What is not discussed, unfortunately, is that those opposite actually poured high octane fuel over this inflationary problem. It surprises me that no one has actually talked about this. There was a report that came out in the Fin Review in April of this year that cited a respected economist, Chris Murphy, who had done an analysis. What he showed was that the stimulus of those opposite, of approximately $429 million, added an additional three points of inflation. So instead of having an inflation problem of seven per cent we could have had an inflation problem of four. Australia, incidentally, was one of five countries in the OECD, a group of 38 mostly rich countries, that basically pumped too much stimulus into the economy during the early stages of the pandemic. Those opposite like to style themselves as the fiscal guardians of this nation. They're meant to be the fiscal conservatives. Instead what we had was a demonstration of fiscal incontinence—I can say that, as a doctor. Our focus as a government is squarely on providing targeted cost-of-living relief, laying the foundations for our future prosperity and putting our budget on a more sustainable footing, so that we can actually provide those services that Australians rightfully expect—things like education and health care, for example. In terms of energy, we are going through an energy crisis we did not need to have. We were simply overexposed to fossil fuels after a decade of policy chaos. With the passage of our historic Climate Change Act, we have now delivered policy certainty. That has actually translated to unprecedented investment in the fourth quarter of last year of $4.29 billion—that is, final investment decisions were made last year, 10 times higher than the third quarter of last year. If that doesn't send a signal that Australia is open for business, then I don't know what does. We have also invested and opened up three offshore wind zones around Australia—one in the Bass Strait. As we speak, there is a ship in the Bass Strait that is drilling. It is not drilling the seabed for gas. It is actually drilling the seabed where the footings of wind turbines that are 300 metre tall will stand. This is the future we are delivering for young Australians. This is the future that they are going to seize. Those wind turbines, one day, will be made from green steel. Why? Because we invested $2 billion in that budget into green hydrogen. We've also invested $15 billion into making more things in Australia—a future made in Australia. We're investing in our sovereign capability—something those opposite voted against. It is absolutely baffling, considering that in the league table of the OECD we are at the bottom of that list. We get the wooden spoon for self-sufficient manufacturing in our country. These are all programs that are going to yield dividends in the longer term. But we know that people are struggling now, which is why we invested in tripling the bulk billing incentive in order to arrest the decline in bulk billing that we are seeing around the country. We've also brought in extended dispensing, so that Australians pay less for their medicines. I would say that there is a lot we are doing and we are future focused. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 46 COMMITTEES Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water Committee 46 Report 46 16:33 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On behalf of the Standing Committee Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Protocol) together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ZAPPIA HWB by leave—On behalf of the committee, I present the report of House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water's inquiry into the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol. The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for the Environment and Water—who I see is at the table; very opportune—in November 2022, and adopted by this committee on 23 January 2023. The London protocol is the intended successor instrument to the International Maritime Organization's London Convention—one of the first international conventions designed to protect the marine environment from human activities by prohibiting the dumping of certain hazardous materials subject to the issue of a permit from a relevant authority. The 2009 amendment to the London protocol permits the export of carbon dioxide streams from one contracting party under the London protocol to another using carbon capture and storage technology for the purposes of sub-seabed sequestration into geological formations. The 2013 amendment proposes to address ongoing work into marine geoengineering activities, such as ocean fertilisation. The London protocol has previously been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 1998 and in 2007. In 2020, the Treaties Committee considered the two amendments subject to this committee's inquiry, deeming both as 'minor treaty' actions, and agreed that binding treaty action may be taken. In undertaking its inquiry, the committee received 22 submissions and held one public hearing. Evidence to the committee was broadly supportive of both amendments, while the committee was told that the Australian government is considering ratification of the 2009 amendment. Can I say that some of the submissions we received, I believe, were excellent—from real professionals who understand what they are doing and who provided some really invaluable insight into the processes required and why it is necessary for these amendments to be ratified. In conclusion, I thank the organisations and individuals that made submissions to the committee's inquiry or appeared at the public hearing. I also thank the members of the committee and the secretariat, in particular, who provided invaluable support in their work on this inquiry. I commend the report to the House. 16:37 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I would like to concur with the member for Makin's comments. The London protocol has, as he explained, been in existence for some years, and we signed up a couple of decades ago. This inquiry looked in to the advisability of ratifying the amendments to the London protocol, particularly chapter 6, and I am really pleased to reinforce the comments that the member for Makin has made. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the transboundary transport of CO2 and subsequent storage and sequestration in subsea structures, commonly known as carbon capture and storage, is not some abstract research protocol; it's very advanced. There are 42 projects going on around the world. The biggest in the world is actually in Australia, and we have led the charge in this. There has been a 44 per cent increase in the amount of carbon capture and storage in the last year, and all of the projects around the world amount to 144 million tonnes per annum of carbon capture and storage. Norway, with its Northern Lights program, is very advanced. Signing up to this amendment and ratifying it will mean we will also be able to help our trading partners and countries nearby, including Timor-Leste, which has an empty cavern that has run dry now—a perfect vehicle for this carbon capture and sequestration. The other thing I learnt is it's not like there is a huge cavern that gets pumped into like a balloon. People explained to me prior to this wonderful inquiry that it would just slowly leak out again. Trust me, it's more like going into solid subsea geology, like honeycomb, where the oil and gas has been taken out. Once the compressed CO2, under huge pressure and force, gets down there, a kilometre or more underground, it's not going anywhere. It attaches to the subsea geology. It's there forever. That is a myth that this inquiry has cleared in my mind. The IPCC Working Group III's contribution numbered AR6 2020-22 mentions that carbon capture and storage is a key necessity if global emissions targets are to be reached. There is no scenario they can see without us utilising it. So we will not only be able to give that to Timor Leste, by exporting the stuff captured in our gas projects from our Darwin hub but they will earn an income stream from it. It will also help our clean energy partners, Korea, Japan and Singapore. They need this because they don't have any geology to use that. Australia is blessed with lots of things that we do. The world is still hooked on fossil fuels; trillions of US dollars, trillions of British pounds, trillions of euros and trillions of everything have tried to get us off fossil fuels. It's a very hard act to follow, because fossil fuels have allowed a flowering of wealth and wellbeing around the world. But we have this problem and we want to fix it, so this is the perfect mix. As I said, Norway is leading the charge on this. They are very advanced. We should sign up and ratify this because we need to make sure that we have the capacity for other countries, like those ones I mentioned, to do their bit. We already have carbon capture and things happening in Australia, and there are many more applications here. We have stuff down in the Otways, as well as up in the north-west of Australia. So I commend the report and I commend the intent of this. Like other things, we're never going to meet any target unless we have things like carbon capture and storage. And of course, there's the other missing link, not related to this inquiry, for us to embrace nuclear energy. 16:41 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 47 16:41 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 47 BILLS Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 47

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 47 16:42 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax For a number of reasons, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, and the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. Foremost among those reasons is that, with a few exceptions, to which I'll return shortly, this legislation is clearly based on work that was undertaken by the coalition when we were in government. Early last year, the coalition brought to the parliament the Agriculture Biodiversity Stewardship Market Bill 2022. That followed considerable consultation with a wide variety of individuals and groups, including farmers, environmental groups, industry, the finance sector, Indigenous Australians and representatives of the states and territories. As minister for agriculture at the time, the member for Maranoa told the House on 9 February 2022 that the content of that bill was predominantly designed to give greater recognition to the role played by farmers across Australia in cultivating and maintaining healthy ecosystems across approximately 60 per cent of the country's land mass. It was a well-crafted bill that sought to right the wrong of those farmers' stewardship of their land not being adequately honoured. It did this by seeking to give expression to a biodiversity stewardship market that rewarded landholders financially who had restored, protected and enhanced their local environment. It's not entirely apparent why the Labor Party thought it was necessary to spend around 10 months and something in the order of $11 million to largely replicate that work which had already been undertaken by the coalition government. It also begs the question of why Labor has brazenly claimed, as they have done on a number of occasions, that their legislation is a world first when, in truth, the legislation before us today is not even an Australian first. It's also worth adding that long before the Albanese government arrived on the scene policymakers in a number of other parts of the globe had also been working towards establishing these kinds of markets. For the coalition's part, we have believed for some time now in the potential for a voluntary biodiversity market in Australia. We have believed there may be merit and value to such a market, as it can, potentially, offer new financial incentives for environmental conservation and restoration. We therefore welcome the general thrust of Labor's approach, which is now to try to introduce such a market from the second half of 2024. And we commend them on adopting a continuation of our general approach and, in effect, for agreeing that the former coalition government's approach was correct. However, it needs to be stressed that there are a number of stark and consequential contrasts between the legislation of the former coalition government and that legislation of Labor, which is before the House. The most critical of those differences is Labor's decision to extend the remit of the market beyond purely agricultural land. By widening the market to, potentially, cover all land tenure and water, they're almost inevitably going to bring more stakeholders and many different kinds of scenarios into the marketplace. In the early days, at the very least, that's likely to lead to confusion, particularly for first-time entrants into a biodiversity market and also for anyone trying to determine who's specific consent will be needed, in each case, for projects to proceed. Just like with their recent changes to the safeguard mechanism, this risks making government an active player in the market, with all the dubious and unintended consequences that that entails. These bills allow potential participants in the market to define and apply their own idiosyncratic methodologies for their projects. That's probably going to take on a life of its own and won't be likely to have the same integrity and controls as our proposed scheme did. The coalition's scheme was based strictly on the application to potential projects of the carbon plus biodiversity and enhancing remnant vegetation assessment models, on which we work in collaboration with the ANU. Based on our experience, we have serious reservations about it opening up the parameters and methodologies for which projects can be assessed and certificates can be traded. Further, there also remains uncertainty about what criteria and evidence will be used in relation to: the exclusion of projects; the precise role of a native title body corporate and, indeed, how native title considerations will be made more broadly; what standards or controls will exist, in relation to biodiversity assessment instruments; and to what extent changes made to offset regimes in other areas of Albanese government laws, regulations and policies might or might not apply here. It is therefore appropriate that the bills have been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee. A number of technical aspects of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 also require more detailed scrutiny. We hope that the committee will be adequately informed of the reasoning behind the changes being proposed in these bills. We also hope that the committee process highlights what both the coalition and Labor have gotten right and, indeed, how we might be able to improve the operation of the market even further, especially in laying the groundwork for government spending on environmental measures being much better targeted. We know that groups like the Greens think money grows on trees and that they want billions of extra dollars to be spent by governments—and, therefore, by taxpayers—on their favourite conservation and environmental projects long into the future. But, clearly, it's an impossible ask. What makes things even harder for future governments are the various dirty deals that can be done between the Greens and the Labor Party, such deals that have the effect of putting the budget under more and more pressure. In light of such constraints, there is an imperative to try to foster and encourage more private sector involvement and better recognition of responsible private landholders' actions. In closing, I think anyone closely following this debate will not be surprised to see the coalition reserve our final position on these bills until after the Senate committee process concludes. It may also be that we seek to encourage the government to make changes to the bills or that we seek to make some amendments of our own when the bills reach the Senate. In principle, at this point, and in keeping with all the work we have previously done in this area, the coalition cannot support the passage of either of these bills. There are too many gaps. There is too much missing detail. Accordingly, there are too many concerns from a number of key stakeholders for the bills to receive our endorsement. 16:50 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. This bill will deliver on the Albanese government's commitment not just to halt the decline of Australia's environment but to turn it around and to begin the complex and difficult job of repairing our natural environment. Unfortunately, we know the task before us is vast. The 2021 State of the environment report highlighted the dire state that Australia's unique ecosystem is in and the threats that it faces, especially from the increasing impacts of climate change. Australia has lost more mammals than any other continent, and we continue to have one of the highest rates of extinction in the world. There are now 1,918 animal and plant species listed as threatened. That's an increase of 202, or eight per cent, since 2016. We now have more invasive and foreign plant species than native species. Worse still, the impact of the 2020 Black Summer bushfires, which is estimated to have killed between one and three billion animals, will take years to fully account for, and the state of our environment may be even worse than we think. In our waters, reefs around the country are in poor condition, with the Great Barrier Reef experiencing mass coral bleaching in 2017, 2020, and 2022. We have waterways and rivers in incredibly poor condition, with native fish populations in decline and mass fish killings exacerbating the issue. The status quo is clearly not working, and more must be done. The Albanese government has prioritised our environment, and, under the Minister for the Environment and Water, we know how important it is. The Albanese government has already committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and water to bring us in line with global efforts. In the October budget, we invested $1.8 billion in our environment, including a record $1.2 billion for the Great Barrier Reef and funding to implement the Threatened Species Action Plan. This bill is the next step in protecting Australian's ecosystem. It will connect investment with those groups and people on the ground to put plans in place to make real improvement and support the environment. Maintenance is not the answer to improve the situation. We need to actively repair the damage already done so that species can return and thrive. Working together with First Nations peoples and groups who know the land better than anybody else will be part of the positive path for improvement. The nature repair market will promote and enable prior consent for projects in the lands and the waters of First Nations people, as well as working with them to design projects that reflect the knowledge and connection to country they've had for thousands of years. The focus of this market will be to encourage landholders, whether they be farmers, government entities, private businesses, conservation groups or First Nations people, to undertake projects that will repair and protect our environment, generating a tradable certificate that can be then sold to philanthropists and businesses. This will create economic opportunities for First Nations people, who have vast and unique knowledge about caring for our environment, and for farmers who understand their land. We know businesses are increasingly looking for ways to demonstrate their environmental credentials, as shareholders and everyday Australians alike and market forces require further action to protect our unique Australian environment. A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated the market for biodiversity in Australia could unlock $137 billion in financial flows by 2050. That is money protecting rare habitats for endangered species, removing invasive species, improving water quality, reviving nature corridors so that animals can travel and for planting a mix of local native flora. It creates an entirely new income stream and employment pathways for regional Australians and allows businesses to invest in our environment. The fact that Australia has over half a million different species means that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and the types of projects that could be undertaken are incalculable and incredibly complex. The purpose of the bill is to make it as flexible as possible for all parties while also creating a well-regulated market. The Albanese government is aware of the integrity issues that surrounded carbon credits, and with these biodiversity credits running alongside them, we are making sure there is confidence in these systems. That's why the government has appointed an independent panel to review carbon credits and has accepted in principle the 16 recommendations to strengthen the carbon credit system. The lessons learnt from the carbon market and the review have informed the development of these biodiversity credits. It is vital that these projects and the certificates issued are held to the highest integrity and transparency standards, as well as to the best available science, so that our environment can get the best possible outcome. It is fundamental in providing the certainty and confidence that investors need to participate in this new market. A key integrity measure will be the establishment of an independent expert committee that will be responsible for ensuring projects deliver high-quality, nature-positive outcomes and that will provide advice to the minister. It will be a committee with five to six experts with substantial knowledge and experience in areas including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics and Indigenous knowledge. The advice of the independent committee will be made public to ensure a high level of transparency between government, businesses and all Australians. Additionally, the certificates will be issued through the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority that will monitor and publish information about projects on a public register. This will allow citizens to publicly track projects, ensuring an extra layer of scrutiny in addition to the oversight of the regulator and the parliament. Australians expect these certificates to represent actual investments and the restoration of our environment, and the department will work with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that they are not victims of greenwashing claims. Australians also expect that this market is not used solely to offset the destruction of habitats elsewhere. The legislation we are debating today commits to offsets being the last resort. The government is already designing and consulting on new national standards for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets. These new standards, which will be legislated under the new nature-positive laws, will strength biodiversity offsets and ensure that they no longer rely on averted loss but on protecting and restoring ecosystems, providing a nature-positive outcome. Projects under this scheme will not be used as offsets unless they meet the new standards. These measures are another way the Albanese government is ensuring certainty, confidence and transparency in the new market. The nature repair market is one piece in the incredibly complex puzzle required to repair and protect our environment after its neglect for far too long. This legislation is the first of its kind in the world. To make the difference the environment needs to improve, it must be done correctly. The Albanese government is committed to public investment and effective national environmental laws, but we must use every available option to help repair the damage already done. The nature repair market will work alongside public investment in our environment and will not replace it. The Minister for the Environment and Water has been working to ensure that there has been consultation with stakeholders from across the country and that strong transparency and accountability measures will be included. I thank and recognise the minister for her work on this legislation. Creating a market that is the first of its kind is a difficult task, but we owe it to future generations, our environment and ourselves to do whatever is necessary to put us on a path to a nature-positive future. It is time that we not only protected our natural environment but repaired it for future generations. I commend the bill to the House. 16:59 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The State of the environment report released last year was a huge wake-up call for so many of us who knew that our environment and nature were degrading but didn't realise the extent of the crisis. There's been a lot of focus on decarbonisation in recent years. Biodiversity has been the poor cousin, despite the fact that, as Ross Garnaut told me, we only have one scalable technology that can pull carbon out of the air; it's called the tree. The South West of WA is one of the 25 original global hotspots for wildlife and plants and the first one identified in Australia. In fact, about half of south-west WA's 8,000 species are found nowhere else. Overlaid with this is the fact that WA has one of the highest extinction rates in the world. So it's no surprise there are so many people in my community who care so much about restoring and protecting biodiversity. Australia has signed up to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits us to protecting and restoring 30 per cent of the land for nature by 2030. This means 30 per cent of every kind of habitat. It can't just be deserts and salt lakes, for example. And suddenly that's only seven years away. This urgent environmental crisis requires money, resources and planning. It requires a government-led, holistic response to try and preserve and rebuild all we have lost and are still losing. To be really clear, this bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, is not that response. This bill is a small piece of the puzzle. It sets up a framework for a new nature repair market so the private sector can voluntarily participate in nature repair. It has limited detail, and we're told that the critical detail will be developed in later standards, rules and methodologies. It's not a bad idea, but despite its good intentions I have some real concerns about it. At a high level, my concerns are in three areas: timing, purpose and the appropriateness of a market mechanism. My first concern is in relation to timing. This scheme should not be a substitute for strong legislative protection for biodiversity. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is the main mechanism for protecting nature. It's currently being reviewed, and significant once-in-a-generation changes are anticipated. Many in my community and across Australia are waiting with bated breath to see the new EPBC Act. Under the EPBC Act, we need legally enforceable standards of national environmental significance and a national environmental protection agency. Any trading of nature-positive certificates should complement the standards established under the EPBC Act. A national EPA would be better positioned to regulate a nature repair market and ensure it's delivering on its objects. For this reason, it would make much more sense to amend the EPBC Act first, implementing the Samuel and Chubb recommendations in full, and then create a complementary nature repair market. So this is a bit 'cart before the horse'. My second fundamental issue with this bill is its object. Its stated object is 'to promote the enhancement or protection of biodiversity in native species in Australia'. At the very least, this needs to be changed to 'and'. We need to promote protection and also promote enhancement. We have to prevent further damage and make good on damage already done to the extent that it's possible. We must set a fixed baseline, not a trajectory of decline, and define 'nature positive' as an improvement, not slightly better than the terrible decline we're expecting. This fundamental difference shows up in one big question about the bill: the extent to which its longer-term purpose is to set up a market for offsets. It has all the hallmarks of a future offset mechanism. The difference between offsets and credits is that offsets are a specific response to the destruction of nature and should only be used when all other mitigation efforts are exhausted. Voluntary credits make something better than it would otherwise be, without there being commensurate damage. Offsets are hard enough to make work in a carbon market, with a relatively simple concept of emitting gas and avoiding emitting gas. But a nature market is so much more complex that the concept of offsetting damage to koala habitat by improving frog habitat makes very little sense. The New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme is referred to as leading practice in Australia, but a recent Audit Office of NSW assessment found significant flaws in terms of integrity, strategy, transparency, sustainability, implementation and delivery of gains. The Samuel review said immediate changes are required to the Commonwealth environmental offsets policy to ensure that offsets don't contribute to environmental decline. We currently assume that this will be addressed in the EPBC Act, which reinforces the timing issue that I've already raised. If the NRM is to be used for offsets, it will need to be based on strong national standards and create a clear hierarchy to ensure it drives changed behaviour, rather than creating an expectation that you can just pay your way out of environmental damage. I'll be supporting any amendments that make it clearer in this legislation that the current purpose is voluntary credits rather than offsets. My third fundamental concern is whether or not a market mechanism is in fact suitable for efficient and effective outcomes on nature repair. In principle, I'm supportive of markets as an efficient way to deliver outcomes. Markets can achieve the lowest-cost solutions, access new capital and drive innovation through experimentation. Market participants can develop and implement solutions that are beyond the innovative capacity of the state. There are some environmental markets that already work with some degree of effectiveness, including for water and carbon. But characteristics of the proposed nature repair market make it a bit different and will require very sophisticated structuring to ensure that it delivers on its objects. Turning a million-dimensional object, the biodiversity of Australia, into a market is really hard. There are commonly accepted characteristics of effective markets, and each of them raises issues for the nature repair market. The basic characteristics of an effective market are well-defined and assignable property rights; a sufficient number of sellers and buyers to enable a market price to develop; equitable access to information, and trust among buyers and sellers; ease of entry and exit; and effective regulation. I want to go through these in turn and look at whether these characteristics exist in the proposed nature repair market, the potential consequences of them being a bit shaky, and what we need to do to deliver on the objects. Firstly: well-defined and assignable property rights. The framework proposed creates a new type of property right called a biodiversity certificate. Biodiversity certificates will be issued on a project basis, with impacts measured based on an accepted methodology and a forecast counterfactual—for example, a quantified increase in the number of a specific species on a property compared with a no-intervention approach. The carbon market, by comparison, seems simple: one unit of carbon will always equal one unit of carbon, regardless of where it originates. Defining a marketable biodiversity unit is much, much harder. Each biodiversity certificate will be different. It will be almost impossible to compare one certificate with another. In order to deliver meaningful nature repair, there must be a nuanced framework established to guide priorities, standards, monitoring and validation. The second criterion for an effective market is a sufficient number of sellers and buyers to enable a market price to develop. The bill relies on the assumption that the private sector will voluntarily join the market and that Australian biodiversity certificates will be a marketable and desired property. There are some factors supporting the development of demand. The international Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, in which Australia plays a key role, is publishing its final report in September. This is likely to contain recommendations that support a shift in global financial flows away from nature-negative outcomes and towards nature-positive outcomes—that is, companies may increasingly be seeking nature investments that they can tell their shareholders and other stakeholders about. But it still seems a stretch to think that there will be enough liquidity in the market for meaningful repair, especially in the early days. And it's hard to believe that international capital, seeking projects under a voluntary market, would be attracted to Australian projects when in competition with those in equatorial, island and lower GDP countries where they may get better bang for their buck. Global shareholders may feel that Australia should be in a financial position to solve its own biodiversity problems. To address this liquidity problem, as with the Emissions Reduction Fund, government may need to step in and create demand by underwriting certificates to drive widespread adoption and early wins. This is required to meet the immediate needs of a rapidly degrading environment and tackle Australia's extinction crisis. The third characteristic of an effective market is equitable access to information and trust. In its high-level form, the proposed market mechanism does not have sufficiently robust integrity provisions and doesn't identify any consequences for nondelivery. Markets have inbuilt incentives for both proponents and buyers to seek out projects with the lowest possible costs. Without clear provisions to ensure otherwise, a market will drive towards projects that lack integrity or cut corners. The NRM will need a way to differentiate between different levels of difficulty in restoration. Restoring a hectare of grassland is much simpler than restoring a hectare of banksia woodland. It's difficult to believe that this nuance will be recognised through the market price in a voluntary market. Again, this will depend on the priority, standards, monitoring and validation that's put in place. The next characteristic of an effective market is the ease of entry and exit. Barriers to entry include the complexity of methodology determinations and the time lag between registering a project and being able to sell a biodiversity certificate. Intermediaries may emerge, and it's unclear whether a secondary market in biodiversity certificates is anticipated or desirable. A secondary market would return no additional funds to projects and create no nature repair outcomes. These barriers to entry make it more important that government invests initially to create a liquid market. The last characteristic of an effective market is effective regulation. This is very broad, but the issues I've illustrated so far show that the regulatory environment will need to be nuanced, sophisticated and adaptable. Market outcomes are only efficient and effective if the guardrails drive the right behaviour. Given the complexity, it seems unlikely that we'll get this regulation right from the start. We're putting the cart before the horse by proceeding with a nature repair market before the EPBC Act and the full implementation of the Chubb and Samuel reviews. The purpose is not entirely clear, with the likelihood that it is used for offsets driving a race to the bottom. The idea of creating a voluntary market is not a bad one, but many things will need to line up to make it an effective mechanism to actually repair nature. In this context, the government will need to proceed with three approaches. Firstly, I think government investment is going to be required upfront to kickstart the market. Unfortunately, we don't have years to waste waiting around to see if a market emerges organically. Secondly, regular and robust review of the effectiveness and integrity of the market will be key. We'll not get this right the first time, and the regulator will need to be able to respond nimbly to the way the market is emerging, and I'll be supporting any amendments that improve the review mechanism. Thirdly, the development of the standards and mechanisms that create the guardrails for the market will need to be done by experts. My electorate, Curtin, is full of biodiversity expertise. In fact, four of the 12 members of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee live in Curtin, including botanist Professor Kingsley Dixon of City Beach, who was appointed yesterday as an Officer of the Order of Australia. The University of Western Australia's School of Agriculture and Environment is educating future biodiversity experts, and, although Kings Park is on the edge of my electorate, we'll also claim the WA seed bank. Ensuring that this market actually delivers outcomes will mean that the committee overseeing the market will need biodiversity and restoration ecology experts like those who live in my electorate, not just lawyers and economists. I'll be supporting amendments to this effect. Supporting and expanding this type of expertise will be vital to the success of the NRM. One very practical suggestion is for the Commonwealth to provide Austudy support for students to undertake postgraduate qualifications in biology, biodiversity and conservation across the country. In conclusion, the idea of creating a voluntary market to repair nature is a small but useful part of the government response. It will need to tie in with the very important EPBC Act and be guided by clear national standards. Getting it to work effectively will require clear objectives and carefully drafted regulation, guided by experts, and may also require investment from government to kick-start the market. 17:14 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 will see the introduction of a world-leading voluntary market framework supporting landholders to protect, restore and repair nature, and I thank Minister Plibersek for this exciting initiative. This is all part of the Albanese Labor government delivering on its Nature Positive Plan, a modern version of the ancient tradition of caring for country. This new market framework will make it easier for Australian businesses, organisations, local and state governments and individuals to invest in projects to protect and repair nature. The Australian government has committed to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. This is the same goal that has been adopted globally under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. This goal reinforces the findings of the 2021 State of the environment report and its sorrowful tale of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. After a lost decade of neglect, this big, brown beautiful land needs significant investment in conservation and restoration for a nature-positive future. The Commonwealth government can't do it alone, obviously. There's a role for farmers, citizens, businesses and private sector investment that can contribute to reversing this environmental decline. This was highlighted in the finding of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review by Professor Graeme Samuel AC. Private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders are increasingly looking for ways to achieve positive outcomes for nature, not just because it's the right thing for any patriotic Australian to do but also, increasingly, because it's good for business. A recent independent report estimates that the market for biodiversity in Australia could unlock $137 billion in financial flows by 2050. So the demand is out there and the Albanese government will respond to it. Importantly, this new nature repair market will be driven by science. Unlike the previous Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, we won't be ignoring the signs. Unlike those Luddites and dinosaurs, we will allow science to lead the way as the nature repair market sets up and begins to work its restorative magic. The nature repair market will enable First Nations people to promote their unique knowledge of caring for this country, ancient wisdom held today that stretches back more than 65,000 years. Our nation is fortunate to have access to this knowledge and lived experience—information that can't be found anywhere else. For this nation's sake, it's imperative that we tap into this knowledge to achieve the best possible outcomes. It will enable participation and create employment and economic opportunities for First Nations people all over this land. And it will be done on First Nations people's terms. It will promote and enable free, prior and informed consent for projects on the land or waters their people have cared for for more than 100,000 generations. There will be opportunities to design projects that reflect the knowledge and connection to country of our First Nations people, and to utilise their skills and knowledge for a nature-positive future. That's a win for everyone. Establishing the market in legislation will ensure its ongoing integrity, encourage investment in nature and drive environmental improvements across Australia. The bill will enable the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, to issue Australian landholders with tradeable biodiversity certificates. Certificates can then be sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals. All landholders, including farmers, First Nations people and other organisations—conservation groups et cetera—can participate in this market. Projects will deliver long-term nature-positive outcomes through activities such as weeding, planting native species and pest control. These can be undertaken on land or water, and so will include lakes and rivers as well as marine and coastal environments. This will be a boon for regional Australia, yet another example of the Labor Party looking after the bush. This will be a boon because it will open participation and expansive opportunities for project locations which would then support jobs and nature-positive economic activity. The market will operate in parallel with the carbon market, facilitated by having the same regulator. This alignment will encourage carbon farming projects that also deliver benefits for biodiversity. There'll be administrative efficiencies in this approach and, more importantly, clear and accurate oversight of claims being made in both markets, because, as we know, there's been some dodgy accounting in the past. Our government acknowledges the recent review of carbon crediting, led by Professor Ian Chubb, which pointed out much of this. Lessons learned from the carbon market have informed the bill and will continue to be reflected upon as environmental markets develop. The bill provides for biodiversity certificates to have integrity and represent an actual environmental improvement. Buyers can then invest in such a market with confidence. A key integrity measure is an independent expert committee responsible for ensuring projects deliver high-quality nature-positive outcomes, underpinned by a consistent approach to the measurement, assessment and verification of biodiversity. The integrity of environmental outcomes is also enabled through assurance and compliance requirements. This includes monitoring, reporting and notification on the delivery of project activities and progress on the environmental outcome. The regulator will have monitoring and enforcement powers to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with the rules. As we know, good governments prepare for the rogues. The Nature Positive Plan reflects our commitment to restoring public accountability and trust. Consequently, transparency will be a core element of the scheme. Comprehensive information about projects and certificates will be available on a public register. Additional information will be regularly published by the regulator and there will be active release of relevant data by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This will enable parliament and the public to monitor the scheme and provide opportunities for citizen oversight of what is taking place in the community. It will support certainty and value to the market and build trust back into the system. The department is committed to working with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that certificates issued in the nature repair market are not victims of greenwashing claims, that the statements made about certificates accurately reflect the projects and investment they represent, and that projects in the carbon and biodiversity markets are not affected by misleading claims. Our government is committed to consultation and engagement on our environmental reform agenda. We have listened and will continue to listen to feedback on the design and operation of this market. We are working with First Nations people on a co-design approach for developing priority methods and supporting appropriate incorporation of traditional knowledge and management practices. The bill before the chamber mandates public consultation on methods and the instrument for measuring and assessing biodiversity. The draft legislation also establishes the Nature Repair Market Committee. This committee will be responsible for providing advice to the minister following public consultation on the submission and their advice. It will have five or six experts with substantial experience and significant standing in one or more areas of expertise, including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics and Indigenous knowledge. The Nature Positive Plan represents a different approach to biodiversity offsets. It commits to offsets being the last resort, which we will enshrine in legislation. The Albanese government is already designing and consulting on new national standards for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets. These will be legislated under the new nature-positive laws and will provide certainty and confidence in the use of biodiversity offsets under Commonwealth laws. They will no longer rely on averted loss but on the protection and restoration of ecosystems that provide a nature-positive outcome where avoidance and mitigation cannot prevent a significant impact. Projects under the nature repair scheme won't be used as offsets unless and until they meet the new standards. The nature repair market will be an opportunity to create a supply of projects certified through purpose designed offset methods. The register will be a comprehensive and public source of information on these projects and the biodiversity that they are protecting. This bill will establish a new market for investing in nature-positive outcomes. It will support Australia's international commitments to protect and repair ecosystems and reverse species decline and extinction—long overdue. It will generate investment and job opportunities for a nature-positive economy and create new income streams for landholders, including First Nations peoples and farmers, and I commend the legislation to the House. 17:24 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The Australia state of the environment 2021 report found that our biodiversity is declining and that the overall state of our environment is poor. The Nature Repair Market Bill introduces a nature repair market, in effect, a biodiversity market, the aim of which is to encourage private sector investment in long-term nature repair. This market should, in theory, enable proponents to undertake projects which protect or enhance biodiversity on land, in aquatic environments and in our oceans. Projects will be rewarded with biodiversity certificates tradable in the market and regulated by the Clean Energy Regulator. There is no doubt that we need legislation to prevent biodiversity. Australia has large swathes of degraded land. We've lost at least 100 species to extinction since European colonisation. Nineteen Australian ecosystems are already collapsing, including the Murray-Darling Basin and the Great Barrier Reef. For Australia to reverse the distressing environmental decline, we have to drive real benefits from legislation like this. We have to support landowners to restore degraded landscapes. We have to increase biodiversity. We have signed up to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits us to protect 30 per cent of our land to nature. This means 30 per cent of every kind of habitat. We're not just talking deserts and salt lakes; we're talking native forests, farms and grasslands. This can't be just about nature protection; it's also about habitat restoration. The scientists, the environmentalists and the farmers have all told us that these are areas that need serious investment. We know that it will cost $2 billion a year to protect Australia's natural environments and to reverse our biodiversity decline. Just for reference, $2 billion is about one-fifth of what we're spending this year to subsidise fossil fuels. We spend just 15 per cent of what is needed to prevent extinctions and to recover threatened species, even though half of our GDP has a moderate to very high direct dependence on ecosystem services. With this legislation, we're proposing to hand that great responsibility for the protection of ecosystem services dependent on nature to the private sector. We should, in fact, be taking the lead, not passing the baton. This bill does not guarantee effective action on nature repair. There's far too little detail to it. It is a framework legislation. The most significant elements of the scheme are still to be provided via a series of legislative instruments to be made by the minister. These elements include the rules of the scheme, details of the instruments to be used to assess biodiversity and the scheme's methodology determinations. The bill is a revamp of a previous iteration prepared by the Morrison government and introduced to this House in February 2022. At that time, the Senate committee which assessed the bill identified a number of issues with it, including but not limited to its broad deletion of administrative powers and immunity from liability. Those concerns have not been addressed by this bill. External reviews have suggested that measures for monitoring, auditing and compliance provisions delineated by this bill are insufficient. There are no provisions regarding the frequency or scope of committee meetings requiring regular audits by the regulator. The Senate committee reviewing this legislation will not report until August. This all feels premature, undercooked and ill formed. On paper, the Albanese government's stated goals are a zero extinctions target and the protection of 30 per cent of Australia's lands and seas by 2030. However, this Nature Repair Market Bill lacks clarity on the conservation outcomes it will achieve. It doesn't actually define the nature or the scope of its objectives, other than describing them as 'enhancement or protection of biodiversity'. We're being asked to trust the market to value biodiversity and to act effectively on conservation, while not doing so ourselves. Landholders are not being guided as to what projects the government sees as more or less valuable, as higher or lower priority. In reality, businesses' desire to voluntarily purchase enough biodiversity certificates for corporate social responsibility remains uncertain. Worldwide, less than nine per cent of biodiversity conservation funding comes from offsets, nature based solutions, carbon markets and philanthropy combined. This bill does not identify any regulatory levers which the government could implement should there be insufficient voluntary investment to create a functional nature repair market. We're just going to put it out there and we're going to hope for the best. The problem is that we have seen biodiversity markets before, both abroad and domestically. Their effectiveness rests on whether they reward stewardship that really benefits biodiversity or whether they rely on offsets which can harm biodiversity elsewhere. There is concern, with good reason, about commodifying nature, about this scheme's integrity and about its interaction with our national environmental laws. Environmental offsets are meant to compensate for unavoidable impacts on environmentally significant matters, to offset losses at one site with like for like at another site. In practice, though, we know that the governance of such schemes is often poor and that they can have the perverse effect of giving tacit approval to destruction and biodiversity loss. This bill should therefore ensure that biodiversity certificates cannot be used to meet offsetting obligations under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation. We need certainty regarding the extent to which the environmental credits given accurately represent the environmental outcomes gained. This means that the proposed biodiversity certificates have to reflect actual biodiversity gain which would not have occurred in the absence of the project. The bill allows for certificates to be issued for projects which act to protect sites, but an obvious concern with this absence of additionality is the potential for over-inflation of perceived biodiversity benefits. It's proposed that we will have prescribed biodiversity assessment instruments which will dictate the methodology relating to measurement or assessment of biodiversity and its protection or enhancement, but we don't know what these instruments are and we don't know how the assessments will operate. The potential for comparison between different species and ecosystems is concerning. If we lose all our koalas, can saving a moth species or the greater glider compensate? What are the relative benefits of interventions to save numbats as opposed to Gouldian finches? This bill assigns the government's responsibility for species preservation to a market. The government should, in fact, establish robust measures of biodiversity and it should delineate how direct benefit from projects assessed under this scheme will be established. We urgently need the EPBC Act reform to be brought to this House, such that we can establish a national environmental standard for our environmental offsets. Without that, this bill is putting the cart before the horse. We have to have concerns about the proposed involvement of the Clean Energy Regulator, given the governance issues relating to the Clean Energy Regulator identified by the recent Chubb Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units. This bill proposes additional functions for the CER in an area in which it does not have specific expertise, and before those broader governance issues have been addressed. Concerns persist generally about governance and compliance, not only as administered by the Clean Energy Regulator but across the spectrum of government agencies dealing with environmental matters. Just last August the Minister for the Environment and Water, in discussing this scheme—the scheme in front of us today—claimed: … maybe one day Australia will house its own Green Wall Street: a trusted global financial hub, where the world comes to invest in environmental protection and restoration. They're lovely words, but these are words from a government which has approved the Isaac coalmine and which this month allowed removal of the Murujuga rock art from the Burrup Peninsula in breach of the globally accepted Burra Charter for international best practice in heritage conservation. These are words from a government which has given $1.5 billion to the Northern Territory government to build the Middle Arm facility, three kilometres from the Darwin suburb of Palmerston, to support fracking of the Beetaloo basin and development of the Barossa gas field and pipeline. Sadly, we have seen already that we cannot trust this government on important issues relating to environmental protections. We need legislation on these matters to be absolutely watertight, and this bill is not that. These examples underscore the importance of transparent, accountable and robust governance in all of our environmental agencies. The credibility of our environmental efforts hinges on trust. Trust can only be cultivated by maintaining the highest standards of governance and compliance. We need strong environmental protection legislation with clear enforcement. If it is to proceed, the nature repair market scheme must be administered under the forthcoming independent Environmental Protection Agency or the proposed extinction prevention hub, not under the Clean Energy Regulator. It's time for Australia to lead the way out of the climate crisis. We can't approve a scheme that, rather than creating a nature positive market, could have the perverse effect of increasing nature destruction. It's time to stop kicking this can down the road. This bill in its current form is undercooked and underwhelming, and it is very difficult to commend it to the House. 17:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm very pleased to be standing here to support the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 because it offers something new, and I think we so desperately need that. The World Heritage listed Greater Blue Mountains area, which covers an enormous part of my electorate of Macquarie, is a unique place. It's more than a million hectares of sandstone plateau, escarpments, gorges and waterfalls. It's covered in temperate eucalypt forest in most parts, with more than 90 species, which represents 13 per cent of the global total. There are 152 plant families in total, with 484 genera and around 1,500 species. These are wonderful numbers and a significant proportion of the Australian continent's biodiversity. It includes primitive species from the Gondwana age, like the Wollemi pine. The diverse plant habitat supports more than 400 vertebrate animals, with 52 mammals, 63 reptiles, more than 30 frogs and about one-third of Australia's bird species. We have platypuses, echidnas and, of course, koalas. There are at least 120 butterfly and 4,000 moth species—and the list goes on. Much of the natural bushland is high wilderness quality, and until the Gospers Mountain bushfire it remained close to pristine in an extensive, largely undisturbed matrix which is still free of things like earthworks, structures and other human interventions. But it is fragile to fire and vulnerable to climate change, so we have a responsibility to improve our protection of this internationally recognised land. This matters because, while that land does have protections, this bill before us provides an opportunity to further protect the integrity of this World Heritage listed area where it's bordered by private and public lands. We're establishing a nature repair market to make it easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects to protect and repair nature, and the lands of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury that are not national park strike me as an ideal place for this work. We know there's already an appetite. A few weeks ago, I attended a forum with close to 50 landowners, wildlife carers, the Bilpin and Colo valley Landcare groups and other community members who gathered in the Hawkesbury to learn about the Great Eastern Ranges initiative, which is partnering with the Hawkesbury-Nepean Landcare Network and WIRES to support wildlife by restoring and creating glideways, flyways and stepping stones. This involves projects to improve, expand and protect habitats and track recovery, restoring private lands and installing nest boxes for a host of animals, including greater gliders, spotted-tail quolls, powerful owls and koalas. The Sydney Basin Koala Network estimates that 80 per cent of koala habitat in the Hawkesbury was destroyed in the Black Summer bushfires, so safe habitat on the peri-urban interface has become critical to their survival. Science for Wildlife research shows that the koala population had been vastly underestimated in the region until recently, and they're tracking the recovery of this highly genetically diverse bunch of koalas. Many of us realise the importance of the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains for koala survival, and the meeting at Kurrajong Heights showed there is a desire by private landowners to improve the integrity of the bush they have on their land, and this Nature Repair Bill provides an even more ambitious pathway. The 2021 State of the environment report tells a story of environmental degradation, loss and inaction across the country. We're supporting landowners, including farmers and First Nations communities, to do things like replant a vital stretch of koala habitat, repair damaged riverbeds or remove invasive species, and we're making it easier for businesses and philanthropists to invest in these efforts. So how does it work? Under the nature repair market landholders, like farmers, and conservation groups can undertake projects to enhance or protect existing habitat, as well as projects to establish or restore habitat. All landholders, including Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, can participate in the market. Projects can be on land, lakes and rivers or in marine and coastal environments. The market will operate in parallel with he carbon market, facilitated by having the same regulator. Projects will be issued with a certificate that can be sold on to another party. Certificates will provide a range of standardised information like area size, threatened species protected and a project description that will enable the market to compare and value projects. As the regulator, the Clean Energy Regulator will have monitoring and enforcement powers to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with the rules. This includes monitoring, reporting and notification on the delivery of project activities and progress on the environmental outcome. The regulator will make sure that projects are being implemented according to the rules and that certificates accurately describe what's happening on the ground. So, essentially, the nature repair market will operate in parallel with the carbon market. Certificates and credits won't be duplicating each other. Aligning the two markets will encourage carbon farming projects that also deliver benefits for biodiversity, which is a good outcome for the environment and for interested and passionate Australian landholders. There are certainly administrative efficiencies in having the one regulator, and more importantly, it provides clear and accurate oversight of claims made in both markets. People might recall that we recently did a review of carbon crediting, led by Professor Ian Chubb. The lessons learnt from the review about the carbon market have been applied to this bill and will continue to be applied as it moves forward. Before the trading scheme operates, an independent committee will provide advice to the minister about the methods that set the rules for projects. Certificates, their status and their ownership will be tracked via a public register. This is not about having secrets; this is about it being public. This will help certificate owners show their shareholders, customers and employees how they're supporting nature repair. There are a really wide range of things that might be possible under nature repair projects. For instance, in a rural environment, removing drainage ditches and excluding livestock and feral herbivores to restore a natural marsh which will create critical habitat for native frog, fish, turtle and wetland bird species might be one project. Indigenous Rangers might undertake feral animal exclusion, buffel grass removal, feral cat control and cultural burning in the Central Desert, for instance, and the certificate generated for the project could support Indigenous Rangers working in on country activities for many, many years. It might be restoring a seagrass meadow permanently lost from historic poor catchment water quality to provide habitat for sea turtles, dugongs, marine fish and seahorses. Monitoring could be provided by local commercial and recreational fishers who foresee increased local fish stocks. There is a wide variety that we can apply and people can do. The plan for the scheme is that it's up and running in 12 months from the passage of the legislation. It does need that time to allow for the establishment of the independent advisory committee, the development of the legislative rules and the development of the project methods, including the time for public consultation. The Clean Energy Regulator also needs to develop the processes and systems that are needed to manage the scheme. The one question I know people have already asked me about this is: just how are the certificates tradable? Is it actually a market? The nature repair market will enable landholders who protect, manage or restore local habitat to receive tradable biodiversity certificates which can then be sold to businesses or philanthropic organisations wanting to invest. A certificate holder can onsell a certificate to another holder through a contract, but we're not expecting that to be a regular occurrence. There will be guidelines published, and we'll work with the ACCC to make sure that any claims made about investments in nature are credible. We don't want any double counting or any other forms of greenwashing that could undermine investment in nature. I look at my own electorate and I think people will want to be a part of this, but there is more evidence around the broader reasons for delivering this approach. A recent PwC report found: A biodiversity market could unlock $137 billion in financial flows to advance Australian biodiversity outcomes by 2050. Australian Ethical Investment, Australian Sustainable Finance Institute and the Australian Banking Association have expressed their support. Demand for the market is expected to come from a number of sources, including carbon market participants seeking to add biodiversity values to their projects; philanthropic investors responding to the biodiversity crisis; and businesses wanting to demonstrate their environmental credentials to their staff, consumers and shareholders. This is a different approach to biodiversity offsets. I'm really conscious that Western Sydney has lost all but six per cent of the Cumberland Plain Woodland, and you'd be hard-pushed to find an offset program there that's considered truly effective. The Nature Positive Plan commits to offsets being the last resort. The approach in this bill creates a new market to spur positive investment in positive results for nature. It will help protect ecosystems, it will help repair ecosystems and it will help reverse species decline and extinction. It will generate investment and job opportunities in a nature economy and create new income streams for landowners. It also has the potential to change the dynamics of private land in regions like the Hawkesbury, where keeping and creating the corridors and stepping stones for native wildlife that takes them from one safe bush area to another through a very inhabited land is becoming more and more difficult. It isn't helped by the Hawkesbury council adopting the New South Wales Rural Boundary Clearing Code, which has given a green light to anyone with a large property who wants to clear 25 metres of land along their boundary under the pretext of improving fire management. The Liberal state government thought it would be a good idea to give councils in my electorate the chance to opt in to this code, and I note that Hawkesbury was the only council to do so, with the Liberals on council ramming through the adoption of the code last year. Now, I am all for science based fire management. For a start, there is a question as to whether clearing 25 metres around the boundary of a large property does provide any extra protection from intense bushfires. As we experienced in the Gospers Mountain fire, there were ember attacks kilometres from the front of the fire. And the only obligation on landowners is a self-assessment on a range of complex factors, including 11 vegetation categories, legally protected areas, protection of Aboriginal culturally modified trees and other cultural heritage, riparian buffer zones, soil erosion and landslip risks, right through to harm to native and introduced animals. That's all it is—self-assessment. There is no science used and there are no real checks and balances on the landowners. Already there are reports that it's leading to land clearing that actually has nothing to do with fire management and, significantly, the destruction of corridors and habitat used by native animals, including koalas. Such is the concern about the effect that the Total Environment Centre and Sydney Basin Koala Network recently declared, and I quote: The Council's action facilitated clearing on rural land when the law requires such land to be protected if it has koala habitat. They went on to say: The desire to not know about koala presence will also feed into other damaging clearing proposals and as a precursor to urban development. They also warned: Hawkesbury Council will become known as the Koala Killer Council. We, who are the custodians of fragile, unique habitats, have an obligation to do what we can to protect them. So let's hope that this legislation has a smooth passage and that the Albanese government can show a better way, not facilitating the destruction of habitat the way that Hawkesbury Council has but preserving it, improving it, and helping native animals to arrive. 17:59 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the devastating damage to nature that was identified in Australia's most recent State of the Environment Report; (2) acknowledges the welcome commitments the government has made as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the Threatened Species Action Plan, and the Nature Positive Plan; (3) notes the feedback from environmental organisations, businesses, and community groups, that significantly stronger environmental laws are a necessary prerequisite for a successful Nature Repair Market; (4) calls on the government to: (a) explain clearly how it will meet its objectives of preventing new extinctions and protecting and conserving at least 30 per cent of Australia's land mass; (b) prioritise critical reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, as well as the establishment of the new Environmental Protection Agency, before trading of certificates begins in the Nature Repair Market; and (c) urgently clarify how biodiversity offsets will be treated in the Nature Repair Market and confirm that no offsets will be traded until reforms to the EPBC Act have been legislated". Our country is blessed with an incredible natural environment, from wallabies to the wombat, from the koala to the kangaroo and from the dingo to the Tasmanian devil, Australia is home to amazing animals, unique plants and diverse aquatic life. In my own electorate of Wentworth, I feel privileged to be able to watch the annual whale migration from Bondi Beach, swim with the seahorses in Parsley Bay and walk the shores of the Sydney Harbour National Park. Nature in Australia is unparalleled, but it is also in crisis. The most recent State of the environment report pulled back the curtain on the devastating damage that is being done to our natural world. We have the highest rate of deforestation in the developed world. We have the highest rate of animal extinction of any country. We are doing irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef. Add the existential threat posed by climate change, and our environment has never been in greater danger. We have a responsibility and an imperative to act, but our actions so far have been inadequate. Our environmental laws are weak and ineffective. We're investing just 15 per cent of what is needed to avoid extinctions, and we continue to use taxpayers' money to subsidise destructive activities like native forest logging. The government's ambition to address these challenges is welcome. I know the minister shares my passion for conserving our environment. I welcome the commitments made at COP 15, the new Threatened Species Action Plan and the desire to reform our environmental laws. The minister is also right to point out that the scale of the challenges ahead means we need action from more than just government. This brings me to the legislation before the House, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. The objective of this bill, to increase private investment in conservation, is a good one. As an economist, I see value in finding ways to use market mechanisms to achieve our policy objectives. But despite this optimism, the prioritisation of the government's environmental policy remains confusing. As the Hippocratic oath says, 'first, do no harm', so, before we embark on untested ways of funding environmental protection, we could stop actively supporting environmental destruction by ending native forest logging for good. Native forest logging destroys our environment, accelerates climate change and, over the last two years, has cost taxpayers in New South Wales $29 million in bailouts to the loss-making state Forestry Commission. I commend the actions of the Labor governments in Western Australia and Victoria, who have agreed to bring this destructive practice to an end. But native forest logging shows no sign of stopping in New South Wales and Tasmania, so the federal government must step in. The commitments made by the minister to me in question time last month are very welcome, but they're not sufficient. We need to end native forest logging across the whole of Australia for good. The community is ready to back this. The crossbench is ready to back this. Even the minister's backbenchers are ready to back this. Now is time the time to show courage and act decisively. After ending native forest logging, the government's second priority must be to do what is promised and legislate critical reforms to the EPBC Act. We have had over a year of Labor government, and these reforms seem only a little closer than they were when they first took office. I acknowledge that the EPBC reforms are complicated and will take time, and that is why they must be a priority. Only having done this, and only when a strong environmental protection agency is established, should we allow trading in this new market. Let me turn now to the specifics of the bill and outline some of the areas where I would like to see the legislation strengthened. These come from the experts I have consulted but also from the people in Wentworth, many of whom attended my recent community forum on this bill, and I'd like to pay tribute to the Environmental Voices of Wentworth, particularly Brooke, Daniela, Chloe and James, for their advocacy on these issues. The biggest concern raised with me is the potential for a new market to be a vehicle for further environmental destruction through the trading of low-integrity biodiversity offsets. Let's be clear, whilst high-integrity offsets make sense for carbon emissions biodiverse ecosystems are fundamentally not transferable. It is simply not possible to fully offset the harm caused by damage to one habitat by pumping money into another. The damage caused by mass clearing of koala habitat in the forests of New South Wales cannot be mitigated by planting trees in WA. Only if biodiversity loss is unavoidable and reasonable steps have been taken to avoid and minimise loss are offsets appropriate to consider, and if they are used they must be of the highest integrity. Unfortunately, that is just not the case in Australia today. The Samuel review made clear that offsets currently used under the EPBC 'contribute to environmental decline rather than active restoration'. This is the offsets currently under the EPBC Act, and they contribute to environmental decline rather than active restoration. A similar picture has emerged across various state level offset schemes. The government has acknowledged this. They have committed to developing a national environmental standard for environmental offsets, and they have committed to a clear hierarchy to, first, avoid and, then, reduce and mitigate and only to offset when there is a net gain for the environment and payment for conservation. These are absolutely critical reforms, and yet before they are implemented the government is embarking on creating a new market that facilitates the trading of offsets and creates a new form of environmental certificate that may be used as an offset in the future. This has left many in my community confused. The government says there's no need for concern and that the standards in this new market will be even higher than under a reformed EPBC. This may be the case, but I would like to see the proof. At a minimum, we need to see some guardrails. First, the government must clearly communicate its intention regarding how offsets will be used in this market. Second, the government must fully implement its reform to the EPBC Act before any offsets can be traded in this market. Third, if project proponents do not want their projects to be used for offsetting, the legislation should allow them to specify this. The amendment I will move during the latter stages of this debate will achieve that third objective. It has the support of environmentalists, who don't want their projects to be used to compensate for nature's destruction, and it has the support of investors, many of whom want to invest in conservation but are worried about being accused of greenwashing. This is a commonsense amendment. It empowers those who engage in conservation work, it provides additional clarity and assurance for business and it is aligned with the government's intentions for the market. I urge the government to accept it. There are several other challenges that my constituents have raised with me and which are reflected in submissions to the Senate inquiry made by the financial sector, environmental groups, leading academics and many others. Firstly, there is an absence of clear guidance from the government on the road map for meeting our 30 by 30 goals, how the new nature repair market will support these goals and what the priorities are for investment. Without a clear plan and without certainty for business, the much touted $130 billion in Australian biodiversity outcomes that this bill is supposed to achieve are, at best, wildly optimistic and, at worst, completely fanciful. Secondly, there is a lack of clarity on where the demand for certificates in this market will come from, beyond environmental offsets. The government has touted future obligations under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures as a source of demand, but any meaningful and mandatory obligations are many years away. We also don't know whether the government itself will participate in the market. I also have regulations about whether the Clean Energy Regulator has the capacity and skill set to effectively regulate the market. It is particularly confusing that when the government is setting up a new environmental protection agency to be the tough cop on the beat it has chosen a different regulator for this new market. It is clear that we need vastly increased investment in nature if we are to protect and preserve our natural environment. It is also clear that we need to try new and innovative ways of achieving this, because the status quo is just not working. I'm not opposed to the idea of this market in principle, but there are improvements that should be made to this bill. Even more importantly, before we experiment with trading in this market, we must legislate reforms to the EPBC and put an end to native forest logging. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Dr Haines 282335 I second the amendment. 18:00 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite In my first speech in this place, I spoke about my very first experience of activism almost four decades ago. It was environmental activism sparked by land clearing in a precious coastal rainforest, which sent koalas fleeing for safety into my parents' front yard in Port Macquarie, New South Wales. Today, the koala is endangered, along with many other native species across our nation. With over 500 of our iconic wildlife species at risk of being erased forever, it is time to act. That's why I rise with much passion to support the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. This bill gives us all hope for the future of our environment and is a reminder that we've waited too long under the former Liberal government for action—action to better protect and nurture our flora and fauna. If successful, this legislation will establish the mechanisms to bring landholders, businesses and conservation groups together to achieve better environmental and economic outcomes. In places like my electorate of Corangamite, where there is rapid growth all along our coastline, this bill is particularly important. It will enable landholders to work with conservationists to remove invasive weeds and feral animals as well as clean up our waterways. This is important work. It builds on work that people of my community, including all those who work with Landcare, have championed for many years, because, all in all, the people across my region love our environment, and together we are prepared to fight for it. From the Surf Coast to the Bellarine and the Golden Plains and right across my region, we know there is so much to cherish. Corangamite is home to some of the most iconic surf beaches in the world, including Bells Beach, Fairhaven Beach and Thirteenth Beach on the Bellarine Peninsula, just to name a few. These are truly spectacular spots and, as we drive along the heritage listed Great Ocean Road, we're all reminded of just how lucky we are to live in Australia. Often in this place we debate matters that may seem abstract, but what's at stake in this debate is all too clear. It's our parks. It's our lush rainforests. It's our fertile plains. It's our World Heritage sites. It's where our red cliffs meet the rolling surf. It's the ancient sacred sites of our First Nations people. It's our native animals. It's our communities. And it's our livelihoods. They're all at stake, and in the time of climate change, with the intense development pressures on our coastlines and our open green space, the Albanese government recognises that we must do better. This bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill, will make it easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to come together and invest in projects that protect our environment and nurture our native flora and fauna, because at its core this legislation is about connecting people who want to invest in repairing our nation's environment with the people who can do the work on the ground. As the State of the environment report made very clear to all Australians, our environment is under extreme pressure, and it is only going to get worse if we do not act. That's why the environment minister has introduced this significant and long-overdue bill. Through this bill, the minister is continuing a tradition, a proud Labor tradition, of stepping up and delivering environmental reform. It was our former prime minister Gough Whitlam who declared in 1974 that our nation's federal government must lead the way when it comes to environmental preservation. Gough Whitlam said: We are the first generation of Australians to become sharply aware of the conflicting demands between growth and preservation of the environment. Our government is the first Australian Government to attempt to develop sound environmental policies to reconcile these demands, to ensure that growth and development are not bought at the price of the destruction of the nation's natural and historical inheritance. This bill carries the spirit of Gough Whitlam's call. It recognises the need to balance growth and conservation and, importantly, it recognises that our First Nations people have seen forests, waterways and oceans decline for almost 250 years. It acknowledges that we need to think bigger and better. We cannot restrict our efforts to national parks and places of sanctuary. We must focus on private land because currently more than 60 per cent of this country is owned by farmers and First Nations people. It is where most of our endangered animals live, so we must work with our landowners to get better environmental outcomes. So this market bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, makes absolute sense. It will support projects on private land that enhance or protect existing environments. It will also support those who establish or restore habitats for our native species, helping to end our extinction crisis. Through the bill these projects will be open to all landholders, from farmers to First Nations and from conservation groups to businesses and local councils. All will be eligible to apply. The scheme will see landholders issued with a tradeable certificate when they take on a project to repair or protect nature. This certificate will reinforce their credentials as supporters of our environment. The certificate will provide a range of standardised information about the size of land repaired, the kind of work conducted, the threatened species protected and the length of time actions will take. Importantly, it will mean our landholders will potentially get extra income through environmental action that improves the quality of their land. It will also greatly help conservation groups and philanthropists achieve their missions and, most importantly, it will repair and restore our nation's environment. This bill will achieve this by solving two major problems with our current system. Firstly, the scheme will help landholders who want to contribute to the nature repair effort by partnering them with groups and individuals to achieve their environmental visions. The minister presented some fantastic examples of how this work will look, including Indigenous rangers who want to control a feral species across a flood plain to protect native birds and sea turtles and improve water quality for marine life. This will be supported under the scheme. Our business investors can enter into an agreement with a landowner to improve water quality in a river system. The nature repair market will cover such restoration projects and reward those who are involved. This means more money for farmers, more jobs for First Nations communities, more homes for Australia's native animals and plants, and healthier waterways. Secondly, this bill will introduce oversight, transparency and assurance. I've spoken with many local Landcare groups and landowners, and they want to know whether our framework can really deliver their vision for nature repair. They know that, without oversight, a legal framework or a national regulator, businesses and the public could fall victim to greenwashing. This bill addresses these concerns by establishing a register to make sure that the details of projects are open and transparent, because we're all in this together and we have to keep each other accountable. To achieve this, the independent Clean Energy Regulator will monitor and publish landholder reports on the delivery of projects, including the progress being made towards environmental outcomes. The regulator will ensure nature repair projects are delivered according to the rules. The regulator will also publish information on projects and on the ownership and use of biodiversity certificates. It will allow parliament and people from all across the country to scrutinise the scheme, and, as the minister said, we welcome this scrutiny. We welcome it because we want to repair our environment at a time when immediate action is critical. In summary, we've never had a better opportunity in this country to revitalise our environment. We now have the technology, and we have the willpower. Under this legislation, we will have the capacity to harness local partnerships and passion, to repair our environment and reshape our economy. The people of my electorate of Corangamite understand that our local economy would not be the same without the incredible natural environment around us. We know it sustains jobs in our region. We know it brings people to our region, to work, to visit and to live. This is just one reason why we need to see our environment better protected through government action and private sector cooperation, and that's why this bill is so important. We want to restore our environment. We want to revive our coastline. We will work with our First Nations communities and act in partnership to achieve the regeneration of traditional lands and waterways. I would like to take a moment to shout out to the Daniel Andrews government in Victoria for its commitment to the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Program that will protect special landscapes from development, including residential land development, like the Spring Creek valley in Torquay and key areas in the Bellarine that are home to migratory birds and are near Ramsar wetlands. In closing, this commitment is a commitment to our communities. It gives hope for our nation's conservation and to environmental groups who have championed this cause for so long. I look forward to working hand in hand with all my local groups, including the Corangamite Climate Alliance, Geelong Sustainability, and local farmers and businesses, to support them in embracing this opportunity. For those who remember Whitlam's time as Prime Minister, who recall the work done and the opportunities missed and who share similar memories of activism in years gone by, be assured that through this bill, together, we will continue the fight to protect our native species and their habitats so they can be enjoyed for generations to come. 18:13 Ms WATSON 300127 Ryan -BROWN () (): The Nature Repair Market Bill is version 2.0 of legislation that was cooked up by the former agriculture minister, the member for Maranoa. No-one in this House should be surprised that the coalition will be supporting this bill because it's virtually a carbon copy of theirs. It's almost as if, after spending a decade in opposition, Labor decided to simply morph into the Liberal Party to form government. As the former government was hardly well known for environmental protection, what can we expect of this bill and the associated legislation? It's a bit embarrassing that the first major piece of environmental legislation to come before this parliament is a recycled coalition bill. There's no environmental protection agency and no repair of our clearly broken environmental laws. This is after the Minister for the Environment and Water on national radio used the excuse that she was constrained by law as the reason she approved a new coalmine. I asked her about it in question time recently, and she couldn't answer then either. So who makes laws in this country? Shouldn't it be the first priority of the environment minister to change the law to allow rejection of coalmines on the grounds that they will damage the environment and make the climate crisis worse? Apparently not. The environment minister instead proposes this bizarre scheme that, rather than facilitating environmental repair, actually facilitates endless opportunities for greenwashing and for a few landholders to make a buck. It's no wonder the environment minister termed this 'green Wall Street'. I couldn't quite believe it when I heard her use that language—from a self-described progressive Labor government. That language clearly demonstrates, yet again, the comprehensive capture of this government by their corporate friends—prioritising, yet again, their interests over the needs of everyday people and the environment. In another sign of a government very beholden to private corporations, this bill actually privatises environmental protection, thereby ensuring that it will absolutely fail. It shouldn't be news to the environment minister that the market is profit driven. The market doesn't care about koalas and the market doesn't care about protecting our reefs or our precious mangrove habitats. Why can't the government just take responsibility to actually govern—to actually provide for and support everyday Australians, rather than forever handing everything over to the private market? It's happening across the board with this government. They won't build housing, they won't address the climate crisis directly and they'll outsource our aged-care and disability-care sectors. They just turned everything over to private corporations, and now the environment minister is very happy to let private corporations profit from trade in bogus offsets, to spruik, advertise and benefit commercially from their supposed environmental credentials instead of the government actually doing the work of a good government and investing directly in the future of the environment. This bill sees no direct government investment in protecting our environment for future generations, but we do seem to have plenty of money to invest in nuclear submarines and plenty for financing fossil fuel projects and subsidising fossil fuel use. But there's no direct funding for environmental protection. As with the housing bill, they're really hoping that the private market will do their work for them. I think that's a lazy sort of abrogation of government responsibility. Is it a good idea to hand over this particular important responsibility of protecting our environment, holus-bolus, to the private market? Without watertight regulations, obviously, corporations will purchase these biodiversity certificates for greenwashing, and this bill will provide the perfect cover for their continued environmental destruction. Under this bill, Santos, for example, will be able to claim they're protecting the environment while continuing to pollute, to destroy sacred First Nations sites and to desecrate the environment. Under this bill, Woodside, for example, will be able to purchase a few of these biodiversity certificates and run a glossy PR campaign to try to repair their image, benefiting only Woodside and their marketing team, and clearly not the environment. Under this bill, our banks will be able to continue investing in fossil fuels while claiming they care about the environment. The problems with carbon offsets are well known, and there's absolutely nothing in this bill to suggest that these biodiversity certificates will function any differently. In fact, the original version of this bill, proposed by the member for Maranoa, took its crediting framework almost exactly from the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act. Those offsets were so questionable that they had to be put under independent review. The Greens are not alone in opposing this bill. Many environmental groups have raised their concerns, only to be ignored by the government. The Wilderness Society has urged the government not to pass the bill in its current form, describing it as a market in the absence of clear objectives or any caps or limits on environmental damage and, at best, a scheme for habitat loss trade-offs. In fact, a similar scheme in New South Wales has been the subject of a scathing review, describing it as having no strategy for making sure it delivered the environmental outcomes required. Despite the clear failure of this in New South Wales, the Labor government is showing no signs of deviating from the market based path to failure with this bill. Labor's Nature Repair Market Bill is a bizarre joke. It says, 'Okay, let's give certificates to huge private corporations so they can make money greenwashing while actual native habitat and crucial carbon sinks are destroyed.' Huge, nature-destroying corporations are the problem, so why has the government decided all of a sudden that they should be trusted to be the solution? They need to be reined in and regulated, not given a new market to play around with and to make more money from. I'm sorry, but Labor's nature repair market will see an increase in habitat destruction in pursuit of profit. It is going to see an increase in extinctions of our endangered species, it will see an increase in the decline of our reef and, perhaps most importantly, it will see an increase in the number of coal and gas projects approved in this country, making the climate crisis worse. You can't offset your way out of environmental catastrophe, just like you can't offset your way out of the climate crisis. 18:20 Mr G 245392 Solomon OSLING () (): I rise to speak about the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, and I'm very happy to do so. It's a pretty exciting initiative and policy that we're very proud of. I came in a bit late and didn't hear the first part of the contribution from the honourable member from the Greens. However, I did want to speak on this because it has relevance to my electorate and it has relevance to our neighbours. I'm really glad to have the opportunity to speak on it. Delivering our nature-positive plan and establishing the nature repair market is obviously a high priority for our government. This market is going to make it a lot easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects and to repair nature. We all know that our natural environment is under great pressure. The Australian government is committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. I note that those same goals have been adopted globally under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. These goals reinforce the findings of the 2021 State of the environment report and its shocking story of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. We need significant investment in conservation restoration for a nature-positive future. Business and private sector investment can contribute to reversing environmental decline if there's a way for that to occur, and that is what this provides. This was highlighted in the findings of the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act review by Professor Graeme Samuel AC. Private companies, conservation groups and farmers and other landholders are increasingly looking for ways to achieve positive outcomes for nature. A recent report prepared independently by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that the market for biodiversity in Australia could unlock $137 billion in financial flows by 2050. We are responding to that demand with this bill. The nature repair market will be based on science and enable Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders to promote their unique knowledge on their terms. Establishing the market in legislation will ensure its ongoing integrity, encourage investment in nature and drive environmental improvements across Australia. The bill will enable the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, to issue Australian landholders with tradable biodiversity certificates. Those certificates can then be sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals. All landholders, including First Nations landholders, conservation groups and farmers, can participate in the market. Projects will deliver long-term nature-positive outcomes through activities such as weeding, planting native species and pest control. They can be undertaken on land or water, including lakes and rivers, as well as marine and coastal environments. Open participation and extensive opportunity for project locations will support regional Australia, like where I am from, which will provide jobs and nature-positive economic activity. It will be good for the environment, and good for the economy. The nature repair market will enable participation and create employment and economic opportunities for First Nations people. It will promote and enable free, prior and informed consent for projects on their lands and waters. There will be opportunities to design projects that reflect the knowledge and connection to country of our First Nations people and to utilise their skills and knowledge for a nature-positive future. The market will operate in parallel with the carbon market, facilitated by having the same regulator. That alignment will encourage carbon-farming projects that also deliver benefits for biodiversity. There will be administrative efficiencies with this approach and clear and accurate oversight of claims made in both markets—the carbon market and the nature repair market. Our government acknowledges the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb. Lessons learnt from the carbon market have informed the bill and will continue to be reflected upon as environmental markets develop. The bill provides for biodiversity certificates to have integrity and represent an actual environmental improvement. Buyers can then invest in the market with confidence that's it's not, as we would say in the Territory, gammon; it's real. A key integrity measure is an independent expert committee responsible for ensuring projects deliver the highest quality nature-positive outcomes underpinned by a consistent approach to the management, assessment and verification of biodiversity. The integrity of environmental outcomes is also enabled through assurance and compliance requirements. These include monitoring, reporting and notification on the delivery of project activity and progress on the environmental outcome—that is, it's proper; you did what you said you would do, and the outcome for the environment is real. The regulator will have monitoring and enforcement powers to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with the rules. The Nature Positive Plan reflects our commitment to restoring public accountability and trust, which has been damaged during the last 10 years under the former government. Transparency will be a core element of the scheme. Comprehensive information about projects and certificates will be available on a public register. Additional information will be regularly published by the regulator, and there will be active release of relevant data by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This will enable parliament and the public to monitor the scheme and will provide an opportunity for citizen oversight. It will support certainty and value to the market. The department is committed to working with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that certificates issued in the nature repair market are not victims of greenwashing claims, that the statements made about certificates accurately reflect the projects and investments they represent, and that projects in the carbon and biodiversity markets are not affected by misleading claims. Our government is committed to consultation and engagement on our environmental reform agenda. We have listened, and will continue to listen, to feedback on the design and operation of this market. We are working with First Nations people on a co-design approach for developing priority methods and supporting appropriate incorporation of traditional knowledge and management practices. The bill mandates public consultation on methods and the instrument for measuring and assessing biodiversity. The draft legislation establishes the Nature Repair Market Committee. It is the committee that is responsible for providing advice to the minister following public consultation on the submission and their advice. The committee will have five to six experts with substantial experience and significant standing in one or more areas of expertise, including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics and Indigenous knowledge—First Nations knowledge. The Nature Positive Plan presents a different approach to biodiversity offsets. It commits to offsets being the last resort, which we will enshrine in legislation. Our government is already designing and consulting on new national standards for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets. These will be legislated under the new nature-positive laws. The standards will provide certainty and confidence in the use of biodiversity offsets under Commonwealth laws. They will no longer rely on averted loss but on protection and restoration of ecosystems that provide a nature-positive outcome where avoidance and mitigation cannot prevent a significant impact. Projects under the nature repair scheme won't be used as offsets unless and until they meet the new standards. The nature repair market will be an opportunity to create supply of projects certified through purpose designed offset methods. The register will be a comprehensive and public source of information on these projects and the biodiversity that they are protecting. The bill will establish a new market for investing in nature-positive outcomes. It will support Australia's international commitments to protect and repair ecosystems and reverse species decline and extinction, which we all know is happening. It will generate investment and job opportunities for a nature-positive economy and create new income streams for landholders, including First Nations landholders and farmers. But, as I said, all landholders, including First Nations peoples, conservation groups and farmers, can participate in the market. The rights and interests of First Nations people are recognised on approximately 50 per cent of Australia's land area. First Nations people have cared for country for thousands of years, and the biodiversity we enjoy today is a product of their stewardship and custodianship. The nature repair market is designed to enable participation by First Nations people and ensure, as I've mentioned, free, prior and informed consent to projects on their land. Projects could include traditional land management to protect and improve biodiversity, as well as land restoration. Landholders can undertake projects that improve or protect existing habitats as well as projects to establish or restore habitat. So it's not just about repairing what is broken but also protecting land that is in good condition. A lot of First Nations land has never been cleared but still benefits from management activities and protection. These projects can be on land; in inland waterways, like lakes and rivers; or in marine and coastal environments. There are many examples of projects, but some of them could include improving or restoring existing native vegetation through fencing or weeding, planning a mix of local species on a previously cleared area or protecting rare grasslands that provide habitat for endangered species. I began by saying that caring for land and nature is a core priority for our Labor government, and I'm particularly proud of two commitments Labor made in my electorate of Solomon that clearly demonstrate this instinct. The first was our urban river commitment for catchment restoration projects across Darwin and Palmerston. The $3.82 million commitment was part of Labor's $200 million Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. Funded activities include revegetation, improvements in water quality, weed and invasive species management, the establishment of gross pollutant traps, native plantings, landscape rehydration and soil erosion mitigation works. I am incredibly proud that Labor is helping restore the health of Australia's urban rivers and catchments in Darwin and Palmerston, where we celebrate the value of our stunning natural landscapes and, in particular, our urban streams and creeks. These are exactly the types of activities that the new market will incentivise right around Australia. The second commitment which I'm particularly proud of is the $9.8 million over four years that Labor promised to contain and eradicate dangerous gamba grass, which infests itself in the Northern Territory. Gamba grass is one of the greatest environmental threats in the Northern Territory. Part of Labor's $9.8 million commitment is going to be scaling up the already successful work of the Northern Territory Gamba Army to remove the grass, which presents a fire risk to lives, homes and infrastructure, from public lands. This commitment is helping keep gamba grass out of Kakadu National Park as part of federal Labor's ongoing commitment to protect Kakadu from the threat of invasive species. With these commitments, as with the nature repair market that will be created if this bill passes, and I hope it does, our government is showing that it has a clear, nature-positive plan and that it is getting on with the job of delivering it. Finally, I'd just like to highlight the great work of Tierra Australia, which has been driving a proposal to deliver a scoping study and pilot project for restoring the natural functions of the landscape in our dear friend and neighbour Timor-Leste. Not only will nature-positive be good for jobs and economies in my electorate and around Australia; it's also being embraced by our friends and near neighbours, who have similar challenges. I really hope that they will benefit from the great bonuses that will come from nature capital. 18:35 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein The government has committed to a Nature Positive Plan to incentivise conservation and protection of our precious ecosystems. The plan acknowledges the fact that Australia's environmental laws are not fit for purpose and the need for their reform. This is an intention that I support, especially given the stark findings of the State of the environment report, showing the list of threatened species is getting longer and longer. The Nature Positive Plan has several goals: goal 1, better environment and heritage outcomes; goal 2, more efficient and effective decision-making and priorities; and goal 3, accountability and trust. These are all principles that I agree with, and this is why it's so important to get this legislation right. Concerns have been expressed, though, that the nature repair market will be used for offsetting. Instead of stopping destructive activities, biodiversity certificates may be purchased in an attempt to make up for the damage. This is the risk with allowing offsets: a zero-sum game where, rather than a nature-positive outcome, we have a nature net-zero neutral outcome at best. At its core, the focus of the market should be on reducing harm, not protecting the reputations of companies in the business of causing climate and environmental damage. Therefore, I am concerned that this legislation—the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023—does not rule out the use of biodiversity certificates for the purpose of offsetting. There exists an additional challenge when it comes to offsetting for the environment. This challenge is that it's difficult to get like-for-like offsetting right. In other words, obtaining an offset from a project that is so similar that it can be said to virtually represent the biodiversity lost is a very tough thing to achieve. In practice, one would be hard pressed to find an example of a biodiversity market that has been successful in producing a net-positive outcome for biodiversity. The nature repair market is modelled on the carbon market. Similarly, parallels can be drawn with flaws found in that market that may be repeated here. The Chubb review highlighted many issues with the carbon market, with recommendations to improve its integrity to play an actual role in climate action rather than allowing polluters to account their way to zero. By accepting the Chubb recommendations and agreeing to reform of the carbon market, this government has accepted the imperfections of the carbon market. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that flaws that we know to be flaws in that market, because the Chubb review has said so, are not repeated in the nature repair market. Why would we intentionally replicate a flawed system? Unfortunately, it's not possible to conclusively say that integrity in the carbon market is currently a given, especially because the Chubb recommendations have still to be implemented. Yet here we are launching headfirst into another similar market model. The government is also in the process of implementing recommendations made in the Samuel review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. These commitments include introducing national environmental standards, including standards on environmental offsets and a federal environment protection authority, all needed measures. I look forward to working with the government to ensure our environmental laws do indeed produce the best outcomes for biodiversity. But new environmental legislation may come only late this year or early next year. This creates a situation where the nature repair market is likely to be operational before our environmental laws are fit for purpose. In fact, it risks undermining public trust in the nature repair market due to a lack of accountability to meet environmental best practice, which is yet to be defined. Accountability and trust are supposedly central to the government's Nature Positive Plan. This is putting the cart before the horse and driving it straight to the market. I support the basis of the member for Wentworth's second reading amendment calling for the government to implement its promised reforms to the EPBC Act and to establish a federal environmental protection authority. I believe that a nature repair market must be accompanied by the best environmental laws, regulations and governance structures to ensure the best possible outcomes for the environment and biodiversity. The best way to ensure that the nature repair market is regulated with integrity is to have those powers sit with a body dedicated to ensuring biodiversity and conservation outcomes. This body would be the independent federal environment protection authority, the establishment of which was committed to by this government. To that end, I move a second reading amendment to the member for Wentworth's amendment: That the following words be inserted after "Agency": "to perform the role of the regulator for the nature repair market". This calls for the established environment protection authority to act as the regulator of the nature repair market. Currently the legislation prescribes the Clean Energy Regulator to be the regulator for the nature repair market. However, with pending reforms as recommended by the Chubb review and the fact that the Clean Energy Regulator's core business is carbon, a very different deal to biodiversity, I am concerned that it's not the best vehicle to perform this role. I acknowledge the government's argument that as projects that may generate biodiversity certificates available to the nature repair market may also deliver carbon outcomes, with the possibility of generating carbon credits too, it may be onerous for landholders having to deal with two different regulators, particularly for small landholders and First Nations people. My understanding is that there will be other detailed amendments from the member for Warringah, requiring that the regulator support participation by First Nations people and small landholders. I support these amendments. However, at the core of this legislation, this nature repair market should be an approach that ensures the best possible overall outcomes for biodiversity and conservation. When habitat loss and degradation impact nearly 70 per cent of threatened species, everything else is secondary. I am concerned that having the nature repair market regulated by a body which in itself has pending reforms will not yield the better environment outcomes goal of the Nature Positive Plan. In addition to my second reading amendment, I intend to also move several detailed amendments that are intended to improve the regulation of the nature repair market. While the consequential amendments bill does attempt to equip the Clean Energy Regulator for the purpose of regulating the nature repair market, it introduces two new fields of expertise into the Clean Energy Regulator Act: agriculture and biological or ecological science. However, there is at present no requirement for the Clean Energy Regulator to have members who have such expertise. In other words, the nature repair market could be regulated by a body which doesn't have specific expertise in the areas most pertinent to it in designing methods and assessing projects. Therefore I will be moving amendments that require the Clean Energy Regulator to comprise membership including the fields of expertise introduced by the consequential amendments bill. My second consideration in detail amendment has to do with the delegation of powers to the regulator. I would particularly like to point to the provision in the bill that allows the government's power to purchase biodiversity certificates to be delegated to the regulator. The same body in charge of ensuring integrity of these certificates is simultaneously tasked with finding the best deal on behalf of the government to buy such certificates. This is a conflict of interest if ever there was one, and a familiar conflict of interest at that. The Chubb review recommended that this power to purchase carbon credits should not be attached to the Clean Energy Regulator in the context of the carbon market. This is a recommendation the government has already accepted. Again, why legislate an existing flaw that we are already aware of? The regulator is meant to regulate, to ensure that carbon credits have integrity and that the market operates with the best outcomes in terms of reducing emissions. If it is also tasked with finding the best deal on carbon credits on behalf of the government, the risk is that it undermines the integrity of the carbon market and the independence of the regulator. Acknowledging the Chubb review's recommendations, and to ensure that the nature repair market does not repeat the mistakes of the carbon market, this amendment removes the provision that allows the government to delegate the purchasing of biodiversity certificates to the independent regulator. Not closing this gap in the legislation may undermine trust in the regulator to effectively do its job. Given the concerns I've expressed so far, my third amendment calls for a review into the regulator of the nature repair market before 2025. The review would assess the effectiveness of the Clean Energy Regulator as the regulator for the nature repair market. The review would consider how the market has met, or not met, relevant recommendations made by the Chubb review of the carbon market, and its interactions with new and improved environmental legislation. The amendment aims to achieve three goals for the nature repair market to be fit for purpose: first, that the market is continually improved alongside reforms in environmental legislation; second, that the issues with the carbon market are not repeated in the nature repair market, by implementing the reforms recommended in the Chubb review; and third, that the market is regulated effectively by the best independent authority to regulate it. The legislation already includes a review process. The review in this amendment will be an additional one-off review to ensure that the nature repair market operates consistently with environmental best practice of the day. On the review in the legislation: my final consideration-in-detail amendment reduces the legislative reporting period from five years to three. A reporting period of three years strikes a reasonable balance between collecting reliable data and how time sensitive it is to address biodiversity loss, and the need to ensure the market is delivering the best outcomes. In addition to improving the regulation of the nature repair market there are also a number of opportunities to ensure that the market achieves the best possible environmental outcomes. For example, through technologies and artificial intelligence; collecting data on how the market is delivering for biodiversity; and doing so in a way that protects the privacy of landholders and First Nations' data sovereignty. At a broader level, there are questions about whether it is at all possible to accurately capture the value of biodiversity in the form of certificates. I support the goals of the Nature Positive Plan, and I support the government's pursuit of getting us on track to protect and restore Australia's environment. I believe that these modest amendments will go some way to improve the shortcomings of the carbon market and the government's functions of the nature repair market. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms Tink 300124 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:48 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I want to thank the member for Goldstein for her contribution to that. I must say, it's a real pleasure to hear a contribution that is considered, articulate and constructive. I'm not sure we'll end up agreeing with your amendments, member for Goldstein, but the tenor of the debate, I think, is improved by the way in which you've delivered your address. So thank you. Australia's unique flora and fauna is a wonder of the modern world and the pride of our nation. Across our vast continent, species have adapted to our harsh and rugged landscapes and their environments over millions of years. They play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity and distinctive ecosystems. Our natural environment's significance extends to cultural significance, in particular for our First Nations people. There is an Aboriginal saying, and I'm sure there's a reference: if you look after the land, the land will look after you. Am I right, member for Lingiari? This is exactly what the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is seeking to achieve. If you look after the land, the land will look after you. Under this bill, the Albanese Labor government makes it easier for people to invest in activities that help repair nature. We want to support our landowners, including farmers and First Nations communities, to plant more native species and remove invasive or adopted species. We want to invest in projects that protect and repair. We will enable farmers and communities to repair damaged riverbeds and make it easier for businesses and philanthropists to invest in these efforts. It's an all-in approach that ensures every person shares the responsibility of protecting and repairing our diverse environments. The Australian government, through the passage of this bill, is delivering on its Nature Positive Plan with the establishment of the nature repair market. The market will be based on science and will enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote their unique knowledge and culture in this space and on their terms. The nature repair market will encourage businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects that protect and repair our natural environment by providing a market where anybody can participate, delivering long-term nature-positive outcomes through activities such as weeding, planting native species and the management of pest control. These activities can be undertaken on land or water, including in lakes and rivers as well as marine and coastal environments. The market will be particularly important for regional Australians, a cohort of people I'm very proud to represent. This bill will support the regions by providing opportunities through participation and the creation of jobs and economic growth but also, of course, by repairing the environments throughout our regions. Operationally, the market will operate in parallel with the carbon market, which will be facilitated by having the same regulator. This alignment will encourage carbon farming projects that also deliver benefits for biodiversity and ecology. This approach will provide administrative efficiencies and a clear and accurate oversight of claims made in both markets, because our government is committed to listening, learning and improving both the new and existing mechanisms. Integrity is non-negotiable. We are ensuring that this mechanism implements compliance requirements on the delivery of project activities and the progress of environmental outcomes. As a government, we have already committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030, and this same goal has been adopted globally under the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, ensuring that we meet our obligations as a global partner and a leader in environmental protection and repair. Everyone has a role to play in environmental protection, care and repair, and this was highlighted in the findings of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review by Professor Graeme Samuel AC. Increasingly across Australia, private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders are looking for ways to achieve positive outcomes in nature, and there are a number of groups across my electorate involved in this, from the North East Bioregional Network to the Derwent Catchment Group. All the way through my electorate there are groups that are weeding rivers, taking out the weeds, trying to repair the environment and looking for ways to re-establish nature in old disused paddocks, and it's only right that a good government actively engages with them to ensure that these ambitions are turned into a reality. In late April, visitors from around the globe make the journey to Tasmania to visit some of the most stunning sites on earth, including Mount Field and Lake St Clair national parks. The pilgrimage to these locations at any time of the year ensures the witnessing of stunning scenery, but in April visitors get to experience the turning of the fagus, Australia's only cold-climate deciduous tree. The leaves of the fagus at this time of year turn from a bold, burnt red to a stunning, shimmering gold. It's something you must add to your bucket list and witness firsthand. A visit in April will coincide with the Derwent Valley Autumn Festival, a must-visit in its own right. Another marvel of my electorate is the pandani, which is the world's tallest heath plant. It's a firework of thin, grass-looking leaves that can grow up to a metre in length, with the shrub growing up to a 12-metre tree. Of course, I can't speak about the wonders of Tasmanian flora without a special mention of the Tasmanian pepperberry, a cool-climate plant producing berries that, once dried, have a pepper taste, as you'd expect, and are being more and more used as a pepper replacement. New recipes are on the way, and I suggest Ashgrove's pepperberry cheese, which is made in my electorate in the Meander Valley. Of course, pepperberries are also being put in chocolates to make a sweet but spicy snack. The advertisement is over, but try the pepperberries from the electorate of Lyons. Tasmania is not only home to beautiful flora, there are also unique fauna which call our island state home. The eastern quoll, considered extinct on the mainland in 1963, is safely at home in Tasmania. If you're lucky, you can spot one while tramping through the bush across our state. And if you're careful at dusk, one will scoot across in front of your car—hopefully, in front of your car. And, of course, there's our state's most famous and well-recognised marsupial, the Tasmanian devil. Extensive conservation work has occurred across the state to protect our native mascot, to ensure that it doesn't face the same fate as the thylacine, the Tasmanian tiger. There has been very encouraging progress in combating the facial tumours that have afflicted our gruff little marsupial. Despite these unique species of flora and fauna, the 2021 State of the environment report, which the previous government hid under a carpet and was only brought to light after Labor came to government, set a very sober analysis of the environmental issues we face across Tasmania. Lyons, my electorate, has about half the landmass of the state and is home to 194 threatened species. These include flora such as the miena cider gum and the Midlands wattle, and fauna on the list include much-loved bird species such as the Oriental plover and Gibson's albatross, and other icons such as the pygmy right whale and the Tasmanian giant freshwater lobster. It's heartbreaking, frankly, that my electorate has the 10th-most-listed threatened species in Australia. That's why this bill is so important, and I commend the minister for bringing it forward. We must work to improve the environment and to ensure that threatened species in my electorate and across the country are protected. Natural disasters in Tasmania have become more frequent, and it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the impact that events such as bushfires and flooding have had on our natural heritage and ecosystems in Tasmania. Indeed, just a couple of years ago, we had the bushfires that raged through the Central Highlands of my electorate, up in the alpine regions. There were places up in the highlands that had never experienced bushfire in recorded history. Flora was burnt—mosses and other low-lying plants—that had never known bushfire. There were very rare species that were absolutely decimated, and they have not yet recovered because they have never evolved to recover from bushfire. Last October, flooding affected much of our state, including communities in the Meander Valley, Kentish, Northern Midlands, Central Highlands and Break O'Day councils in my electorate. These flooding events impacted communities and ecosystems, with chemicals and debris swept down rivers; trees and other plants torn from banks; and, of course, livestock drowned. This is why speedy recovery and repair after an event are so integral, and that's exactly what this bill and the subsequent nature repair market will ensure. It's also worth noting the excellent work being done by emergency services minister, Senator Murray Watt, whose agencies have provided rapid relief to communities affected by disaster. He is, rightly, well regarded across the parliament for his leadership in the challenging portfolios of agriculture and emergency services. There is a segue between them, of course, with biosecurity, and he is doing an absolutely stellar job. In Tasmania we're still recovering from the floods of October last year. It may take years to fully repair the environment, but I know the job will be made easier once the nature repair market is established. As a government, we have already taken strong steps to improve our environment. In the 2023-24 budget, the Albanese government invested $1 billion in biosecurity. This investment is integral to protecting what we have and to ensuring that invasive species and diseases, such as foot-and-mouth, are kept off our shores. I know this concerns everyone in the agriculture sector, and I note that the Leader of the National Party is in the House; I know that foot-and-mouth is of particular interest to him. Investments such as this and our investment in the nature repair market through this bill have the added bonus of unlocking previously untapped markets for our economy which could be worth $137 billion by 2050. Our government is taking the strong action that's needed to seize this great economic opportunity. The goals of these bills to increase investment in environmental protection and repair, and to meet our global obligations, reinforce the findings of the 2021 State of the environment report, which told a story of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. It showed Australians, as many have known for years now, that for a decade the Liberals completely failed the environment. We are committed to ensuring a strong future with a clean environment for our children and grandchildren, and we will ensure a healthy environment right across Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 19:00 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I rise tonight as the Leader of the Nationals to advise the House that we're unable to support the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the associated legislation. This bill has diverged far too far from our biodiversity bill, which was introduced in this parliament in February last year. There are significant differences in this bill. Disappointingly, this government has let their ideology take away the practical reality and the safeguards that are required for Australian agriculture and farming families in regional communities. There is a place for a biodiversity market. Markets internationally will ask for this not just in relation to carbon abatement but in relation to biodiversity into the future. The bill that our government sought to put in place ensured that there were protections against those who want to come out and exploit regional communities and prime agricultural land in order to pollute in other areas. We can't support it. It won't reward farmers. It will tear away at communities. It will tear away at the very fabric of what our bill was about, which was rewarding farmers for the stewardship of their land. That didn't relate only to carbon. That was a world first in paying a 'halo' credit for biodiversity but not so that it could be used as an offset for big polluters to come out and buy large tracts of land, lock it up and, effectively, destroy agricultural landscape and destroy communities. There is a huge difference between the bill that we put in place last year and the one that this government is seeking to put in place now. We can't support it because it fundamentally goes against the very architecture that we put in place to reward the stewardship of our land, which would have been a world first. We should be proud. It was the National Party that came up with the biodiversity stewardship program. It was a world first. We are the first country in the world that can measure an improvement in biodiversity. It was the National Party that created that mechanism, and, in fact, we had around the country a number of pilot programs that validated the science that ANU put in place. That gave us the opportunity to create a marketplace. In fact, that marketplace was already started. Within those pilots, some of those certificates would have been able to be traded once this legislation went through, but this bill has deviated too far from ours and puts at risk the Australian agricultural landscape and our production systems. Disappointingly, this was taken away from the department of agriculture and given to the department of environment. Not only did this government destroy the department of agriculture by stripping away all its money and giving it to the environment department but they took this program with it. They let the ideology of the environment department take over the intent that was at the heart of our bill, which was rewarding farmers not just for carbon abatement but also for biodiversity improvement. Making provision for that offsetting mechanism opens up too great a risk, particularly since this government has introduced legislation around the safeguard mechanism. That legislation means that the 215 big polluters in this country will now have to go and buy offsets. That's because the safeguard mechanism was about allowing polluters to adopt technology to be able to cover their emissions. However, because this government has brought that forward to 2030, these emitters have nowhere else to go. The technology is not available and cannot be adopted, so they must buy offsets. This really significant change by the environment minister and by this government opens up real risk to our communities. It's disappointing. Even the Australian Greens support us: that speaks volumes. This government is using the ideology of the environment department rather than the practical reality of what we've seen out in our communities. With carbon farming in western Queensland, we're seeing those from the city come out and buy large tracts of land at $20 or $30 an acre and then simply walk away. There's no management. Effectively, the families have left and the communities die. And this will only lead to it. Our bill was about rewarding those people who wanted to have stewardship of their land, not just in carbon abatement but in improving biodiversity. We are proud of that world first. But this bill trashes that legacy and for that reason alone the Nationals can't support it. It goes a step further, beyond just agricultural land owned by farmers, to Crown leasehold land and beyond and to our seaways. This government has failed to consult properly with the timber industry and the fishing industry so that they appreciate the complexities and risk that they will be imposing on them. That is a real risk and goes well beyond the intent of our biodiversity stewardship bill. For that reason, again, the Nationals cannot support a bill that does that without proper consultation and without proper understanding of the impact on the jobs that are out there and the stewardship that is already taking place within the forestry and fishing industries. Even the name of the bill—the nature repair bill—says that our farmers and our stewards of the land in forestry and fisheries have damaged it. We should be proud of the stewardship of the land and of the seas in which our farmers, our foresters and our fishers are undertaking their noble pursuits of feeding and clothing us. It's disingenuous of this government in how they have named this bill and how they have framed it around the stewards of our land. We are world leading. Our farmers are world leading. We should be proud of that and we should never let anyone forget that. Unfortunately, this government has failed to understand that. There are further complexities within this bill around the methodology. They are allowing a whole range of methodologies to come into this. The biodiversity stewardship bill had a very tight framework to the methodology that we were adopting. Professor Andrew Macintosh was at the heart of that. He's an eminent professor who designed this for the National Party to ensure that there was integrity to the system, that there was validity and currency to those biodiversity certificates that farmers could create and sell. Unfortunately, this government has opened it up and taken away the integrity of that system. When you take away the integrity of the system, you tear away at the very marketplace and the price people can actually ask for those credits. That, in our mind, goes very much against the very heart of the intent of our original bill. I'm also concerned about the reach. It needs greater explanation around the involvement and whether there is, in fact, any veto power, any reach of Indigenous Australians in the design, not only of the methodology but of individual projects, particularly on land that Australian farmers own and manage. For that reason, we also have serious questions that need to be answered by this government in what would probably be nutted out in a future Senate committee. It's important that we understand that our record as a government in the last parliament is one that we're proud of. We're proud of our environmental credentials, not about virtue signalling but about practical actions, and the biodiversity stewardship bill actually achieved that. This bill tears away at the very fabric of what we were achieving for Australian farmers in rewarding and acknowledging what they already do. It's important that this government goes back to the drawing table and actually reflects on what they're trying to do here, and the vast implications, particularly around the other environmental policies that they put in place, particularly around the safeguard mechanism and, potentially, what could be further put to this parliament around the EPBC Act changes. This will have implications around regional Australia, which will again do the heavy lifting for this country to meet its international commitments on carbon emissions. We've done our bit. We will continue to want to do more, but we've got to be rewarded for it. This bill will actually tear away at that and will tear away at our farmers' ability to participate in what is a changing market, in terms of their carbon footprint and their biodiversity footprint. Markets will ask for this. Markets will ask for this, but this shouldn't be an outlet for big mining companies around the country to roll in and buy large tracts of land to lock up, buying their social licence at the expense of regional and rural Australia, particularly those communities that have supported this country during one of our most trying times—COVID-19, one of the biggest challenges we've faced since the Second World War. It was regional Australia that footed the bill through agriculture and resources, and it's for that reason that we should give them support, not tear away the very opportunity that we tried to create for them. It's disappointing that the government didn't respect and acknowledge the biodiversity stewardship bill that I put in place in February last year. It was an opportunity for some bipartisanship. It was an opportunity for this government to acknowledge the stewardship of our farmers. It was an opportunity for them to participate and be rewarded for their stewardship with a world-first that we, the National Party, created. It's a legacy that I want to see continue, but only with good policy around it. For that reason, the federal Nationals cannot support this bill. 19:10 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I rise in support of this important piece of legislation. The Nature Repair Bill 2023 is groundbreaking legislation that presents a significant milestone in our mission to protect and repair Australia's precious natural environment. This legislation establishes the framework for the world's first nature repair market in Australia, which will connect individuals, businesses, philanthropists and organisations wanting to invest in activities that restore and protect nature with those on the ground who can carry out the critical work. As the Minister for the Environment and Water has already stated in this place, the purpose of this legislation is to establish the machinery needed for a nature repair market, that being the register, the rules and the regulator. The urgency of this legislation is enormous. Our environment, as I imagine everyone in this place knows, is deteriorating, with Australia now holding the shameful title of being the extinction capital of the world. We're losing more mammal species than any other continent. I know how much people in my electorate of Chisholm want urgent action to protect our unique, precious environment. I've met with many groups and individuals who've expressed their care and concern for the environment and, indeed, do so much to protect the local creek areas and parks in our community, planting trees, promoting conservation and cleaning up rubbish. I've had the pleasure of joining them in undertaking these activities on a number of occasions. This is something people in my community in the suburbs of Melbourne are really passionate about. We're witnessing the endangerment of iconic species like koalas, the erosion of our beautiful beaches and the loss of soil fertility. The time to act is now. The Nature Repair Market Bill is not just about protecting nature from future harm; it's also about healing the land and the water that have suffered the consequences of human actions. This bill complements and reinforces existing government efforts by mobilising private investments in nature protection and restoration. In December last year, the Albanese Labor government unveiled our Nature Positive Plan, which outlined our ambition to reverse the decline of Australia's natural environment. Private land plays a crucial role in achieving this goal, because over 60 per cent of our country's landmass is privately owned. We know that farmers and First Nations people are the owners and custodians of most of this land, and that land harbours critical habitats and precious and endangered species. Our conservation efforts therefore must extend beyond national parks. We must encourage and support nature repair across all land in Australia, and this bill provides the means to do that and to do so with that private land, which, as I said, is the majority of Australia's landmass. I said earlier that the primary objective of this legislation is to establish the infrastructure required for a nature repair market, being the register, the rules and the regulator. This market will encompass projects that enhance or protect existing environments, as well as those that establish or restore habitats. Importantly, it will operate on a voluntary basis, allowing landholders, including farmers, First Nations people, conservation groups, businesses and local councils, to participate. By undertaking projects to repair or protect nature, landholders will be issued tradable certificates that provide standardised information about the project. Once approved by the regulator, these certificates can be sold to third parties, providing additional income for landholders and opportunities for responsible businesses and individuals to invest in nature repair. Transparency and accountability are key principles of this legislation. Our public register will track these certificates and allow buyers to make informed decisions and demonstrate their support for nature repair. A regulator will oversee the implementation of projects and ensure compliance with the rules. This framework will ensure that the nature repair market operates in a fair and transparent manner, generating confidence and trust among participants. It's not just that we're taking action here; it's how we're taking action that's really, critically important, too. Significantly, this legislation emphasises the involvement and recognition of Indigenous people and their traditional knowledge. Indigenous landholders and communities will be actively engaged in project development, implementation and decision-making processes. We know that Indigenous people's stewardship and wisdom are invaluable in the restoration and protection of our beautiful natural heritage. This bill fosters partnerships and collaborations between landholders, conservation organisations and the private sector. This collaboration will mobilise the resources and expertise needed for effective nature repair initiatives. It will encourage innovation and research, leading to the development and adoption of new and sustainable practices in nature repair. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting mechanisms will provide essential data for future decision-making and assessment of the market's effectiveness. It will create a clear and tangible pathway for all Australians to contribute to the restoration and preservation of our natural environment. We understand that concerns have been raised during the consultation process. Some stakeholders have expressed cautious optimism, recognising the urgent need for increased investment in biodiversity protection. Others have voiced different kinds of apprehension. These concerns are valid, and we must address them thoughtfully and thoroughly, but it is very important that we allow this urgent bill to pass through this House to ensure that our environment is protected and that we are able to start shaking off all of those bad things that have led us to be named the extinction capital of the world, which is a pretty shameful mantle for this nation to bear. The Nature Repair Market Bill is a significant step forward, and we have the opportunity to shape and refine it as we move forward. This bill is a historic piece of legislation, and it sets the stage for transformative change in this nation's approach to environmental conservation. This legislation will assist in positioning Australia as an investment partner of choice as it relates to nature repair. This bill represents our unwavering commitment to protecting what is precious, repairing what is damaged and managing nature better for future generations. By establishing a nature repair market, our government is creating avenues for all Australians to contribute to the restoration and preservation of our natural environment. We will incentivise landholders to become custodians of our ecosystems, generating income while fulfilling their responsibility to protect nature. The time to act is now, and this bill provides us with the tools to do so. 19:19 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler This bill is about paying landholders and farmers to produce koalas and not cattle, to produce possums and not protein, and I think these are some of the fundamental challenges about this proposal that every Australian should be concerned about. Ultimately, there is one set of land in Australia. They are not making any more. That is all there is. In terms of the numbers, there are some 426 million hectares of that land devoted to agriculture, cleared and partially cleared land that produces the food, the protein, that we use to sell overseas and to sustain our own population. Right across Australia, the impact of this bill has the potential to decrease how much land is used for agriculture, because landowners will be paid not only for these biodiversity offsets but also for carbon offsets under the safeguard mechanism. I will have more to say on that matter. For those out there who might be listening, to give some context around the size of the land that is impacted and the potential impact upon Australia, I'll mention a couple of simple agricultural products. This is a rough and ready figure. It depends on production, weather and irrigation. Australia produces about 1.1 million tonnes of potatoes on just over 29,000 hectares. There are 1.3 million tonnes of rice—this moves around a lot, depending on water availability—off about 150,000 hectares. An example put forward by those opposite—about shining lights for things that have happened already—was in the recent press: the Munda Munda project in south-west Queensland. It is 24,000 hectares of acacia wooded grassland, which has now been taken up under what is the equivalent of the Emissions Reduction Fund through the state government. It is not the same location. It is not the same application. It doesn't have the same access to water or good quality soil. But, to give an example, 24,000 hectares, in a rough and ready number, would produce 2.4 million tonnes of sugar cane on the coast. That is enough for one very large mill or two smaller mills to sustain hundreds of direct jobs and, literally, tens of millions of dollars into the local economy. The alternative, which has been put forward by those opposite, is to lock it up for biodiversity offsets. These are some of the significant challenges. Part of the bill introduces another committee, the Nature Repair Market Committee, and the period for locking up this land in Australia can be 25 years, 100 years or some other nominated length of time. I'd ask you to turn your mind back to what happened 100 years ago. In 1923 this country had just come out of World War I. We saw the Federation Drought destroy most of Australia's agriculture—in particular, cattle and sheep. And to think that we would lock up Australia's land base for a century—a century!—to be paid for, potentially, by taxpayers or others on the basis of biodiversity. You would have to ask exactly what it is that Labor is trying to achieve. This land can be Torrens land, it can be Crown land, it can be relevant Australian waters, including lakes or rivers. Freehold land should be freehold land; there is no argument about that. If you buy freehold land in this country it is yours. Unfortunately, we see continually not only at the federal level but also, particularly, at the state level more and more overlays and zoning and biodiversity and reef legislation, which is impacting directly on the landholder but with no support whatsoever. They are taking away freehold rights, so I think this is an incredibly important issue. A secretary can also purchase biodiversity certificates, and they can do that outside of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. That is quite an extraordinary thing for the Commonwealth to put into a piece of legislation, that you will enter into an agreement for purchase outside of the standard Commonwealth Procurement Rules. The regulator can force audits by a third party. If you look at the minister's second reading speech, the large part of this application will be on private land because it is in private hands. There are hundreds of millions of hectares of Australian land but there are only 426 million hectares currently dedicated to agriculture. If we look at the reason for it, it is because those opposite, in December 2022, signed up to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which agrees that 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, coastal and marine areas will be protected by 2030—some 60 million hectares! The only way these applications can be applied, particularly for carbon offsets, is through cleared and partially cleared agricultural land. There is no benefit in terms of a carbon offset otherwise, absolutely none. If we go to the Bills Digest, there are some issues that I think the opposition should be concerned about. The Australian people should be concerned as well. The bill does not appear to address circumstances such as: where a person or organisation has made a native title, or land rights, claim over the land on which it is proposed to undertake a project, but the claim is yet to be finally determined where there may be overlapping, and potentially incompatible, tenures or interests, such as an exploration lease under state or territory mining or oil and gas laws, or a feasibility licence That sounds like a pretty critical part of what has been proposed, but this legislation has no answers on how that application would come about. It is incredible, the idea that you'll now produce a property—which is what this bill will do—which can be sold and transferred and purchased on freehold land for a biodiversity agreement. Do I think there are farmers out there who will want to do this? Absolutely. If you would have lined up when I was a landholder and said: 'Hey, have I got a deal for you! The taxpayer will pay you for a century to not farm, to not produce and to not employ people. You've got to pay your rates and you've got to maintain some fences, maybe; you've got to pay an auditor and you've got to pay the Commonwealth, but you'll be paid not to produce food.' Well, of course, I would have jumped at it. If it made economic sense, you would be all over it. But our job in this place is to ensure that the decisions taken are in the national interest. It is not in the national interest to take away potentially hundreds of millions of hectares of food-producing land in this country. Look at the potential around overlays on carbon offsets. I spoke on the safeguard mechanisms in this place not that long ago, and here are some of the numbers around. No-one's really pinned them down on this, but Labor's proposal is somewhere north of 200 million tonnes of CO2 to be reduced by 2030—and that is in law. The CSIRO report looked at every available current protocol, how much could be applied in a dreamscape and a realistic approach and exactly what impact you could get. They thought you could get 480 million tonnes of CO2 reduction under a methodology that requires 63 million hectares of ag land. But even the CSIRO says that is actually not that reasonable and is pretty unlikely. So then they looked at some of the other options. Commercial plantations and farm forestry could technically produce 42 million tonnes of CO2 reduction but would require five per cent of existing land. The CSIRO report, at the outset, said that existing land has to be cleared or partially cleared agricultural land. Every single landholder in this country should be terrified of bills like this one, because it takes away their potential to earn a living, to drive the local economy, to employ people, potentially their own kids, to give them a future because their land will be locked up for 100 years under these types of agreements and protocols—a century! Imagine what will happen in 100 years. Imagine the population of this country. Imagine the population of the world. Imagine what will be needed to feed them. They will look to Australia for clean, green and safe produce. The idea that you will tie up this much land for this outcome is the wrong choice, the wrong decision. In fact, the CSIRO report said that the only viable way for up to 227 gigatonnes of CO2 reduction, would you believe, is carbon capture and storage. But that has been ruled out by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and yet around the world it is something that is being utilised by those who know this is really the only option. There is nothing more valuable in Australia than Australia's agricultural land and the farming land that produces the food that we all rely on. I say to those opposite: you need to look at this much more closely, because the impact is not in the national interest. You've signed up to some international agreement that wants to tie up 30 per cent of Australia's country. If we look at the application in coastal areas, the only thing you can do for biodiversity is to stop fishing. There have already been significant impacts on the fishing industry, particularly in Queensland. In recent weeks, we saw gillnet closures, without any consultation—they were just announced—which will impact jobs and the economy, and the ability for Australians to access clean, green Australian seafood produced by Australian businesses is gone. I know the time is coming to an end, so, in conclusion, I say to those opposite, as I said at the outset: this bill is about growing koalas, not cattle. This bill is about producing possums instead of protein. We all want to protect the environment, but we have to protect the Australian people first. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT A Monument of One's Own 73 19:30 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Last month a bronze statue of women's rights campaigner Zelda D'Aprano was unveiled in Melbourne. It was a big deal. It's not every day that a woman is immortalised in bronze. In fact, it rarely happens. Zelda's most famous act was chaining herself to the doors of the Commonwealth building in 1969 to call for equal pay for women. Prominent historian Professor Clare Wright, who co-convenes a group called A Monument of One's Own, which aims to address the gender balance of statues, led the campaign. In her words, the creation of the Zelda statue is a critical act of commemorative justice in Australia, where less than four per cent of statues depict women. Only 10 of Melbourne's 582 statues depict female historical figures, making up less than two per cent. To help address this imbalance and lopsided view of history, the City of Melbourne has pledged to erect three new statues of significant Victorian woman, with its Celebrating women in Melbourne's history project. It called for nominations and by the end of the consultation period had received more than 1,000 submissions. A shortlist will be announced in August. One woman who should absolutely be on that shortlist is Vida Goldstein. Vida Goldstein was the first woman in the Western world to nominate for a national parliament, when she stood for the Australian Senate in 1903. She subsequently ran for election to the federal parliament four more times, in 1910, 1913, 1914 and 1917; twice for the Senate and twice for the House of Representatives in the seat of Kooyong. She was unsuccessful on all five occasions. Vida worked tirelessly in Melbourne's disadvantaged communities. She was an active contributor to the women's suffrage movement. She published her own newspapers that focused on social reform and personally sold them on the street of Melbourne. She was invited to tour the United States and was the first Australian to meet an American president at the White House. She was invited to the UK and Europe to encourage the suffragette movement. And, like so many remarkable women who helped shaped history, she died in comparative obscurity, in 1949. In 1984 the division of Goldstein in Melbourne was named after Vida Goldstein. I'm honoured to represent the seat that carries her name, and I'm proud to support the nomination for a Vida Goldstein statue put forward by 87-year-old history buff Michael Pointer, who hand delivered his submission. Members of former Victorian premier from 1918 to 1924 Harry Lawson's family have also sent letters of support. Public statues reflect how a society values its women and men. Lining a boulevard exclusively with men in gleaming shades of bronze gives us an incomplete and skewed version of our history. Excluding women sends the message that their contributions throughout history are not as important as those of men. And, if there are no women to literally look up to, how will girls and boys see the sexes as equal? Vida Goldstein's story should be celebrated and passed down like Matthew Flinders's story, Sir Redmond Barry's story or Weary Dunlop's story, but we don't know it, because women's achievements in politics, sport, the arts and every sector of society have been hidden throughout history. And a statue of Vida would also provide a timely reminder that the fight is not over, that as a nation we must continue to address the sexism and lack of respect women still face in the workplace and society more broadly. At the base of the Zelda D'Aprano statue is the response that Zelda gave to a man who said to her on that important day in 1969, 'What can one woman hope to achieve?' Zelda replied, 'Today it was me, tomorrow there will be two of us, the next day there will be three and it will go on and on and there won't be any stopping it.' Today, particularly today, in this place I say: Here's to strong women! May we know them, may we be them, may we raise them and may we respect them. Adelaide Electorate: Unley Community Childcare Centre 74 19:34 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Last Monday, 5 June, I had the absolute pleasure to be invited to the Unley Community Childcare Centre, where I met with parents, committee members and some of the early childhood educators who work there. I sat and spoke with them, and they showed me the centre and also told me about their work—and how hard they work. We know that they work hard. They told me about the long hours and their difficulties in recruiting staff. Even though it's wonderful to see families receiving cheaper child care under this government's proposals, unfortunately, there are still simply not enough educators to meet the demand. Centres are struggling, just as the Unley Community Childcare Centre is. I met with Djara Liotta-Ndiaye, the early childhood educator, and with Nica Hilditch, Kate Goodwin-Smith, advocates and parents, and they told me about their trials and tribulations. It's great to see more training places being offered in early childhood education and care, but we need an answer for the longer term, for sustainable changes. I'm very pleased to see the workforce strategy for early childhood education and care educators in the budget, for example. We know that they do a vital job by making it possible for millions of other Australians to be able to work in their jobs, as well as supporting young children in very early learning and development. The government recognises that more must be done to attract, retain and support the wellbeing of the early childhood workforce. We all know just how crucial the first five years are. They set the foundation for a child's future life outcomes, including their learning, health and wellbeing. All the research shows that the earlier a child starts being educated then the better off they will be later on in life. I'll begin with the recognition and professionalisation of the workforce. We need to recognise them as a workforce of educators and not childminders. This is recognition as a workforce of highly trained experts. It's also recognition that after nearly a decade of neglect and inaction by the Liberal government, changes are needed to ensure that we have a sustainable early childhood educator workforce. As I said, early learning educators do a vital job, making it possible for millions of other Australians to do their jobs. But, more importantly, they're responsible for the education of our children. I know that a supported and valued workforce is critical to making early childhood education and care more accessible and affordable for Australian families. One way to do this is to ensure that some of these early childhood educators have reason to stay in the industry. It would be good to see wages funded through a multi-employer bargaining system. That's what those at Unley were telling me about. They also told me about the difficulties in actually recruiting and keeping staff because of the low wages. These educators do such an important job for our children and our grandchildren, so they should be valued. The way to value these people is by ensuring they get paid decently so that they can do this very professional work. The important investment that the government is making will support a quality and highly trained early childhood education and care workforce through improved access to professional development opportunities, making it easier for educators to progress their careers. This is a vital investment by the government and will ensure high-quality early childhood educators remain in the sector, that they're remunerated properly and have clear opportunities for career advancement. The practical components will support existing staff to complete their studies within provider settings and enable them to develop their skills through practical, hands-on experience in early education and care settings. The government's measure specifically targets support to retain staff and to support skills development for educators, including those in regional and remote communities, and, of course, First Nations early education staff and services. As I said earlier, we've seen 10 years of neglect in this area. Early childhood education perhaps wasn't given the attention that was needed, so I'm hoping that we can implement this and make life easier for those people. (Time expired) Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure 75 19:40 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I'd like to take the opportunity to update the House on a number of major projects in my electorate which are currently under construction or almost at completion. The $20 million Keppel Bay Sailing Club redevelopment in Yeppoon, the $425,000 Collinsville Queensland Country Women's Association hall and the $25 million Alliance Airlines heavy maintenance hangar are not only giving our economy a direct injection during construction but will continue to bring job security well into the future. These projects are just a few which have benefited from over $6 billion funding injected into Capricornia since I was elected in 2013. Not-for-profit Keppel Bay Sailing Club, located in Yeppoon, was established in 1957 by a small group of keen and passionate sailors who wanted to share their love of the sport with the community. Sixty-five years later, their club has gone from strength to strength, and they are now taking on their next chapter through the redevelopment of their old clubhouse. I secured $20 million for the Keppel Bay Sailing Club and convention centre to move into a new era. The development is set to attract large-scale corporate and sporting events to the Capricorn Coast, bringing with it significant diversification for the business economy and tourism industry. Located on the spectacular Yeppoon foreshore, with views overlooking the beach and Keppel islands, the new convention centre is set to be the jewel in the crown of the Capricorn Coast. This state-of-the-art facility will put our region on the national stage and provide good job opportunities for locals. More visitors to our region means more heads on beds, more visitors in our cafes and restaurants and more money back into the pockets of local businesspeople. Construction of the new facility began earlier this year, with the old clubhouse now fully demolished in preparation for the new convention centre. Opening of the new Keppel Bay Sailing Club and convention centre is expected in the next 12 to 18 months. Another development in Capricornia set to open shortly is the highly anticipated Alliance Airlines heavy maintenance facility at Rockhampton Airport. I was delighted to secure $25 million of funding along with a further $30 million Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility loan for the development of this hangar. The new heavy maintenance hangar will allow Alliance to bring the maintenance of their 74 aircraft back to Australian shores. It took 115 hardworking locals to bring the 10,000 square metre structure to life and utilised the many incredible small businesses in the Rockhampton region. In particular, one group of businesses worked together to design, manufacture and install the colossal signage on the hangar. Each individual letter of the word 'Alliance' is four metres tall and is installed 24 metres above the ground. Well done to Signature Signs, Ahrens group engineering, Adnought Sheet Metal Fabrications, Diplocks Powder Coating and CQ Crane Hire for completing the mammoth task. Once operational, the facility will support over 100 jobs, including 25 apprenticeships and traineeships. Many of these will be highly skilled positions and will provide locals with an opportunity to enter an industry that is usually only available to those living in major cities across Australia. The heavy maintenance facility will deliver $30 million back into the Rockhampton economy every year. Finally, a project close to my heart is the QCWA Collinsville hall. The Country Women's Association is the heart of any regional town. Those of us who live and work in country Australia know just how important is the role the CWA plays in bringing the community together in good times and bad. When the wonderful and passionate women of the QCWA Collinsville branch approached me for help to fund a new hall so they could continue to meet the needs of the Collinsville and Scottville communities, it was a no-brainer. In 2019 I was delighted to announce to the ladies of the QCWA that they would be receiving $325,000 so they could demolish their old, asbestos filled hall and build a new, modern facility that would serve the community well into the future. COVID and builder issues brought a few delays, which unfortunately pushed up the cost of the build. I was only too happy to secure a further $100,000 towards the build. Glencore, the main employer in the Collinsville area, also chipped in over $100,000 to ensure the construction would be completed. In April, I visited communities in the north of Capricornia and spent time in Collinsville to take a look at the progress of the new hall. I was delighted to see the hall was at key-handover stage and the women, as well as the community, were thrilled with their new building. The hall is now Collinsville's newest and best piece of infrastructure. Collinsville locals now have a great location for their dances and fundraising events. I'm told it is even a place for weekly yoga sessions. I am proud of what I have achieved for Capricornia, and I continue to work closely with my community to achieve great things for our region. Consumer Protection 76 19:44 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The ACCC's annual Targeting scams report for 2022, which was released earlier this year, unveiled a startling reality: Australians lost over $3 billion to scams last year alone, marking an 80 per cent increase from the previous year. These figures are obviously deeply concerning, as they highlight the extensive financial damage inflicted on the economy and on everyday Australians by unscrupulous criminals. We know scammers employ various tactics to deceive unsuspecting victims, including phone calls, emails, text messages and contact via online platforms. These scams can range from fake investment opportunities and lottery winnings to romance and employment fraud. Scams not only impact individuals but also strain the resources of government agencies and organisations. The government incurs costs in terms of investigation, prosecution and support services for victims. We also know that scams can erode public trust and confidence in various sectors, such as banking, telecommunications and government services, leading to increased regulatory efforts and the need for consumer education. I know how much of a concern this is within my own electorate of Chisholm. I recently hosted a series of community scam briefings with the aim of educating the community on how we can best protect ourselves from scammers. When we put the call out, my office was inundated by members of the community wanting to attend. When hosting these community scam briefings at the Glen Waverley Bowls Club, I heard of the challenges that vulnerable members of the community faced in trying to avoid being scammed. During these briefings, attendees had the opportunity to learn valuable strategies on how to best protect themselves against scammers. It is an unfortunate reality that scammers often target the most vulnerable members of our communities, and that makes it crucial for people to be equipped with knowledge and tools to defend themselves. Hundreds of people attended these sessions, which demonstrates very clearly the high level of concern regarding scams, the levels of fraud in the community and the deep anxiety that people have when seeking to navigate their day-to-day affairs in the face of incessant contact from scammers. Likewise, when my office offered to assist in the provision of resources to the community, such as the fabulous resource from the ACCC, The Little Black Book of Scams, my office was also met with a large wave of calls and emails. I'm so that glad my office has been able to assist with this very valuable resource. Naturally, I've been very pleased to see that the Albanese Labor government has recognised the urgency of tackling this issue. We've acted already through various measures to combat scams. We've announced an $86.5 million package to combat scams and fraud, which is really important to my community. This significant investment was headlined by the establishment of the first National Anti-Scam Centre. This initiative showcases our commitment to addressing the issue and providing a centralised hub for scam prevention and response. It's also important to highlight that our government is delivering on its commitment to disrupt illegal text message scams by establishing an SMS sender ID registry. Through the 2023-24 budget, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will receive more than $10 million over four years to launch and maintain an Australian SMS sender ID registry. This registry will prevent scammers from imitating key industry or government brand names such as Lindt or myGov in text message headers. This adds a new layer of protection for Australian consumers against scammers using these known brands to target and deceive. Our government takes combating scams seriously. We've made an important investment. We've set aside funding to invest further in technology to support scam identification and disruption and real-time data sharing. We've also provided funding to ASIC to take down investment scams and phishing websites. I'm really proud that our government is taking a stand and demonstrating to Australians that enough is enough and that they're not on their own when they're trying to navigate their day-to-day business in the face of these scammers. Ahead of these scam forums, I learnt from the ACCC about three steps to protect ourselves: stop, think and protect. Take your time, ask yourself if the message could be fake and act quickly if something feels wrong. Voluntary Assisted Dying 76 19:50 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Tonight I rise on a matter of conscience—one that requires us to reflect on life and death, medicine and technology. As many know, I feel very passionately about the issue of suicide. I spoke about my father's death by suicide in my maiden speech to this place. Over the past seven years since that time, our approach to mental health and suicide prevention has been rightly changing. Positive changes have seen reduced stigma around mental health and suicide, as well as additional funding for vital services such as Lifeline and increased Medicare support for psychological services, which we have committed to restore. There are many dimensions to our work preventing suicide—research, community building, addressing stigma and attitudes, skills investment, as well as changes in laws and policies. Part of the work is also about countering the efforts of those who seek to monetise or exploit people's suffering by promoting suicide. That's why the Howard government, in 2005, introduced new criminal offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Those offences related to the prohibition of the use of a carriage service for suicide related materials. The purpose of those offences was to target websites, groups and individuals seeking to incite people—particularly young and vulnerable Australians—to die by suicide. The Criminal Code has been part of a wall of defence that ensures it is difficult for vulnerable people to access 'how to' materials. I am concerned that a concerted push is underway to weaken or rewrite these offences. The push has been driven by some pro-euthanasia groups and lobbyists who recognise that the Criminal Code acts as a direct impediment to their work. Part of the change they want to introduce is to allow telehealth to be used to refer, counsel or assist people in relation to euthanasia. The push to allow telehealth consultations on this most serious matter should not only concern opponents of euthanasia such as myself but also the many fair-minded people on the other side of the debate. Telehealth has been an important and welcome change in medicine, but the limits of telehealth are well known. There are benefits in face-to-face consultations that are lost when online or on the phone. They include the ability to undertake a full medical examination of a patient. We have seen the challenges with the use of telehealth in related areas as new telehealth businesses have entered the market. For example, last month The Age reported concerns about new appetite suppressant weight loss drugs and the potential for those drugs to be accessed by people with eating disorders. The Age found no proof of identity was required to access these drugs. Prescriptions are being given in huge numbers without a doctor ever physically seeing a patient. The expanding use of telehealth has resulted in the Medical Board of Australia issuing a guideline titled, 'Telehealth consultations with patients'. The guideline says of telehealth: However, it is not appropriate for all medical consultations and should not be considered as a routine substitute for in-person consultations. The standard of care provided in telehealth consultations may be limited by the lack of in-person interaction and capacity to carry out physical examinations. Telehealth offers convenience medicine. There is a trade-off between thoroughness and speed. While we might be prepared to accept this trade-off for common medical issues such as coughs and colds and the administration of routine treatments, decisions about euthanasia are the most serious decisions possible. For that reason alone, the use of telehealth in this area must be governed by the highest standards. The idea that an assessment can be made by a doctor who does not know a patient, or who has not even physically examined them, marks a serious departure from the promise of the states and territories to run regimes with serious safeguards. The same argument applies for doctors who are registered for assessments of patients considering euthanasia. I appreciate that most health professionals who operate within the system do so with a mindset of good faith, but on a matter of such seriousness, we can't rely on good faith alone. If the euthanasia system exists, it must have processes, standards and safeguards that operate within a setting of respect for the seriousness of what could happen. The move to encourage the use of telehealth for euthanasia undercuts every promise made by those proposing and promoting euthanasia. They promised safeguards. They promised caution. They promised the seriousness befitting this most profound human subject. Now those promises are being sacrificed on the altar called convenience. The concerns I raise are shared by many within the medical profession. Recently, over a thousand medical professionals signed an open letter on telehealth which in part said: Further relaxation of criminal codes to facilitate telehealth for VAD assisted suicide would remove protections owed those vulnerable to suicide under duress and in need of palliative care, aged care and mental health services, especially so in regional and remote Australia. I call on the government not to amend the Commonwealth Criminal Code. International Relations 77 19:55 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Two weeks ago I had the privilege of accompanying our Prime Minister to Singapore to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue, which is the Indo-Pacific's premier foreign affairs and defence forum. At the dialogue I participated in a range of bilateral meetings alongside Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles, and I'm appreciative of his inclusion of me in those meetings. Our Prime Minister delivered the keynote address of the dialogue, in which he asserted the agency of Australia and other smaller countries. He called for China and the United States to establish reliable and open channels of communications, or guardrails, in their vital relationship. The PM also noted that Australia's deterrence measures are aimed at preventing the outbreak of war in our region. The PM's keynote speech, along with the presence of defence minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, was a strong signal of our government seizing this significant opportunity to set out our vision for the Indo-Pacific. We seek a region that upholds sovereignty not just for the biggest powers or the loudest voices but for every nation—a sovereignty that confers on every nation the right to determine its own destiny, to enjoy freedom of action and policy independence, to make its own choices and to speak for itself and its interests, free of external pressures or duress. Ours is a vision that sees our immediate region as the fastest-growing one in the world and in human history and one that is driving the global transition to net zero. We are proud that, for as long as Australia has made our own foreign policy, our alliance with the United States has been central to it. At the Shangri-La Dialogue, it was great to meet with the US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and I conveyed to him our pride in hosting the US Marines in Darwin. But our region is also one that celebrates the spirit of practical partnership that drives our engagement with the Pacific Islands Forum, and it was fantastic to meet with the Secretary General of the PIF, Mr Henry Puna, in Samoa last week. Before he stood alongside President Biden and Prime Minister Sunak to announce Australia's pathway to acquiring our conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines, our Prime Minister ensured that the government spoke with every ASEAN and Pacific partner and many other nations in over 60 phone calls. That was really important to reiterate to the region and to the world that Australia remains strongly committed to our obligations under the NPT and the Treaty of Rarotonga. We have already seen the wisdom of this approach to our Pacific family in the fact that the prime ministers of Fiji and Samoa, among other Pacific leaders, have publicly expressed their understanding of Australia's AUKUS pathway. As mentioned, I was delighted to visit Samoa as well as New Zealand last week as head of a Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport delegation to our region. New Zealand is a natural ally of Australia, with a strong trans-Tasman and Anzac sense of family. While there, I had the pleasure of meeting members of their transport committee, the Speaker of their House of Representatives and other parliamentarians and stakeholders, including a very important stakeholder, the Prime Minister of Fiji. Samoa is another like-minded country and an important member of our Pacific family. While in Samoa last week I met, among others, the Prime Minister of Samoa, the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, MPs from across the parliament, and officials from the Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure. Both legs of this visit into the Pacific enabled the committee to compare experiences with our near neighbours on the post-disaster reconstruction of roads and critical infrastructure. I thank the DFAT staff in Singapore, in New Zealand and in Samoa for their professional assistance. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 78 NOTICES Presentation 78

Tuesday, 13 June 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 16:01.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 81 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Gender and Sexual Orientation 81 16:01 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The LGBTIQA+ community has always been subjected to hate, threats and extremism. But my community is strong. We persist and stay true to ourselves and build community and family in the face of adversity. Twenty twenty-three has seen the hate, threats and extremism towards our community increase in intensity. We have witnessed a national hate tour and Neo-Nazi rally against trans and gender-diverse Australians, and attacks and threats of violence against drag story times and artistry. We are experiencing a storm of social media abuse and a harmful national debate about our right to simply exist and live with equality, respect and safety. It is in this environment that the Australian Labor Party has released its draft national platform, one which proposes to significantly cut back on its commitments to protect my community. The draft platform removes Labor's commitments to introduce anti-discrimination, vilification and harassment laws on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics; expand health and support services available to queer Australians, including to remove barriers to gender-affirming healthcare services and to end discrimination against queer people when accessing the PBS, Medicare and other government services. It also removes the support to intersex-led organisations to provide support to intersex persons and their families and advocate on intersex issues, and to review documentation requirements, including the use of passports and birth certificates, as they affect transgender and intersex people. Labor's purposeful omissions in updating its national platform should be condemned. It is also deeply concerning that these changes could be the basis of Labor introducing their version of the Morrison-era Religious Discrimination Bill next year. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to attend Mardi Gras earlier this year and to just wave a rainbow flag, to now withdraw support for our rights from the government's own national platform. This goes beyond disappointment. It is a complete betrayal. As the Greens spokesperson for LGBTIQA+ issues, I am appalled by Labor's draft national platform. It comes as an insult, and particularly as it was announced on the first day of Pride Month. Our community deserves better than this government's erasure of our identities and struggles. This draft platform suggests that the Greens are the only party truly committed to advancing queer rights. These rights are non-negotiable. The Greens will always stand in solidarity against hatred and bigotry. We deserve to feel safe, respected and valued, living our lives treated as equals and free from discrimination. Blair Electorate: Mental Health 81 16:04 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Ipswich is Queensland's fastest-growing region, with a population expected to more than double in the next 20 years, to 530,000 people. That's why I was pleased to secure a 2022 election commitment to roll out a $14 million Ipswich based Head to Health adult mental health service, and I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is delivering on this via the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network. Recently, mental health service provider Open Minds was selected to deliver this service in Ipswich and Neami National was selected to deliver a national phone service, which includes the Ipswich region. The new Ipswich based Head to Health will make it easier for individuals, families and carers to access mental health and wellbeing support and alcohol and drug support so no-one is left behind. This vital service builds on an election commitment to roll out a new Medicare urgent care clinic for Ipswich. The Darling Downs and West Moreton PHN is currently undertaking an expression-of-interest process to select a health service provider to deliver this much-needed facility. I know it's a very high priority for the PHN, and I expect to see the new clinic up and running from 2023-24. This would help take pressure off the emergency department at Ipswich Hospital and improve access to health care for people across the Blair electorate. Finally, our government inherited an aged-care system in crisis and in neglect. Amongst other things, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found that the aged-care system was complex and difficult to navigate and it recommended more support for older people to help them access services. Last week I helped to launch a new care finder service for the Ipswich region, to be delivered by ADA Australia. It's a $5.7 million commitment over 2½ years—again, funded through the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network. The government established the care finder program in response to the royal commission to provide support for vulnerable older people and to help them access aged care, as well as health, housing, disability and other community services. It's an excellent practical initiative and is another example of how we're determined to reform the aged-care sector, make the system easier to navigate for consumers and ensure our most vulnerable people are treated with the dignity they deserve. The care finder program has been established as part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It's going to help those in need in the following ways. It will help them to understand the support that will help them, to set up an aged-care assessment if they need one, to fill in forms if they need to and to find and set up services. It is much-needed help for those people who would fall through the cracks—those people who don't have family to support them, who have difficulty with communication or computer literacy or who just can't understand what they're doing. Thank you to the PHN. Bradfield Electorate: Health Care 82 16:07 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak concerning the availability of Medicare funded licences for magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, in and serving my electorate of Bradfield. MRI is a non-invasive imaging technology which produces three-dimensional, detailed anatomical images. It's an essential tool, allowing medical professionals to identify problems in soft tissues without the need for surgery or the use of x-ray, with its attendant radiation. I recently met with my constituent, Professor Marcus Stoodley, professor of neurosurgery at Macquarie University Hospital, Australia's only university owned and run hospital. Professor Stoodley has been trying in vain under this government to apply for a licence for an MRI so that patients can access the Medicare rebate. The work undertaken at Macquarie University Hospital is at the forefront of medical research in Australia, and the hospital has a strong reputation for leading treatments incorporating the use of MRIs. For these reasons people from across Australia with complex medical needs travel to the Macquarie University Hospital for this specialist treatment. However, such travel, of course, is very expensive, particularly at a time when costs of living are rising. I made representations on behalf of Professor Stoodley and the Macquarie University Hospital to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Each year, of course, I send hundreds of representations to ministers on behalf of the people of Bradfield. I get a range of responses back, and I do want to acknowledge that in many cases the response is constructive and the minister shows a willingness to engage with the issue in good faith. I have to say, however, that I was rather disappointed by the response I received from the minister for health when I wrote to him about this issue on behalf of Professor Stoodley. I was told that difficult decisions had been made as to where the government had decided to invest in Medicare. Clearly, the implication from that is that the government is not inclined to make decisions to invest in the provision of an MRI machine in a manner that would best serve my constituents in Bradfield. It's an unfortunate and unsatisfactory outcome and, I think, something to be regretted. I particularly fear that the decision of this government not to grant an MRI licence to Macquarie University Hospital will have the consequence of impacting on the research output from this extremely impressive institution with very highly qualified staff. So I call upon the minister to reconsider the decision he's taken and consider whether an MRI licence could be provided to Macquarie University Hospital. Philippines Independence: 125th Anniversary 82 16:10 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser On Monday, I attended an event for the 125th anniversary of the Philippines' independence, commemorating the declaration of independence from Spain in 1898. I would like to acknowledge the importance of this historic declaration and all that the nation of the Philippines has achieved since. It was an honour to be a part of these celebrations, along with the Consul-General, Maria Lourdes Salcedo. Notwithstanding the fact that the declaration occurred in 1898, it was to be another 48 years before the US relinquished any degree of sovereignty over the Philippines through the 1946 treaty of Manila. It made me reflect on the many similarities between our countries. Clearly, our dates of independence are quite similar: 1898 and 1 January 1901. Despite the fact that Australia became a nation in 1901 when the six British colonies federated, in a way that somewhat parallels the experience of the Philippines, at least on some dimensions, such as foreign policy, Australia didn't achieve full independence for some decades in practice. Indeed, formal relations with the Philippines were one of Australia's first formal relations with another country. We celebrate 77 years of formal relations with Manila this year and celebrated 75 years just two years ago. We established formal relations in May 1946. However, informal relations date back to the mid-1800s, when the Philippines exported sugar to Australia, which was used to distil rum. In the 1860s, Filipinos came to work in northern Australia's pearling industry. They were called 'the Manila men', and comprised one of the oldest migrant groups in Australia. To this day, the relationship between our countries remains strong, not only because of our geographical proximity but because we share many perspectives on regional, economic and security issues. We are both vibrant multicultural democracies within this region. We are both members of APEC. We both work together to ensure stability within this region. The Filipino community is the fifth-largest cultural group in Australia and ranks much more highly within Fraser. Australia is the top destination for international students from the Philippines. More than 400,000 people in Australia have Filipino ancestry, many of whom have made their home in Melbourne's west. It is also noteworthy that the Filipino community has been one of the first cultural groups to advocate for a 'yes' vote in the referendum to recognise our Indigenous people in our Constitution. I would like to acknowledge the importance of the Philippines declaration of independence and pay tribute to that country's many achievements as an independent democratic country and close ally of Australia. Legacy 83 16:13 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise today to honour the fine Australians who are part of Legacy. In the trenches of the Western Front during World War I, a soldier said to his dying mate: 'I'll look after the missus and kids.' This became known as 'the Promise', and it is still kept today. Realising the dire circumstances of the tens of thousands of veterans, and widows and children left behind, those who returned set out to help them. In 1923, Major General Sir John Gellibrand formed the Remembrance Club in Hobart. Another returned soldier, Lieutenant General Sir Stanley Savige, was inspired to establish a similar club in Melbourne, which was named Legacy. The Legacy Club started as a small organisation with local legatees assisting local families. Today, there are 44 Legacy clubs across Australia, plus one in London, providing emotional, social and financial support. Legacy is truly Australian and unique across the world in providing for the families of those who have died or given their health in service for this great country. With the outbreak of World War II, a war orphans appeal started in 1942 to raise funds for the widows and children of soldiers who did not return. Today this appeal is known as Legacy Week. Legacy Week is now the single major fundraising initiative by Legacy, and it's primarily centred on selling Legacy badges to the public. Since the legacy promise was made by that soldier to his dying mate, Legacy has supported Australian Defence Force families in times of great need. Today Legacy is still caring for 40,000 of the partners and children who have lost their loved ones who gave their health serving our country and have been affected by their partner's service in any wars, conflicts or peacekeeping operations Australia has been involved in. Originally, it was returned servicemen who took this duty of caring for and supporting widows and children. They later became known as legatees. To this day it is the legatees, of which there are over 3,400, who volunteer the support that Legacy provides to its beneficiaries. This work can mean a child gets an education and a fair go, a widow is not disadvantaged and alone and a family is not torn apart by the effects of post-traumatic stress or other psychological issues. This year is the centenary of Legacy, and it's being celebrated through the whole country by a Legacy torch relay that will access each state and territory after starting in France, then going to London, before concluding in Melbourne. Legacy Australia have partnered with the Royal Australian Mint and Australia Post to develop a Legacy coin and stamp to commemorate Legacy's centenary year. I look forward to continuing my relationship with Legacy and supporting them and their beneficiaries wherever possible, and I encourage all Australians to buy a badge during Legacy Week, which starts 27 August, so this magnificent legacy can be continued for as long as we have those who need to be supported because of the sacrifice of a loved one. Central Coast Mariners Football Club, Dobell Electorate: Volunteer Grants 83 16:16 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to proudly congratulate the Central Coast Mariners on their remarkable achievement in winning the 2023 A-League Men Grand Final. Described as a David-versus-Goliath match, their 6-1 victory against Melbourne City in the grand final was a testament to their exceptional skill and unwavering spirit to believe. In a season marked by challenges, the Mariners have captured the hearts of the entire coast with their first championship win in a decade. Lisarow local Jacob Farrell clearly made use of a 2016 local sporting champions grant provided through my office, securing two crucial penalties in the box, leading to a hat-trick by striker Jason Cummings. The Prime Minister of Vanuatu was there too, watching Vanuatu's first professional footballer, defender Brian Kaltak, the 'Brick Wall of Gosford', who played the biggest game of his career and won. It's a sign of a growing bond through sport between Australians and our Pacific neighbours. The match showcased the Mariners' dominance and determination. Their fast-paced performance, precision goals and solid defence left their Melburnian opponents stunned. The victory is inspirational, reminding us that, despite challenges, the coast can succeed. Congratulations to the team and staff, Captain Danny Vukovic, CEO Shaun Mielekamp and Coach Nick Montgomery. I'd now like to move on to recognising some of the hardworking community organisations in my electorate that received a recent volunteer grant. Provided with funding of $4,500 to improve maintenance at Adelaide Street Oval, the volunteer grant for Killarney Vale Bombers AFL Club will mean the grounds remain a safe and welcoming place for players and spectators. Two marine rescue units received funding: Norah Head and Tuggerah Lakes. These two units provide vital coastal emergency response services, keeping locals and visitors safe on our waterways and our oceans. The Ourimbah Scouts have been granted $1,500 to support their volunteers. With a strong focus on fostering personal growth and community engagement, the Ourimbah Scouts continue to make a positive impact on the lives of young people on the coast. In recognising the invaluable contributions of their volunteers, We Care Connect has been awarded a grant of nearly $2,000. This funding allows We Care Connect to support their dedicated volunteers, who selflessly devote their time and energy rehoming quality preloved children's essentials with families who need them most. Funding has been provided to Central Coast Doggie Dates to boost their social group providing an opportunity for dog owners to meet and socialise in a welcoming and supportive environment. These organisations showcase the diverse range of volunteer initiatives on the Central Coast. Through their dedication, they make the coast a resilient community and a supportive place to live. I'm proud to have been able to support their work through the 2023 volunteer grants. Mallee Electorate: Energy 84 16:19 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Today in question time we saw scores of farmers from my electorate of Mallee—around 60 of them—in the chamber, and I congratulate them for downing tools, turning off the tractors and trying to put a stop to the nonsense that is electricity transmission lines without social licence. This is the latest in a series of grassroots protest actions about transmission lines through farms and local environments. The farmers do not have a problem with transmission lines if they are done right, but AEMO and state and federal Labor governments have failed to establish social licence for the project through my electorate called the VNI West interconnector. The first protest was in St Arnaud featuring tractors and trucks, and now farmers have made the 1,500-kilometre round trip to be heard and seen here in Canberra today, because the Albanese government is not listening to them. Prime Minister Albanese needs to understand that regional Australia is not a dumping ground for bad policy. Minister Bowen pays lip service to securing social licence from local communities. Labor's Rewiring the Nation becomes bad policy when it railroads local and regional communities. From Donald to Boort, Charlton to Kerang, and in St Arnaud in my electorate the acronyms VNI West and AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, have become dirty words. Expert independent energy professors Mountain and Bartlett call this project 'a monumental mistake'. Labor needs to hit pause on this project and look at it from the big picture to the farmers and communities affected by its bloody minded policy, which is detached from reality. The Albanese Labor government isn't paving their paradise. They are putting up a parking lot of ugly transmission towers and wires. Labor does not have the social licence from these farmers or their communities to stuff up their pristine land, their prime agricultural land, remnant vegetation and, I might add for the backers of the Voice to parliament amongst those opposite, culturally significant areas that hold evidence of the local Indigenous people's historic use of the land. But, no, Labor says, 'Let's ignore their voices, to heck with getting social licence from them or any of the above, let's pave over all of that because Rewiring the Nation comes first.' These farmers with us today and out in the electorate of Mallee have no objection to renewable energy or addressing climate change in a measured, sensible way that is supported by local communities. But so far this is a major fail. Boothby Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 84 16:22 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby It gives me great pleasure to rise in this place to celebrate some wonderful Boothby constituents who were recognised yesterday in the King's Birthday honours. These honours are Australia's way of saying thanks to those who make significant contributions to our communities, and how lucky we are in Boothby to have so many engaged community members who selflessly contribute to our community in so many different ways. To these people and to everyone in Boothby who volunteers and works tirelessly to better our community we say thank you. The first two were appointed Members of the Order of Australia: Rodney Fox for significant service to tourism and to shark biology and Distinguished Professor Justine Smith for significant service to ophthalmology, particularly in research and education. The following received the Medal of the Order of Australia: Craig Caldicott for service to surf lifesaving and the law, John Clarke for service to youth through Scouts, Peter Dixon for service to baseball, Craig Fosdike for service to primary education, Wayne Henson for service to horseracing and Australian rules football, Dr Clive Hume for service to medicine, Alan Polkinghorne for service to basketball and Lawrence Wallace for service to the community through a range of roles. I would also like to acknowledge those that were recognised for other meritorious awards for their service to Boothby and the wider Australian community: Senior sergeant Kelly-Anne Taylor who was awarded the Australian Police Medal; Dr Jonathan Gorvett, who was awarded the Public Service Medal for outstanding public service in emergency management and intergovernmental relations; and Dr Kathleen Ophel-Keller for outstanding public service to the agricultural industry through research and innovative leadership. The Order of Australia and the other meritorious awards honour those Australians who go above and beyond to contribute to their communities. In 2023, we had 1,192 Australians named in the King's Birthday Honours List. For the first time, more than 50 per cent were women. I would encourage everyone, if there is someone you know who are a valued leader in their field or in their community—I know we all know many of them in Boothby—to nominate that person for recognition in the Order of Australia this coming year. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 85 16:25 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise today to discuss concerns about the government's proposed changes to dispensing arrangements for pharmacists and the impact that these changes are likely to have in parts of regional and rural Australia. Aside from ensuring that Australians have the medications they need, pharmacists provide a very wide range of services to our communities, from blood pressure monitoring through to wound management, to being a point of return for unwanted medicines, to packing the Webster packs to make sure that the medications go properly to the customers who need them, particularly those customers with complex needs. Last week on the Gold Coast I held roundtable with pharmacists. It was a very clear that the changes will leave their businesses worse off and, more importantly, our local community worse off. I want to stress that those who did attend the roundtable were small businesses; they were community pharmacies. The proposed changes will significantly reduce their profitability and that means that they need to start looking at what they are going to do to ensure that they remain a viable business. With the two largest input measures for small businesses being rent and wages, and with rents being unable to be negotiated at the moment, many of the pharmacists at that roundtable were looking at what they could do to reduce the hours of operation, looking at what they could do to reduce staffing levels or even close on certain days so that they were able to remain open for at least some of the time and meet the community's needs. I am very much aware of the impact of rising cost of living in the community. Where it is at all possible to ease the burden on individuals then, absolutely, the government should be looking at that. Reducing costs for consumers has merit, but when you look overall at what the impact of these changes is likely to be—pharmacies having to open for shorter hours, offering fewer health checks, increased risk of wastage, potential overdose and potentially having to charge for other services which they currently provide free, such as packing the Webster packs—then we really need to start looking at what the alternatives are so that the pharmacists themselves are not the ones that are subsidising the community. The aged-care sector is already in crisis, and the loss of pharmacists packing and delivering medication is certainly going to put more pressure on the care workers there. So while some may benefit on upfront costs, how many people will actually be worse off? Is there a better way to deliver cost-of-living relief without impacting on these services? I am calling on the government to do all that they can to provide an update to the community on what can possibly be done to support pharmacists as well as support our community. Ballarat Electorate: King's Birthday Honours, Ballarat Electorate: Mental Health 85 16:28 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Before I start, I commend the King's Birthday Honours recipients in my electorate: the fabulous Karen Heap from Ballarat Aboriginal and District Cooperative; Anneke Deutsch for services to the community; and Jody Gillet, who lives in Ballarat, for her services to small business. It's fabulous to see all three of them are women this year. That is a contrast to previous years, so it is lovely, and I congratulate them all. On 5 July headspace Ballarat is going to be celebrating its 10th anniversary—10 years of selfless service to the youth of our Ballarat community. Over those 10 years, headspace Ballarat has supported 6,000 young people with over 40,000 treatment services. This is an incredible measure of lives changed and families touched by their work. I began my work a long time ago now as a social worker when I worked in Ballarat, a long time before headspace was even a concept. I saw kids who had significant problems with anxiety, were angry, were stressed but had nowhere to go for help. Back then, it was clear that our community was crying out for a place like headspace, a place where young people and their families could get the support they need. Then after a long and strong community campaign, I was there in 2013 when our headspace opened with funding committed in 2011 by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I've seen the difference it has made and the people it has helped in our community. Ten years ago, I spoke in this place about my hopes that headspace Ballarat would change the lives of young people in our community, that it would break down barriers and enable young residents to get the help that was too often too hard to come by. Ten years later, I am happy to say that headspace Ballarat has not only met those hopes but has certainly exceeded them. To all of the staff at headspace Ballarat, can I say thank you for the service you provided to young people in our community. Over 10 years you have become an integral part of the community's service system. You have become a place and an organisation that community members can trust and that our young people can rely on. In particular, I want to acknowledge the many young people who've been associated with headspace Ballarat—those who have been supported and those who have volunteered or worked with organisation through their youth advisory and committee structures. They have made headspace Ballarat truly a very welcoming place for young people. You may never stop to think of the impact that you have had on the lives of others in our community, but many of us do, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for that. I've seen what Ballarat was like for young people before having these sorts of services, before having such a strong mental health system particularly targeted at young people. I want to thank headspace very much for their first decade, and here's to many more to come. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 86 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 86

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Consideration in Detail 86 16:31 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Before the Federation Chamber considers the first portfolio, I would like to remind all members of the purpose of consideration in detail stage and outline the way it is expected to proceed. On Monday 22 May, the House agreed to a resolution setting the order and timing for consideration of portfolios. Any variation to this order and timing can only be made by a motion moved by a minister. Consideration in detail is a debate, and the call will alternate between government and non-government members, as always. Even though the debate sometimes takes the format of questions and answers, this is not question time. Ministers and government backbench members will both be considered as speakers for the government's turn and should bear this in mind when they seek the call. All speakers are required to be relevant to whichever portfolio is being examined, but there's no requirement of direct relevance in respect of any responses. Given the time limits applying to each portfolio, it might be practical for ministers to respond to more than one speaker when they seek the call. Each minister and member will have up to five minutes to speak each time they are called, but they may wish to speak for a shorter time. Ministers may wish to speak first and make an introductory statement when the debate on their portfolio begins, but that is a matter for them to decide. Members will be aware of the terms in which the resolution providing the dates and times after which the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' on each portfolio will be put. To avoid confusion, when these times are reached, a member who is speaking will be allowed to continue their remarks, but the chairs are obligated to put the question immediately at the conclusion of the member's speech and no further debate will be permitted. Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio 86 Consideration in Detail 95 17:32 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It is very hard to consider in detail the infrastructure budget, when there's so little to actually reflect on in the budget in terms of infrastructure. It was quite amazing to sit there and listen to the budget speech, when the Treasurer didn't actually mention the word 'infrastructure' once in his speech. I've been here for 15 years. I don't recall any Treasurer never actually mentioning the word 'infrastructure' in their budget speech. It's simply unheard of. I don't believe the Treasurer even mentioned the words 'roads' in his speech either, which is fascinating to me, coming from a rural and regional community, when roads and infrastructure are such critical issues in our communities. I'm very concerned that this minister has hit the ground reviewing. It's 12 months after Labor winning the election, and her signature policies so far have been to announce a 90-day review of the Infrastructure Investment Program and at the same time to abolish one of the most successful programs in recent history, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program. I had the chance to speak today at the Australian Local Government Association conference here in Canberra, and the support for that program, the LRCI program, was quite staggering. What this minister has done, what this Albanese government has done, has been to deliberately strip local decision-making power, taking power off local governments and centralising it back in Canberra. They don't want local government. They don't trust local government to set their own local priorities. This minister has actually wasted her first year in office and has so little to show for it, and the Treasurer didn't even mention the word 'infrastructure' in the budget speech because they're embarrassed by their failure to deliver. As I travel around my electorate, I get to see some very significant infrastructure projects happening right now. There's the Princes Highway duplication and the Gippsland rail line upgrades. Every major infrastructure project occurring right now in Gippsland is only occurring because the previous federal government funded it and got on with the job. There is not a single new project that has started in my electorate in the last 12 months that this federal government has had anything to do with, but this doesn't stop Labor ministers from rushing around and getting out of the city whenever they can dash out, cut a ribbon and take credit for it. I have seen the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in Darwin cutting a ribbon on a new veterans' centre he had nothing to do with. I've had various senators in my electorate cutting ribbons at school on something they had nothing to do with. I love to see them, and it's great they get out of the city every now and again. I want to refer specifically to the infrastructure review, which is more aptly called a razor gang by everyone involved in it. The minister has made a lot of commentary about needing to find headroom in the infrastructure budget, which is a fancy way of saying she plans to cut projects across our communities. Her claim is that projects cannot be funded in the current funding envelope. But I have to ask the minister: how does that apply to a program of works like the Princes Highway corridor program, which had a fixed amount of funding allocated to it? This was a billion-dollar bucket of funding by the previous federal government for road safety projects. There are three states that are involved, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and the states and communities put forward their priority projects within the headroom of a billion dollars. I would like to ask the minister in the consideration in detail: do you guarantee the funding of that program is actually safe. More particularly as a Victorian minister, will you guarantee the $300 million allocated to Victoria is safe from your razor-gang review? Does the minister acknowledge that delaying these road safety project is putting people's lives at risk? I have written to the minister on many occasions about specific road safety projects that were funded, where local priorities had been selected and that had the support of local communities and councils. They are now caught up in this review process. That means that nothing is happening to projects that local communities identified as major safety risks. These projects could have been funded by the headroom of the existing funding provided by the previous federal government. Does the minister acknowledge that delaying road safety project is actually putting lives at risk in a program like the Princes Highway corridor works? I want to refer specifically to the minister's comments on ABC Radio in relation to the infrastructure review where she said: … it's to look at every project that is not currently under construction, and that wasn't an election commitment in the last election campaign … I ask the minister: given that Labor Party election commitments are excluded from the review, were all Labor's infrastructure election commitments subjected to business cases or any cost-benefit analysis in the lead-up to the election? I ask the minister also: if she's excluding Labor election commitments from her razor-gang review but refusing to quarantine vital road safety projects which had been allocated money from a fixed fund, does she understand there is no risk of blowing the budget in that fund if there is a fixed allocation within that headroom? Finally in relation to the review, at what stage is a project under construction? When the consultation, assessment and design work have been done, is it considered to be under construction, or will those projects be scrapped as well? 17:37 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Nothing brings me more joy than standing in this place as a proud Labor member who represents a regional area to speak about how much regional Australia is thriving because, finally, we have a government who actually cares. Finally there is a government who acts on issues that are important to those in regional Australia, not just a government who has a catchy propaganda slogan on their funny looking puffer vests and election materials campaigning 'There for the regions'. I suppose that if you're out of touch with the communities you represent, dressing up to try to fit in is a last resort. Those opposite can claim all they want, and I can claim that I was a rhythmic gymnast at the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, but it is just your record that counts. If they continue to claim they are for regional Australia then I am a rhythmic gymnastic competitor. You don't have to look far to see the impact of a government who cares, especially in my electorate. In the Hunter alone this government has provided over a billion dollars of funding to grow a vital part of regional Australia. I see what a Labor government does for regional Australia every day when I drive around my electorate. I can see it in our roads infrastructure, like the Deaves upgrade in Mandalong, a $56 million upgrade to Mandalong Road in Morriset, the Owens Road Bridge in Martinsville, the Kilfoyles Bridge in Lambs Valley, Stanhope Road in Stanhope, the upgrade to the Golden Highway, the upgrade to the Putty Road from Milbrodale to Putty, the Denman Road upgrade, the Wybong Road upgrades and $1.7 million for roads in Cessnock. Even those two vital projects that those opposite did nothing to progress for 10 years, the Singleton and Muswellbrook bypasses, they are a go. The list goes on and on. I can also see that the Labor government has supported community facilities, like Mums Cottage, which provides vital services for vulnerable people in communities like mine, with $250,000. It's supported the new Hunter Sports Centre. We already know that regional areas dominate when it comes to sport, so they deserve world-class facilities as well. Cessnock is getting a regional skate park and a BMX track, which is great for young people looking for something to do. Singleton netball courts are also getting a $1.1 million upgrade. Muswellbrook Olympic Park is getting a $5.5 million upgrade. The Muswellbrook town centre project is getting $10.5 million to make the centre of Muswellbrook look great. There will be lighting upgrades for Cessnock Goannas rugby league club. The list goes on and on. Cessnock is crying out for better health services, which we are delivering. We're delivering a Medicare urgent care clinic that will be up and open by the end of this year. It was the Labor Party who very proudly introduced the NBN to bring Australia into the modern world, providing fast and reliable internet so that our country could advance. It was those opposite who botched it. A government member: They sure did! Was it $60 billion? Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Yes, I think it was $60 billion. They tried to be tight with their money, but that $60 billion went a bit over budget, as we all know. I think it was three times the amount we had classified in there. I'm lost on that one. The people were left worse off, and in regional Australia we were hit the hardest. While the cities had some form of reliable internet, regional areas like mine did not. My office had calls daily from people with internet issues. How can anyone survive and get by in the modern world without fast and reliable internet? Our students need it, our families need it and our businesses desperately need it. In the modern world, regional communities need to be able to rely on internet services that will survive what we deal with these days. We're expanding full-fibre access to an additional 600,000 premises in regional Australia alone. This means in my electorate businesses can run more reliably online, students can do their schoolwork and people can access health services online, meaning no-one will go without when they are in need. The reality is that in regional Australia regional towns don't have all of the services which are available in cities. This makes fast, reliable broadband not just a bonus but a necessity, because it makes these services available to us in the regions. 17:42 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on what is undoubtably the most important part of the responsibilities of this particular department and its respective ministers; I speak, of course, of the arts. This is a budget which makes a lot of claims about what is being done for the arts sector, but when you look at the details there's a pretty big gap between the rhetoric and the reality. I want to give credit where credit is due. Certainly, for all who believe that what the Australian arts sector is crying out for is more Commonwealth arts officials, more Commonwealth bureaucrats, this budget is certainly full of good news and good cheer. But I have to confess that, in my time as Commonwealth arts minister, perhaps I spoke to the wrong people but not once in three years did I ever have somebody say to me: 'Minister, what we need is more Commonwealth bureaucrats. That will really get more arts events, productions and festivals being provided all around Australia.' When we were in government, on this side of the House, our focus, with programs like the highly successful $200 million RISE program, was on getting the money directly to the front line, to get as many shows, productions, festivals and events as possible occurring around all Australia. Indeed, 541 such events were funded by this government. But the present government is very, very keen on more Commonwealth arts officials and more money for buildings in Canberra, even though the reality is that many of those buildings will never be seen by most Australians. One of the other things the historical record shows us is that record Commonwealth arts funding was seen in 2021-22, with more than $1 billion for the arts funded by the Commonwealth government. In this budget, sadly, this government has not been able to match that level of funding. But we have seen, of course, more bureaucratic entities being established. We've had the Australia Council abolished and replaced with Creative Australia, but the overseeing body will now be called the Australia Council board. So we hope that's clear. Certainly, I'm sure that a lot of branding consultants spent a lot of time thinking about exactly how to achieve that outcome. What we also know of this budget is that, of the money that's been claimed to be provided for a range of programs, much has been funded through cancelling programs that were very successful under the previous government—for example, the Temporary Interruption Fund and the balance of the Location Incentive program; both have been cancelled. What we've also seen in this budget and under the current minister—and I have to say it's very disappointing that the arts minister is not here; he's also Leader of the House, so he's got no excuse, in terms of not being aware of when this fitted into the parliamentary agenda, so it's very disappointing he's not able to be here—are some rather curious approaches. For example, in the last budget under the coalition government, March 2022, there was an extra $20 million provided for the RISE fund. So there was money ready to be spent immediately upon the new government coming to office, to fund new events and productions, festivals and shows all around the country. Bizarrely, the minister chose not to spend it. But things got even more bizarre when we got to the October budget because then there was the proud announcement of the Live Performance Support Fund. It turned out that that was supposedly going to be part of the broader 'supporting the arts' program. Apparently, this was going to support shows that might be under threat because of COVID. Nothing more was heard of it, and then, in the budget in May this year, that program met its untimely demise without one dollar having been spent—one of the many mysteries of Burkean arts administration. Let me ask the following questions in relation to Creative Australia: How many additional bureaucrats will be funded by this budget and how much will that cost? How many positions will there be on the Australia Council board? How many people will be on each of the new sub-entities being established within Creative Australia, formerly the Australia Council? What will be the additional cost incurred for all of those people? What will be the amount of funding, after the bureaucrats have been paid, which will actually go to artists to deliver performances, events, festivals and exhibitions? What happened to the $20 million of extra funding that was there for RISE? What happened to the Live Performance Support Fund? These are enduring mysteries of Burkean arts administration, Deputy Speaker, and I'd suggest to you that now is a time when these mysteries could be cleared up, and the Australian people would be well served if that were to happen. 17:47 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara First of all, let me say, Deputy Speaker: as the Manager of Opposition Business, he should know to call and refer to members by their proper titles. He went on a bit of a frolic. He seemed to be in a good mood, so we didn't want to stop him, but he should refer to members by their proper titles. It does give me a chance to start on this consideration in detail— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 I'd ask the previous member to refer to members using proper titles. Mr BURNS 278522 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It does allow me to start, in this consideration in detail, on the arts portfolio—one that the Manager of Opposition Business used to hold—because there have been some major changes in the way in which this government is delivering arts policy versus the way the previous government delivered it. We're not interested in doing press conferences with Guy Sebastian or doing it with businesses without actually ending up supporting those businesses and embarrassing Mr Sebastian. That's not our style. We're also not interested in having the arts portfolio being run out of the minister's office. One of the key things that the previous government did in the arts portfolio was to have this situation where they, in the minister's office—a tradition started by George Brandis, the previous arts minister and former senator—took money out of the Australia Council, put it in separate funds and then had the minister hand-pick which programs and which bits of creative work would be supported. It's a terrible way of doing policy. One of the key differences that happened in this budget was that the government put money back into what was formerly known as the Australia Council and will now fall under the banner of Creative Australia. In my electorate, in Macnamara, I was so proud to host the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Arts and many of our colleagues at the Gershwin Room at the Espy in St Kilda, the home of live music in Melbourne. I'm sure, Deputy Speaker Stevens, that you've spent a night or two there on the sticky floors of the Gershwin Room, enjoying yourself. It is a great venue. One of thing about which there was this big sigh of relief from the industry was that money was not going to be dictated by the minister's office. What would happen was that there were going to be industry led decisions by people who were able to make proper, informed decisions—not based on politics or on marginal electorates or on the personal preference of what art the minister's does or doesn't like, but rather on independent advice made by the industry itself. It is the appropriate way to develop arts policy. It's been a stain on the previous government's legacy and one that we fixed in this budget. I would ask the minister what his view is around why it was so important to change the way in which arts policy was being delivered in this country and why it was so important to have a national cultural policy developed. The other thing that's worth noting in this budget, which is a significant change in the way in which government operates, is obviously the way in which infrastructure has been funded and the way in which infrastructure is going to be rolled out as part of the Albanese government. My electorate of Macnamara is one of the great spots. If you want to go to one of the St Kilda East cafes—you might want to go to Las Chicas or Batch or All Things Equal, one of the great cafes on Carlisle Street—you'll drive past Balaclava station. Behind Balaclava station there is an absolutely fantastic new social housing estate that's being rolled out. It's a fantastic collaboration between three different tiers of government: the federal government, the state government and the local council. The interesting thing is that the previous government allocated $15 million from the car park program of the former Morrison government to Balaclava station. Interestingly, they had plans to build car parks out the back of Balaclava station, which is quite surprising. It came as quite a surprise to both the state government and the City of Port Philip, who already had an agreement signed for what the land was going to be utilised for: the building of social housing. The former government had this whole infrastructure program, they'd written this whole press release—in fact, dare I say it, I think the former minister had come into Balaclava to do a press conference—but they hadn't actually spoken to the levels of government that not only had custodianship of the land but owned the land. It was Crown land. It is absolutely mind-blowing how terrible that rollout of policy was. My question to the minister for infrastructure is: why is it important to speak to other layers of government and to work with them to roll out infrastructure and to not repeat the mistakes of the previous Morrison government? 17:52 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay On 17 November 2022, just after the October budget, the office of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government told the people of Gympie and the Fraser Coast that federal funding for the Tiaro bypass was budgeted and ready to flow as Queensland achieved its agreed construction milestones. A spokesperson for the minister, in the Maryborough Sun newspaper on 17 November, said that construction was due to start in early 2023 and was due for completion in late 2024, weather and construction conditions permitting. The minister even wrote to me on 21 November, confirming the $268.8 million dollar commitment from the federal government. Then, just six months later, in the May 2023 budget, the same minister said the Tiaro bypass was being pushed into a 90-day review. Why did the minister commit to get the job done by the end of 2024 and then refer it to a review that could axe the program? Why hasn't the minister quarantined the four-lane Tiaro bypass from the review in the same way she has done with the Brisbane Olympics? The Bruce Highway between Gympie and Maryborough is one of the deadliest sections of the nation's national highway, with 16 serious crashes and five fatalities so far this year. With 11,000 vehicle movements on this stretch, if this section of the national highway were in any other jurisdiction, it would already be four lanes. At the rate the federal and state Labor governments are going, all of the infrastructure for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics will be in place long before we see the Bruce Highway four-laned between Gympie and Maryborough. When will the four-lane Tiaro bypass be finished, and when will the remaining two-lane section of the highway between Gympie and Maryborough area be four-laned? The former coalition government committed $18 million from the Community Development Grants Program fund for a water security project in Maryborough. Negotiations between Sunwater, CANEGROWERS, Rural Funds Management and the minister's department were proceeding well, right up until the federal election in May 2022, when the Australian government went into caretaker mode before the election. Following the change of government, I wrote to the Treasurer asking for the $18 million commitment to be maintained. He didn't reply to my letter, but I was heartened when Minister King said at the time of the October 2022 budget that she would honour the coalition's original funding allocation. But, in the time following, communications between the stakeholders fell silent until a bombshell revelation in Senate estimates on 23 May, when departmental official Meghan Hibbert claimed that Sunwater advised the department on 24 March that it wouldn't proceed with the grant. This conflicts with the advice from Sunwater, which claimed in a presentation to Maryborough stakeholders as recently as 30 May that it was actually the federal government which terminated the grant. Why didn't the government allow the parties to conclude their negotiations with the department to enable the project to proceed? This is an extremely valuable project for local agriculture. Contract variations and extensions are done all the time by the department, so why didn't the minister extend the grant instead of withdrawing it, as Sunwater has alleged, and not giving more time to allow the project to be delivered? It begs the question: with the Borumba Dam pumped hydro project now proposed and with the federal government funding it, is there a relationship between that project and the starving of agriculture locally of vitally needed water? 17:57 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I always appreciate the opportunity to hear from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Recently, I was happy to have Minister King visiting the Bellevue Railcar Manufacturing Facility, along with the new Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, and state transport minister Rita Saffioti. Thanks to federal and state government commitments, we were able to see firsthand the product of our local manufacturing of railcars, which are ready to roll out on Perth's Metronet. Virtually every kilometre of track in the Perth railway system is there because of the foresight and the commitment of Labor governments. The track will soon reach all the way up to Ellenbrook, in the north of my electorate of Hasluck. The statistics are impressive. We are delivering 246 new railcars for the Perth public transport network as part of Metronet and over $3.9 billion for 16 Metronet projects in Western Australia, with nine currently being delivered or in planning. We're partnering with the Labor government of Western Australia, with Roger Cook, to deliver 72 kilometres of new passenger rail and 23 new stations and upgrades, including my favourite, the Morley-Ellenbrook line; the Yanchep rail extension; the Thornlie-Cockburn link; and the new Lakelands station, on the Mandurah line. More than 10,000 jobs are expected to be created across our Metronet projects, providing a significant boost for the economy and opportunities for our local businesses. We are also ensuring that Western Australia's public transport network is working towards our net zero future. The Albanese Labor government is investing $125 million towards the electric bus infrastructure in Perth, which will be matched by the WA government, for the acquisition of 130 locally manufactured electric buses. The May budget includes a significant investment in infrastructure by the federal government. For Hasluck, it's important for funding to keep pace with the growth of the population in what is one of the fastest-growing areas in Perth and the country. The budget provides, amongst other allocations, $500 million for the Roads to Recovery Program, $300 million for national road network maintenance, and $110 million for the Black Spot Program, with the local governments of Kalamunda, Swan and Mundaring receiving their share. In Ellenbrook, the federal and state Labor governments, together with the City of Swan, are making the Ellenbrook public pool a reality. The pool is planned to be co-located with the Ellenbrook train station, and together they will no doubt become a major new community meeting place for residents of all ages. Infrastructure doesn't just build a train station, a road or a pool—it transforms communities. There is over $200 million in the budget to establish the Thriving Suburbs Program to enhance the liveability and prosperity of our neighbourhoods. This government is committed to ensuring that people have equitable access not only to jobs and services but also to the amenities and sustainable living that we all deserve to enjoy in our communities. There is also over $150 million for the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program to rejuvenate the town centres we all gravitate around in outer urban areas like my electorate of Hasluck. Good design from the outset is so important, and this applies to urban planning in the broad and in the design of neighbourhoods that are people-centric, aesthetically pleasing and ecologically sustainable, right down to the design of our housing. I recently just visited Green Homes Australia's nine-plus-star display home in Brabham with Minister McAllister. We need to set high standards and have high expectations of the houses, communities, suburbs and cities that we design and live in. To that end, there is $11 million to establish a Cities and Suburbs Unit within the department of infrastructure to deliver a national urban policy, as well as reports that will provide an ongoing picture of life in our biggest cities. The people who call our suburbs home deserve cities that work for them, from affordable housing, access to jobs and services, and efficient transport networks to better-designed neighbourhoods. I know one of the reasons I was elected in Hasluck was because people were fed up to their back teeth with the Morrison government's rorts and secret deals. We didn't know just how much was going on behind the scenes, but people were aware their government projects were rorted and that processes were not fair. All of the programs being administered by this government, including the new ones I have mentioned, will be administered through fair and transparent processes, which will go a long way towards restoring the trust in government so damaged by the coalition. 18:02 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I have a number of questions for the Minister for Communications, who doesn't appear to be here, so I look forward to the answers on behalf of the minister. Why has the minister taken no action in her portfolio to reduce the level of gambling advertising in more than a year? What is taking so long? Why is the policy process on gambling advertising being outsourced to a parliamentary committee? Shouldn't the minister be leading in this important policy area? If the minister was willing to take action in relation to credit cards in gambling advertising, which is supported by the gambling industry, why isn't she willing to take action in relation to gambling advertising, which is not supported by the gambling industry? Will the government support the opposition's bill in the Senate to ban gambling advertising during live sport? Is the minister willing to take on the gambling lobby? Finally, and importantly, does the minister believe that she enjoys the full confidence of her colleagues on this issue? Artificial intelligence is an incredibly important issue. The minister is responsible for the regulation of the internet, and AI represents the biggest issue in internet regulation since the creation of the internet. Given this, can the minister explain why she is not responsible—or even, apparently, jointly responsible—for the government's policy response on AI? The minister has had very little to say on AI. Can she explain why she has been so absent from this debate? Does the minister agree that it is curious in the least that the Prime Minister has allocated this crucial task not to her but to the Minister for Industry and Science? Now, I'm very concerned about the minister's conduct in relation to round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. In that round, 54 locations were chosen to receive funding for mobile black spots. I want to be very, very clear on this, because the last thing I want to do is mischaracterise what has gone on here, so I thought that what I'd do is actually directly quote from the minister in an interview that she had on 2GB with Ben Fordham on this issue. I think it's quite illuminating, so I'll run through that. It leads to a couple of questions. Mr Fordham said: Of the 27 sites selected in New South Wales, how many are in Labor electorates? The minister replied: Well, we made it very clear that in these areas we would ensure that we meet our election commitments. So there were a number in New South Wales and a number in other states as well. Mr Fordham: Sure. Can we focus on answers though, Minister, because there's no harm—you've pointed out that you made commitments; you're following through. So let's have a number in the answer here. Out of the 27 sites selected in New South Wales, how many are in Labor electorates? The minister: Well, I would know that we consulted widely in these electorates— Fordham: You're not answering the question, Minister. The minister: Well, clearly we have a list of all those electorates, Ben, and where they are— Fordham: Did you want me to answer the question for you? The minister: It's up to you, Ben, but— Fordham: All right. Well, I'm happy to do it. Out of the 27 sites selected in New South Wales, all 27 are in Labor electorates. That's the answer. It's 27 out of 27. There's another really interesting section on this interview. Government members interjecting— Mr COLEMAN 241067 I'm glad to see the level of engagement from those opposite. Mr Fordham goes on to say: Okay. Is it correct that you hand-picked every one of the sites in Round 6? The minister replies: Well, Ben, let's again be clear. This was based on community feedback— Mr Fordham: Yeah yes. You've told us that stuff Minister. Now, we're moving on to whether or not you hand-picked the sites. Yes or no? The minister: Well, this was based on community feedback and— Fordham: You've told us about the feedback, Minister. Minister: Myself as the Shadow Minister for Communications working with those candidates and MPs decided that these were areas that we chose to— Fordham: All right. So, you hand-picked them, yeah? Minister: Well, certainly, as the Shadow Minister at the time— Fordham: Certainly. All right. I'll put that down as a yes, yeah? Minister: Please do. So this was the first time that the minister had explicitly acknowledged hand-picking the 54 sites and, indeed, that all 27 in New South Wales were in Labor electorates. It raises a number of very concerning questions, obviously. The minister has refused to provide a single document in relation to an FOI application on round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program—no documents. So will the minister reverse her decision and allow the public access to the documents held by her office on the program? If not, why not? The Auditor-General has said that there is merit in a potential audit of round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. If the minister won't publicly release those documents under FOI, will she provide them now to the Auditor-General to assist in his assessment of this issue, and if not, why not? (Time expired) 18:07 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I want to start by addressing some of the issues that have been raised in this chamber by the former minister for the arts, the member for Bradfield. There's this rhetoric going through those opposite that the large additional funding that this Albanese Labor government has provided to the arts is somehow not going to end up with artists themselves. Right from the start, let's get some facts straight about how funds have been distributed traditionally by the Australian Council. Let's look at their track record. The Australia Council will, of course, be known as Creative Australia under our changes. In the last financial year, the Australia Council invested 95 per cent of its budget back into the arts sector, with just five per cent spent on overheads and operational costs. That is 95 per cent of the funds going to artist and projects. The planned increase in staffing levels that is going to be included in the way we move forward is because the arts sector has asked us to do more. The sector has asked the government to provide more to it. In order to manage that, you obviously need to have a few more people to help do it. But if you look at the percentages, we don't see any reason why the percentage difference will change, and that's one of the fundamental things about the efficiency of the way the arts sector works. In our national cultural policy, we're very proud to be providing more funding and more direction for the arts sector, knowing how efficiently this organisation to be known as Creative Australia will work. I think it is also really important to point out a key change in the significant increase that we are providing to funding. There is an additional $949.5 million being invested over the next four years in the arts sector. One of the key things we are doing is making sure that the decisions about which artists and which arts projects get funded are going to be made independent of the minister. Instead they'll be made by the Australia Council and Creative Australia, not the RISE Fund that those opposite instigated where funds were taken away from the independent decision-making process, and which projects were funded was in the lap of the minister, depending on the minister's preferences. When we talk about additional funding, we also know that we are bringing back integrity, the integrity that the arts sector knows and appreciates. Those opposite can roll their eyes about it, but we know this system has been supported over decades by governments of all colours until just recently, and so we are very proud to see that sort of change come in. This record new investment in the sector is going to safeguard our national institutions. It will train and support creatives, and it will deliver on the vision of our new National Cultural Policy—Revive. We've really set a new course for the sector that builds on the proud legacy of previous governments. We're bringing back drive, direction and vision to a $17 billion industry that employs more than 400,000 Australians so that we are empowering talented artists and organisations to thrive and grow. When we look at the breakdown of that funding, $535.3 million is to secure the future of our most cherished cultural and historical institutions, things like the National Gallery, the National Library, the Film and Sound Archive and the National Archives. They have a crucial place in our cultural history and in our future. There is also $33 million to secure the long-term viability of the National Library's Trove database, and I am sure every one of us has constituents who use that database for family history, but it is also a key academic resource. There is $286 million to deliver on Revive, including establishing Creative Australia, Music Australia, Writers Australia and a creative workplaces centre, which is what arts workers have told us they want. It's also for establishing a First Nations led body dedicated to First Nations work. There is also $9.3 million for Australia's eight national arts training organisations, and I've met with leaders of all of these organisations. These are the sorts of investments in skilling up Australians for this sector that have been neglected for a decade, and we are taking seriously the rebuilding of our very vital arts sector. 18:13 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker We have hit peak hubris. The fact that those opposite wouldn't present the minister for consideration in detail on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 is evidence of peak hubris. But it is worse than that because I have come here to talk about road safety. Given what has happened on the weekend, the fact that the minister is not here is not only peak hubris but disrespectful. Quarterly road fatalities increased by 3.7 per cent from the December 2022 quarter to the March 2023 quarter. In the 12 months to March 2023 road death increased in our nation by 5.9 per cent compared to the previous 12 months. Let us put that in raw numbers: that is 67 additional lives lost over that 12-month period—additional lives lost. Devastatingly, of course, we have lost many more since. These figures are sobering. Every road death is tragic. It is not just a number; it is a family member, a partner, a friend, a child, a parent, a member of the local community. The statistics are important, but so is data about how we design the path forward. Numbers tell stories, and these stories guide policy formation in this place—or at least they should—in order that we might bring the numbers down. If the numbers are going up, the policy settings are clearly not right, and we need to look at relevant specific data to understand how we might be able to change that tragic trajectory to save lives. Australia's National road safety strategy 2021-2030 sets out Australia's ambition to reduce annual road fatalities by at least 50 per cent by 2030, but, without in-depth analysis of the causes of crashes, we have little hope of implementing the most effective interventions needed to even come close to achieving this target. We need data regarding serious injuries, road quality, crash causes, and details regarding people and cars involved to assist us in knowing where and how to target road safety initiatives. The AAA managing director, Michael Bradley, knows this. So do his AAA members. They, of course, are the NRMA, RACV, RACQ, RAA, RAC, RACT and AANT. Michael said: It is not enough to know how many people were killed in road crashes—we also need to know how they were killed, and how to prevent these deaths in the future. It's also fair that Australians should be satisfied that the investment in the national road network is being made where it's needed. Road deaths are rising, and those opposite are reluctant to ensure data is collected and reported in a transparent way to inform road infrastructure investment. The Commonwealth's failure to facilitate the timely, consistent and open reporting of national road safety data is impeding Australia quantifying its road safety problem, developing evidence based responses or evaluating their effectiveness. It's not credible that, during the height of the pandemic, COVID data was published daily regarding infection numbers, vaccine rates, gender, age and location of hospitalisations, yet data failings, it is said, prevent us from knowing how many Australians are injured in road crashes each year and what factors led to those. My question to the minister, if she were here, is: what reassurance can the government give that the funding allocated to road safety in the budget will actually deliver road safety outcomes? The second question I ask is: how will the government quantify the road safety task in our nation and how will the government develop evidence based responses and evaluate the effectiveness of those responses? Noting the current National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects is due to expire on 30 June 2024, will the government leverage the significant land transport infrastructure funding it provides states and territories to incentivise the provision of priority road safety data as a condition of funding? Finally, the Road Safety Program is the only program that specifically requires states and territories to provide specific road safety data as a condition of family. How many states and territories have provided this data, and has funding been withheld for projects in those jurisdictions that refuse to provide this data? Those are the questions for the minister if she were here. 18:18 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'll address the member for Barker's comments there. As the chair of Tasmania's black spot panel, I take a particular interest in road safety, and I'm quite dismayed, quite frankly, to see this issue being politicised by the member for Barker. The road safety national strategy draft form was released after two years under the former government when we came to government, and to see it being used in this partisan manner by the member for Barker is really beyond words. In my electorate of Lyons, as in rural and regional electorates across Australia, one of the biggest issues facing communities is access to affordable and reliable internet and telecommunications. Since the election, the Albanese government has been getting on with the job of improving telecommunications across Lyons. Last year a dedicated round of Mobile Black Spot Program funding invested $40 million into addressing known mobile communications issues at 54 target locations, including Sheffield, Ansons Bay and Tea Tree. More recently, I was very pleased to announce the completion of new macro cell base stations in Murdunna and Pyengana, providing new and improved mobile coverage to these communities and surrounding areas. These stations will deliver safety and social benefits to those living in, working in and travelling through the regions and will enhance protections during emergencies and natural disasters. The growing use of video streaming and more people working and studying than ever before means access to fast reliable and affordable broadband has never been more important. Indeed, the former Rudd government understood the importance to regional Australia because the original NBN plan, before it was busted up by the Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull governments, had a focus on regional Australia. That's why we put the NBN first—fibre to the home, fibre to the premises—across regional communities. The Liberals came to power 2013, tore that up, focused on the cities instead, left the regions behind and grew the digital divide. Since we have come back to government, we are intent, under the Minister for Communications, on fixing this. The Albanese government is committed to improving the NBN to give Australians access to 21st century communications infrastructure, no matter where they live. We are investing $2.4 billion to expand full-fibre NBN to an additional 1.5 million premises; 660,000 of them are in regional areas. That is in addition to our $480 million grant to upgrade the fixed wireless network, to upgrade the Liberals and Nationals' promise never delivered. I see the minister for regional Australia here nodding her head. She, too, like me, is a regional MP who understands the importance of regional communications. Across the NBN—satellite, fixed-line and fixed-wireless networks—our government is delivering for the millions of Australians who live outside capitals, including the 7,500 households in Lyons, using satellite broadband, many of whom now have access to uncapped satellite broadband. They can contact the NBN for information on that. My question to the minister on the matter is: Please outline how the government's $480 million investment to upgrade NBN fixed wireless services will improve connectivity in regional areas. Just before I finish, from the arts section of the megaportfolio, I was pleased to see on the weekend the Bay of Fires Winter Festival. It was held on the East Coast, up in the north-east. A major prize winner was Robyn Harman for Grummet Island. Many thanks to the volunteers, sponsors, partners, including Break O'Day Council, for that festival. This goes of course to the importance of regional arts under the Australian government's Revive program. The people's choice award went to Jan Clement—congratulations, Jan, for Time Stands Still. The major prize people's choice award went to Britt Fazey. Anita Denholm created the wonderful Gazing Out Across the Track of Time and Tides or better known as the Lady of the Bay sculpture, which now takes pride of place on Georges Bay on the multi-user track up there in St Helens. This just goes to the strength of regional arts across my electorate—the East Coast, Northern Midlands, the Deloraine Crafts Fair, the South-East Arts community, Spring Bay down there in Orford and Triabunna. In the Southern Midlands, I will hand back an art work and they will get a new one on their rent scheme. They are looking forward to that in a few weeks. Plus there is a great live music culture. My question is just how important are regional arts to Revive? 18:23 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In Queensland every year for 20 years, we've built a giant developmental agricultural dam. Every year for 20 years, we have put down over 600, arguably 700, kilometres of railway line to develop the mining wealth of Queensland. Every year for 20 years we have built a giant resort, a billion-dollar tourist resort. In the 33 years since the fall of the old Country Party government, there's not been a dam built, not been a single inch of railway line put down and not a single tourist resort been built. 'Red Ted', easily the most important person in Australian history—I didn't say that; Paul Keating said that; I didn't say that; Malcolm Fraser said that—said, 'The job of government is to provide real work for our people', not make believe government jobs paid for by robbing Peter over here to pay Paul over there but real wealth-creating jobs.' That's what he wrote to Chifley halfway through the Depression. It is the job of government. When I say 'government', I include the media and the banks. Just have a look at what you can create. You build a dam at Hughenden and 150 people get a farm to live on that will give them an income of nearly half a million dollars a year. It's so easy. All you've got to do is build a dam. Now, this is on a river that isn't a river—it's only a river for about a month of the year if you're lucky. It's just a flood plain, that's all. We just keep a little bit of that flood. The great Ernie Bridge, the first First Australian to become a cabinet minister in Australian history and the Watering Australia Foundation president—Slim Dusty, I and others were on that board—said, 'All we are asking for is that the great rivers of Australia, on their brief rampage to the sea, pay a small tribute to those people who live upon its banks.' What a beautiful statement. The great Dr Bradfield, the greatest builder in Australian history—I won't go into everything that he built—said, 'By filling Lake Eyre with water, we can turn inland Australia into Ghirraween.' It's a First Australian word which means 'the land of flowers'. There is no doubt in my mind that if you fill Webb Lake with water, there will be a very significant rainfall in the driest part of Australia. I represent a place where it never stops raining. It's Paradise Coast, between Townsville and Cairns. It's a 100-inch rainfall area. It never stops raining. All Dr Bradfield said was to take a little tiny bit of that water and send it out to supplement the giant Flinders River. That's all. That's all he was saying. Where there is a barren wilderness, there's not a single kangaroo in a thousand kilometres by a thousand kilometres: the mid-west plains are as flat as a billiard ball table, and, of course, there's no surface water, so no kangaroos. There's nothing there at the present moment except prickly trees, an introduced species, which is a B of a thing, and the Julia Creek dunnart. It's doomed to oblivion, because if the prickly trees don't get it then the pigs will, and the government is doing nothing about either of them. We have a wilderness which is running to rack and ruin and eroding away into the Gulf of Carpentaria, and we can make it Ghirraween—a land of flowers—with a little bit of money to build a dam, a tunnel and a fairly long canal. Just push up some ground, and the water flows out onto this western plain, which has the richest soils in the world—the vertosol soils of inland Queensland. They're not my comments; they're comments by professional— (Time expired) 18:28 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro It's fantastic to be here representing my ministerial colleagues tonight and listening to some of the contributions that have been made around the room on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. I think the important thing here is what we're not going to do, and we are not going to replicate what the former Morrison government did, because transparency, integrity and prioritising delivery over announcement is absolutely the key focus of our government. I'm proud to stand here tonight and outline what the Albanese Labor government has achieved for our regions in less than 12 months. We have done more in those 12 months than the former government did in 10 years, because our regions deserve much more than just a grant program. We want regional Australia to seize the huge opportunities that come with a shift to cheap, clean, renewable energy, a shift that has been deliberately blocked for over a decade. Every time we've looked at big regional programs dreamt up by the former government, we've seen real problems: an Inland Rail which blew out by $31 billion under the former government and didn't go to a port, an infrastructure pipeline that blew out from 150 projects to 800 without any additional funding, and projects that were promised but without funding partners. In just 12 months we've delivered and are laying the foundations for a better future. In our very first budget, we committed a billion dollars to new regional programs. We've provided increased connectivity by properly funding the NBN rollout and fixing mobile phone black spots. We've seen more housing assistance through the expansion of the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, skills assistance through our fee-free TAFE places and funds for increased disaster resilience and mitigation. Labor's fiscally responsible 2023-24 budget continues to deliver for regional Australians and recognises the importance of helping them build our economy with significant investments, from our $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart fund to the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. We are supporting regional Australia and its industries by investing a billion dollars to strengthen our national biosecurity system. We're supporting people across the nation with a historic investment of $3.5 billion to triple the Medicare bulk-billing incentive, the largest increase in the 40-year history of Medicare. We've got a regional investment framework that puts regional Australians at the heart of our decision-making. We want regional Australia to receive a fair share of the prosperity it creates, which is why the National Reconstruction Fund will drive the economic engines in our regions. It's why the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will support regional Australia, which is crying out for housing. Our Powering the Regions Fund will deliver new industries to regional Australia. We are amending the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility Act to extend eligibility for NAIF financing to Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the IOTs, enabling assistance, support and opportunity for their residents and businesses to diversify and create economic development. As Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, I want to congratulate my colleague, Minister Madeleine King, for taking this important step of including the IOTs in the NAIF. Providing financial assistance to progress economic growth in our remote territories is incredibly important, and it took a Labor government to achieve that. Our review of the Infrastructure Investment Program will clean up the mess left by those opposite in the previous 10 years, with a $120 billion infrastructure investment pipeline that blew out in projects but didn't add a single dollar. We want to work with the states and territories, we want to work with our local government partners and we want to see collaboration across the board because that's how projects get delivered in our communities. Under the previous government, projects were left without adequate funding or resources, without real benefits to the public for whom they were approved and with a clogged-up pipeline that has caused delays and overruns in important nation-building projects. It's proof that you can't build a road on a press release. You can't change economies by 30-second media grabs. For those opposite, it was all about the announcement and never about the delivery. The difference with this government is that we are prepared to do the work to get things done. Ms McBAIN 281988 I just heard the former shadow communications minister mentioning community feedback. Apparently community feedback's a bad idea and projects should just be decided by ministers with their spreadsheets in front of them. The member for Barker talked about road safety funding. We've established the National Road Safety Action Plan and have got an inquiry into how we can help our communities and councils, in particular, fix up our road network. We're not sitting here taking up space. We're getting things done. The opposition had the chance to do that in their 10 years of government and failed at every turn. We are delivering and we are doing that on behalf of all of Australia. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 105 18:34 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I welcome the opportunity to speak on the investments that the Albanese Labor government is making in the education portfolio, and I'd particularly like to make mention of my colleague Minister Jason Clare, the Minister for Education, and thank him for the significant work he has done over the last year to build an education system that supports children to play, to learn and to thrive. Labor governments have a long history of putting the education of our children front and centre of all that we do. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese government that is continuing this tradition by taking action to deliver a stronger, fairer and more accessible education system than the one we inherited. With the latest budget, the Albanese government is taking action to respond to immediate education workforce challenges while building a better and fairer education system for the future. We know that central to building a better and fairer education system is investing in teachers, educators and support staff that make the system work. This budget invests $72.4 million in crucial initiatives, including professional development opportunities, to support early educators. That package will benefit more than 80,000 early childhood educators, with a targeted focus on regional and remote services and First Nations organisations. We know that this will make a real difference for educators; we know that because this package has been designed in direct response to the feedback that I have had through my numerous consultations with educators, with teachers and with people in the sector, who specifically asked for professional development and practicum support. By providing access to professional development opportunities, we are making it easier for early childhood educators to progress their careers. This package has been widely welcomed by key organisations, including Early Childhood Australia, the Australian Childcare Alliance and Community Early Learning Australia. The budget also includes a further $9.3 million to implement the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan, building on the $328 million already invested. It includes $40.4 million in additional funding for schools in Central Australia, to increase school enrolment and student engagement and to improve learning outcomes in those areas. In higher education, the budget delivers $128.5 million to fund 4,000 additional university places over the next four years. That will boost the number of graduates from STEM disciplines and support our AUKUS program. Of these additional places, 800 will be allocated to South Australian universities, with the remaining places located across the country. Importantly, the budget represents a down payment on the government's big reform initiatives underway across early childhood education, across schools and across higher education, ensuring that our children and our young people can access a quality education no matter where they live, no matter what their background is and no matter who their parents are. We've launched a comprehensive Productivity Commission Inquiry into Australia's Early Childhood Education and Care System—a very timely inquiry, I might add. That review is a vital and important step as we look to chart the path to universal access to early childhood education and care. We're also looking to the future of the school system with our Review to Inform a Better and Fairer Education System, as it is titled. It's an opportunity to drive real and measurable improvements for all school students, particularly those most at risk and falling behind. We're encouraging teachers, parents and students to take part in a national survey for that review. The other major education reform work underway is the development of an Australian Universities Accord. It's a broad review of Australia's higher education system and, again, another opportunity to drive long-lasting reform. An expert panel will make recommendations to government about how we can ensure that our higher education system meets the nation's needs over the next decades. We're very proud of these individual pieces of reform that we have underway, which I know will work together to develop a stronger, fairer and much more accessible education system for all Australians. This builds on our election commitment to make early childhood education more affordable for 1.2 million families across Australia. We've already acted to deliver just that. (Time expired) 18:39 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I begin by saying just how disappointing it is that this government is showing contempt for this process of consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. In the previous session that was held in this very room, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government did not bother to attend, the Minister for Communications did not bother to attend and the Minister for the Arts did not bother to attend. In this consideration in detail stage, concerning education, the Minister for Education could not be bothered to attend. This government came to power with a commitment to greater parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, and it is showing complete contempt for the principles that it campaigned on, the promises that it made to the Australian people, by failing to make available the appropriate cabinet ministers. I can tell you this did not happen under the previous government. This previous government took this process seriously. I know that the member for Gippsland, in his distinguished service as a cabinet minister, always made sure he was here. Similarly, I always made sure as a cabinet minister that I took this process seriously. What we have had demonstrated today by the government today is complete contempt for the parliament, and every Labor parliamentarian here should be feeling ashamed of themselves that we have not had this process taken seriously. It is very important that that point be put on the record. The sad reality is that the approach of this government to the education portfolio has been shambolic and slipshod. Let's have a look at what we've seen from the minister. Perhaps the reason the minister didn't want to attend is because his personal track record is so dismal. Instead of addressing the issues that it was promised in the lead-up to the election would be addressed, we've simply had a plethora of reviews being announced. There is a Productivity Commission review into child care. There is a school funding review. What is the need for the school funding review? The then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, made a commitment—and since coming to government the Prime Minister and the current minister have repeated the commitment—to fund government schools at 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Why is there a need to review? Get on and deliver the commitment. It's pretty straightforward. Then there's also the so-called Universities Accord. It appears frequently in the government's talking points, but it has not yet seen the light of day. What we've seen in this budget is a whole range of cuts across the wide reach of the education portfolio: $756 million cut from government schools across the country; nearly $50 million cut from Closing the Gap educational initiatives; $36.9 million cut from the Strategic University Reform Fund and the Regional Research Collaboration Program; and $11.3 million cut from the national school reform fund and quality outcomes program. Then, of course, there is this minister's curious approach to the challenge that we now see with the indexation of HECS debts at 7.1 per cent, the highest in 30 years. Particularly, to add insult to injury, students are being charged indexation rates on debt they have already repaid in full. The opposition is very clear: we call on the government to repay Australians who are hit with indexation penalties on student loans they have already paid off. I want to ask the minister the following questions. Perhaps this can be conveyed to him by carrier pigeon or some other method that the government members who are here might choose to use. Can the minister explain why he needs a review into school funding when he has already given his commitment to lock in the schooling resource standard funding? Can the minister confirm how many students will be impacted by the government's decision to roll out Startup Year loans? This Startup Year loan program is highly risky. It could cripple students with up to $23,600 of debt for full fee-paying university courses that they can currently do for free, such as those offered by the University of Technology Sydney's startup hub. Has the government commissioned any modelling to examine the full impact this scheme will have on students in the context of the cost-of-living crisis? Why is the government of the view that the Startup Year program is necessary, given that accelerator programs are offered at many universities across the country? (Time expired) 18:44 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur It's a great pleasure to follow the shadow minister for confected outrage in debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. It really is ridiculous when those on the other side complain about our evidence based education policies, where the 'lifters and leaners approach', if I can put it that way, of the previous government did a lot of harm to some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities. I thank the minister for Early Childhood Education very much for her work and her dedication as she and her team have been advancing in early education in our country. Indeed, she has visited— A government member: They don't want to talk about that, do they? Dr FREELANDER 265979 No, they don't want to talk about that at all. The minister has in fact been to my electorate on a number of occasions. It was a pleasure to welcome her recently to a childcare centre in my electorate that's providing the very best care and early childhood education to my constituents' children. I'm very, very proud to be part of a government that understands the importance of early intervention and of early childhood education. We are giving some of the most disadvantaged access to early childhood education for the first time in this country. We know that the evidence base is there to show that intervention for these kids increases their educational progress in both primary and secondary school. The education that is given in early childhood will hold them in good stead for the rest of their lives. It will mean some of the most disadvantaged kids from the most disadvantaged families will benefit from that for the rest of their lives. I'm very proud to be part of a government that promotes this as its policy. My electorate of Macarthur is very fortunate to be home to some wonderful early education centres, which I visited in my previous role as a paediatrician. Those centres include Squiggles and Giggles in Emerald Hills; Good Start Early Learning in Willowdale, which the minister visited; Raising Stars in Gregory Hills; and St Helens Park Long Day Care Centre. I've visited all these sites in my electorate, and I can see how the kids benefit. I can see the dedicated work of the teachers and staff, including the staff who cook and clean and support the families, and I'm proud to be part of that. This government's policies in early childhood education will benefit 9,200 Macarthur families, which is more than previously, and in total 1.2 million Australian families will have access to early childhood education from 1 July because we are increasing the childcare subsidy. In doing so we are helping make early childhood education more affordable and accessible to all, and we know that equitable access to early childhood education is very important. Some of our family will save up to $2,000 in the first year of our plan alone. This means more children getting access to the transformational benefits of early learning, regardless of their circumstances, and in the long run bolstering the wealth and health of our country There's a staggering number of children who are potentially missing out on early childhood education due to inequitable access and affordability. Those on the opposite side should understand that well. A major contributing factor is the poor planning of the previous New South Wales government in my home state and the lack of early childhood education places. In fact, Willowdale early childhood education centre, which the minister visited, has 900 children on the waiting list. Many of these families will now be able to access care as our early childhood education plan rolls out. We know there are still issues, and the government is attempting to address these with the education of early childhood educators, providing fee-free TAFE places for people doing early childhood education and providing more spaces in universities for early childhood education degrees. We recognise that there are still issues, and we must do more to attract, retain and support the early childhood workforce. That's why we're investing over $70 million to support the skills and training of the quality and sustainable early childhood education and care sector. This important investment will support the quality of the highly trained early childhood education and care workforce and improve access to professional development to make it easier for educators to progress their careers. I'm proud of being a part of a government that's doing this, and I look forward to the many advance that will continue to be made in the future under this government. 18:50 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Those on the other side of the chamber should be ashamed of themselves that their cabinet ministers are not here in attendance today. Under the last coalition government, cabinet ministers—the education minister was in this chamber for consideration in detail. It shows the arrogance and hubris coming out of the Albanese government that those cabinet ministers are not here for the consideration in detail before us as well. It's an absolute disgrace. It's been 12 months since the Albanese government came to power. Unlike the Prime Minister's repeated promises, I haven't actually met an Australian—especially in my electorate of Moncrieff, on the Gold Coast—who is better off under this government. They keep saying it, but it's not actually true. Electricity bills have skyrocketed. Grocery and petrol costs have increased substantially. The cost of sending your children to early childhood education has increased. We just heard a bit of a spray there from the member for Macarthur. He's talking about how children have equal access and how there are 900 children on a waiting list in one centre. That's right: waiting lists are growing around the country. I have centres in my own electorate where there are waiting lists of 400 children. Coming out of Melbourne now is news that Victorian families are being turned away from child care because of critical staff shortages, with demand for spots higher than ever. A survey has found two-thirds of centres had to cap placements earlier this year. Centres are actually capping their placements and their enrolments. What is coming out of this Albanese government about early childhood education is simply not what's happening across the sector. The last time Labor was in government, the fees increased by 53 per cent in just six years. Out-of-pocket costs have already increased in the last six months—that's half the time they've been in government—by 6.5 per cent. We're seeing this increase all the time. This means their lack of management of inflation has now put at risk the $4.7 billion bill that they put forward for cheaper childcare for families across the nation. That will not come to fruition, because it will all be wasted. Centres will put their prices up, which we're seeing, and cap their enrolments because they don't have the educators. Families will lose that subsidy. If you're a family living in a thin market or a childcare desert, stuck on a waiting list, with no early learning centre in your area, you'll be in exactly the same position come 1 July. I asked the minister: will you commit to Australian families that fees will not increase and that children actually will be able to have access in regional and remote areas in particular around the country? The government have no idea what they're doing. They have no real plan when it comes to the early childhood education sector. We can see that from their 2023-24 budget, which contained pretty much rats and mice for the sector and nothing to address the increasing number of concerns that are being raised weekly with me. Sure, there's a $72.4 million package for educators to receive training, but it's for only 80,000 places. There are over 200,000 educators in the sector right now and, as I meet with them and have roundtables across each of the states, they're telling me that they're under great pressure. It will basically be a lucky dip for who gets to undertake further training and who doesn't. It's a bit of a slap in the face for educators who work tirelessly to look after our children. If the government is so committed to supporting educators—and we know they love to use them when they stand up at a centre every other day for those media opportunities, always in the cities, never in the regions, possibly because there's such a lack of infrastructure that there's nowhere to go to do a presser on early childhood education. They need to start building some centres in some of the areas. While we're on this topic: given there's such a shortage of educators in the sector, how are centres going to be able to backfill and allow their staff to go participate in training? Where are they going to get the staff to do that? They won't be able to get them. This package promises opportunity, but, with the workforce to backfill, educators will simply be stuck—especially those, as I said, living in regional and rural communities where there are no educators to spare, because Labor simply don't care about regional Australia. They don't care about remote Australia. There will not be one extra new place in regional and remote Australia for families that need to put their children into early childhood education. Those on the other side have always failed to understand that regional communities are the backbone of this country. I have a few more questions. What about families who don't work the traditional nine-to-five hours? What are they going to do for those families? What is the government doing for them? Minister, I ask you what the government is doing for families that cannot access— (Time expired) 18:55 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Labor governments have the ability to transform people's lives for the better. I'm so proud to be standing here with the Minister for Early Childhood Education and to be talking about this bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. We are a party that knows what women want. This is one of the reasons why the Albanese Labor government is investing in child care. This year, child care will get cheaper for close to 1.2 million families across Australia through the childcare subsidy. This policy is great for parents, great for bubs and great for the economy. I'm proud that approximately 7,200 families in my electorate of Swan who are using the childcare scheme will benefit from this increased childcare subsidy. This is an issue that's close to my heart. It's something that was brought up many times when I was doorknocking with constituents during my campaign, and my own family is typical of other families in Swan. Many people felt let down by the Morrison government. There was a comment about cabinet ministers not being here; at least I know who my cabinet ministers are. Many people felt let down by the Morrison government and that childcare costs exploded under their watch. Those opposite frequently cite the cost of living. However, during the former government, when inflation averaged just two per cent per year, childcare fees increased by an astounding 49 per cent. This was a huge cost to young families. This was pure mismanagement of the sector. In contrast, the Albanese Labor government is proposing changes to early childhood education which will save a family on combined income of about $120,000, about $1,700 in the first year of this plan alone. This bill also aims to develop skills and increase the availability of qualified professionals in the field of early childhood education and care. What I was hearing from the other side is that it's not worth trying to train these educators. I think that they're worth it. They are investing in my child's future. It means that I can do my job. They are worth it. By investing in this crucial area, we will support growth of a highly skilled workforce—and the higher the skills, the better the quality—through greater access to training and professional development. This is something that happens in all childcare centres, but this is something that we can improve on. This initiative will make it more convenient for educators to advance their careers and improve the overall quality. It will help retain our early childhood educators in the sector, too. Currently, this is an industry with very demanding work, and the truth is there is high staff turnover. When you look at high-performing teams, two things are ongoing feedback, but it's also training. You need to invest in training to have great-performing teams. We need to retain our educators. The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving the high standards of early childhood education by investing in this workforce and offering workers in the sector clear training pathways to grow and progress their careers. Also, a large reason for the gender pay gap is a disparity in hours—the different hours worked between men and women. It's typically women who make the decision to leave their jobs or reduce their work hours, forgoing income, superannuation and career experience. This is an opportunity cost that deprives our nation of talent. It means that women are retiring with less superannuation. It means that women are, on average, earning less than their male counterparts in the same careers. It also adds to the unpaid care work that is disproportionately taken on by women. The cost of child care drives many parents, typically mothers, away from the workforce. At the moment, approximately 60 per cent of mothers with young children work part-time hours. Some of this does relate to mums wanting to spend time with young children, but another part of this is cost. Cost is absolutely a barrier, particularly when deciding on how many days to return to work. Imagine what happens when you remove those barriers! The Albanese Labor government is proud to be supportive of Australian women and help get them back in the workplace. I personally know how important this sector is. I could not do my job as an MP and as a mother without the amazing assistance of childcare educators—that includes in this place and also in the electorate of Swan. This is an investment into the future, and I commend the bill. 19:00 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Like other speakers on this side, I am stunned that cabinet ministers have not been bothered to turn up for the consideration in detail debate. The member for Forrest and I have been here for a year or two, and I don't think she could ever recall an occasion where cabinet ministers were so arrogant and so full of hubris that they could not be bothered turning up for consideration in detail debates. I do thank the outer minister for attending—it's important she is here as well, with her childcare responsibilities—but it is extraordinary that cabinet ministers think they're too cool for school to come to an education debate where they might actually learn something from the other side. We have a government, an opposition and a contest of ideas, and not all good ideas rest on one side of the chamber. It takes enormous arrogance and enormous hubris for one cabinet minister after another to decide they're too good to come to Federation Chamber and respond to a single question on issues like infrastructure or communications or education. Heaven forbid they might actually learn something from members on the other side, particular those with a lived experience in rural, regional and remote Australia, where the Labor Party is particularly weak. You have to acknowledge that, geographically, the domination of the Labor Party is in urban areas and some large provincial centres, but in terms of rural, regional and remote Australia, the Labor Party is spectacularly weak in terms of representation. For people like me, the member for Forrest and the member for Flynn, our lived experience in rural and regional and remote communities, particularly in relation to education, is something we would like to share with the minister and on which we would like to ask questions of the minister. I want to ask questions of the minister, particularly in relation to the question of tertiary access for rural and regional students. It is an area where the member for Forrest and I have worked over our time in this place, with some degree of success and some improvements in terms of accessibility payments—tertiary access allowance and things like that. With the increased cost of living, and with the housing shortage particularly pronounced in many metropolitan areas, we are very concerned that the disproportionate number of regional students unable to attend university in our metropolitan areas will grow into the future. I want to know: has the minister got any measures, has he asked for any new measures, or has he explored any new measures in relation to addressing that imbalance in university participation rates? My electorate of Gippsland is one of the worst-performing areas in Victoria in terms of university participation rates, and part of the challenge is obviously aspirational. We, as local leaders in our community, have to build the aspiration in our kids, and keep working with them at a very early age to ensure they have that ambition, but there is also a challenge about accessibility and the costs of relocating to Melbourne when there's no other opportunity to attend those courses. I want to know if the minister has been meeting with the industry, or if he has asked his department to look at any other new measures that may assist with university participation rates for regional and rural students. Rural and regional students by any measure are underachieving when it comes to tertiary participation. I acknowledge the minister responsible for early childhood education and child care is at the table. The focus taken by this side—and I think it's a good focus, particularly from a regional perspective—is around fairness, choice and flexibility. The accessibility argument is one the minister is well aware of—she is well aware of childcare deserts, like everyone in this place. From talking with young families in my community, my experience is they are looking for more flexibility to manage sometimes complex life challenges—they'll have a mixture of grandparent care, caring themselves and formal child care. The formal child care part of the equation is very important in rural and regional areas, and I'm sure the minister is aware of that. The government announced $18 million for communities to build new centres to address this issue; how many centres can be built with that $18 million, and how many of the families that I have been talking to in rural and regional areas around this issue are likely to benefit in the term of this government? Are we looking at a longer-term challenge here or are you thinking that there are going to be some improvements in the next couple of years? We have seen childcare centres forced to close their doors because they don't have the workforce—and I acknowledge the minister's comments earlier in relation to improving workforce training. But I'm very interested to know, from a rural and regional perspective, whether the minister genuinely believes we're going to see any change during this term of government on this challenge or whether there is going to be more focus on urban and peri-urban areas. Again I must acknowledge that it is incredibly disappointing that we do not have cabinet ministers participating in this process. It's not unreasonable for them to put aside half an hour or an hour of their day, as the case may be, to respond to questions and be in this place to listen to the concerns of the opposition. 19:05 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I've just got to call out some of the opening statements from some of the previous speakers—the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Moncrieff and the member for Gippsland. I think it's entirely appropriate that the Minister for Early Childhood Education is here, across not only her portfolio but that of the Minister for Education. We took a policy to the election. The member for Gippsland did stick to that policy a lot, but I understand why the other two members didn't want to talk about this policy to drive down the cost of child care across the country, because it's a good policy. To have the Minister for Early Childhood Education here, for one of the biggest election commitments of the Albanese government, estimated at $5 billion, which will transform our economy, is entirely appropriate. Shame on them for dragging her for turning up and doing her job. I want to be specific. This policy, which none of you guys want to talk about, will help 1.2 million families across Australia. It will help 9,400 families in my electorate of Bennelong, which is the electorate with the second-highest number of families, I am told. That's 1,169 families in Epping and North Epping, 1,932 families in Ryde, 1,608 families in North, East and West Ryde, 868 families in Eastwood, 803 families in Ermington—and I could go on. From 1 July—and that's only 19 days away—these families will have access to more affordable early childhood education. That's because of the work of this government and the good work of the Minister for Early Childhood Education, so it's entirely appropriate that she is here. We know that the advantages of affordable early childhood education are truly transformative. Not only does it empower children to embark on a journey of lifelong learning but it also gives parents the opportunity to work or study, to help earn a better wage and to make ends meet. This is only the first step. The Albanese Labor government is committed to creating a future where affordable, accessible and high-quality early education becomes a universal right. To achieve this vision, we have initiated two inquiries that delve deep into Australia's early childhood education system. Under those opposite, the prices skyrocketed. That's unsustainable. It's unsustainable for families and it's unsustainable for the sector. We know that access for everybody to early childhood education is critical. The first five years of a child's life are their formative years, and they set the foundation for future life outcomes, encompassing their learning, health and overall wellbeing. Research has proven this over and over—that children who participate in quality early learning programs experience improved educational outcomes, enhanced literacy and numeracy skills, higher school retention rates and greater success in their academic journey. That's why this policy is so important, because it will get more families and more kids into the early education system. Recently I spoke to a local mum from Carlingford. Her name is Christina. Both of Christina's children have attended Midson Road Child Care Centre in my electorate of Bennelong, which I had the pleasure of visiting with the Minister for Early Childhood Education not so long ago. Christina told me about her experience as a full-time working parent of two boys and the benefit that access to early childhood education has had not just for her and her career but for her two children. Her two kids have attended child care and early education since they were three months old, which meant that Christine was able to get back to work whilst knowing that her children would be safe and cared for and that they would be learning in these facilities. Since attending Midson Road, her boys have had some great experiences, their favourites being excursions to the new Metro when it opened up—which is something I really enjoyed when it opened up, so it's for young and old—and meeting farmyard animals at school. For families like Christina's, more affordable early education means that they will get more money back into their household budgets right at a time when we know times are tough. This is a cost-of-living measure, as it also is a productivity and education measure, because we know this policy doesn't just benefit children; it is good for families. Natalie Sard is a local who lives in West Ryde and she told me that her kids have benefited from early childhood education. Her kids are prepared for their school routines. They have had positive input into their emotional and behavioural development, and early childhood educators, who are just fantastic, have helped her kids develop self-regulation, empathy and problem-solving skills. For Natalie, cheaper child care means more money for necessities such as food, such as housing, such as education and health care. This is good policy, and I am not surprised that those opposite don't want to talk about it. Minister, I would like to ask you: How will the Albanese Labor government's reforms make early learning more affordable and how will they benefit our economy? 19:10 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to speak on these appropriation bills and specifically on the government's failure to provide adequate funding for schools. Like the member for Gippsland, I am disappointed to see that the education minister has not shown up here this evening, and that says a lot about his view about this particular portfolio. The government committed to fund public schools to 100 per cent of their SRS level, but budget papers reveal that this year will see a $756 million cut to government schools. If that is what a Labor commitment to public schools looks like after just one year, I shudder to think of what will happen to the rest of the education sector under this government. This budget has gouged all funding where it has been needed the most, in the rural and regional areas like my electorate of Forrest and in remote and rural areas around the country. The budget has swept the rug from under the feet of some of our most vulnerable children. I want to draw attention to one area in particular, the Studio Schools program. This was a coalition funded program to build boarding schools for Indigenous children in the Northern Territory and in my home state of Western Australia. It was a fantastic initiative by the former government to lift attendance rates, increase achievement and attainment rates, provide a quality, safe and secure environment for Indigenous students and support local communities in their efforts to give the very best they could to their children. And what did the government do to this program? Well, it has cut the number of boarding facilities being built under this program from four to two, leaving over 150 children stranded. That is just deplorable. Things are no different for Yipirinya School in the Northern Territory, which is still waiting for $8.3 million of promised funding, while the government spends $364 million on its referendum for the Voice. This $8.3 million of funding was provided for in the budget by the coalition government; however, this Albanese government, despite indicating to the country that they support Indigenous Australians and that they will do everything they can to improve the situation in Alice Springs, have not delivered that funding. The only time this government pays any attention to what is happening in Alice Springs is when the media runs a story and it detracts from its narrative. The Minister for Education many times has said, 'I don't want to see us be a country where your chances in life depend on your postcode, your parents or the colour of your skin,' yet this budget, much like his first, shows that despite all of its promises, this government has no real commitment to education. It certainly has no real commitment to regional and remote Australia and no real commitment to Indigenous children. The fact is that after a whole year in power, this government has failed to deliver any meaningful reform for the education sector. The Australian people and our Australian children deserve better than a government which gives them nothing but broken promises, cuts to schools, cuts to the regions and cuts to Indigenous education. Instead of taking the initiative in this vital sector, the government is waiting for review after review to tell it what to do. In regional electorates like mine and those that are more remote, schools are really struggling to recruit and retain teachers; we simply can't get them, and it certainly isn't for the lack of trying. My electorate is one of the fastest-growing, most diverse electorates in Australia with many opportunities to live, work, raise a family and retire. From Augusta to Busselton, Binningup and Donnybrook, it is a fabulous part of the world, yet like so many others we continue to have teacher shortages as a result of poor policy implementation from this federal Labor government. With wall-to-wall state Labor governments, there isn't anywhere here to hide. When can we actually expect some real leadership from this government? When can we expect action on the pressing problems of teacher shortages, declining standards in schools and Indigenous access to education? I suspect we shall be waiting quite a long time for this. We are also seeing very exhausted teachers in our classrooms right now. They're working with a very overcrowded curriculum. I've had teachers say to me they've even asked their own principals if they could cut some of the out-of-school activities and school assemblies to allow them to simply teach the basic foundational skills that our children need the most. 19:15 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce In recognition of the importance of a child's early years to their health, wellbeing, education and future, the Albanese Labor government is supporting and funding measures that help parents maximise their learning opportunities in the crucial first five years. These early years are critical for lifelong learning, and we are funding a range of measures that will make a real difference, as they are the years that establish the foundation of a child's life, the building blocks. Research shows that children who have access to quality early learning programs have better educational outcomes, including enhanced literacy and numeracy skills. Next month, we are increasing the childcare subsidy, meaning child care will be cheaper for around 1.2 million families, giving them access to the transformational benefits of early learning regardless of circumstances. This will have a flow-on impact which will enable more parents to work or study. This will help increase women's workforce participation by improving choice. It will also benefit businesses, who will find it easier to retain staff when employees have access to cheaper and more affordable child care. We know that there is more work to do, but there is an important step to take, and this is a very important first step. Within my electorate of Pearce, the Lake Joondalup Early Learning Program is an example opportunity of community based, not-for-profit childcare services that focuses on early childhood development under the Early Years Learning Framework. I recently visited the centre with the Minister for Early Childhood Education, the member for Cowan. We understand the importance of early childhood. We saw the wonderful work of the caring and qualified staff. We saw for ourselves the effect that they have on the children. As the member for Cowan and I know, in the Pearce electorate, eight babies a day are born to families—eight babies a day—so the importance of early childhood is something that we are very interested in, and it's very important work. The Lake Joondalup Early Learning Program was established 12 years ago and has a strong commitment to development and wellbeing outcomes for pre-kindy and additional-needs children in our communities. I was proud to show the minister, the member for Cowan, this fantastic centre, which sits on an acre of land and is surrounded by the natural world of plants, nature and animals. The centre is equipped with a specialised sensory room for children with learning difficulties that provides opportunities to build confidence, explore and develop different areas of the brain. It is clear that the children are thriving and their families are appreciative of the focus on the importance of early learning initiatives, especially for those with additional needs, including autism. Children at a community centre like the Lake Joondalup Early Learning Program benefit from having a team of educators who are trained professionals with accredited degrees and experience in early childhood education and development. A paediatric nurse is also on staff, which is rare in childcare centres. What is also special about this centre is that it collaborates with speech and occupational therapists and other inclusion support specialists with their focus on being inclusive of all children, which is to be commended. The Albanese Labor government is also looking ahead and is taking steps to consider how to build an affordable and accessible universal early education system that is high quality. We have two inquiries looking into Australia's early learning and childhood education system and have tasked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to carry out an inquiry into early education and care sector prices. This will help build on our plan for a sustainable and accessible early childhood education sector, where no family or child is left behind. From next month, these changes will deliver more affordable early childhood education and care for around 1.2 million families. Under the former government, childcare fees skyrocketed by 49 per cent. However, we are turning this around. The Albanese Labor government's changes mean that a family on a combined income of $120,000 with one child in care will save around $1,700 in the first year of this plan. Our government is committed to supporting accessibility and affordability of early childhood care and education for First Nations children and their families. We are also recognising the vital job of early-learning educators and know that more must be done to attract, retain and support the workforce. That's why we are investing $72.4 million to support the skills and training of the early childhood education and care sector, to help build skills and strengthen the supply of qualified workers. To the member for Cowan, our minister: I am sure that you agree that the Albanese Labor government is certainly committed to early childhood in our communities. 19:20 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to add to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 and the second May budget which it implements. Since the May budget, I have seen the impact of the last Labor budget on my constituents across Flinders and the pressure it's putting on them in terms of surging interest rates, unconstrained inflation and cost-of-living pressures. In these conversations, however, parents have also expressed their concern that this government and its counterpart Labor government in Victoria are opposed to parents and students alike having choice in education. Choice, of course, is a fundamental tenet of Liberal philosophy and education policy. Parents and students and those who work in the education sector should be free and encouraged to choose the best teaching environment to suit their needs. I support all types of education—government and non-government alike. Both play an essential role, socially, economically and culturally, and both sectors deserve our support—different support, of course, reflecting the capacity of those to make private contributions to back up their choice, but some support, nonetheless, because all are taxpayers, and education is a critically important element in every Australian's life. Today I will, however, focus on the budget's impact on the non-government and independent school sector. Many schools in that sector are low-fee, in terms of their fees for their students, and located in under-served parts of our community. They have, nevertheless, been hit hard by aspects of Labor's budget. Based on rigorous analysis through the Senate estimates process, it would appear that this budget cut $756 million from government schools, regional education and Indigenous schools. This came as a surprise to parents who were not warned in the lead-up to last year's federal election that their choices would go unsupported by this government. In the place of clear and careful education policy, this government has commissioned a raft of reviews: a review of childcare, a review of schools, a review of universities. How many reviews does the government need to tell it what to do about the education sector? When the coalition was in government, we delivered year upon year of meaningful reform in the education sector which upheld parental choice, increased funding to schools, increased access to child care and took the initiative on driving quality in higher education. Indeed, the coalition has been a long-term, active and arduous reformer across all levels of education—and I know, because I worked on many of them: the establishment of more than 20 Australian technical colleges, for example, in the mid-2000s; a dynamic and determined campaign to drive up trades apprenticeships; the shaping of training and particularly apprenticeships and traineeships around industry need; and the reform of Australia's higher education system to make it more diverse, with a stronger focus on quality teaching and impactful research. This government, on the other hand, sits on its hands, watching as school standards plummet, teachers are buried under mountains of bureaucracy and parents despair as their children flounder in an overly complicated curriculum. In the 2023-24 budget, this government extended the current life of the National School Reform Agreement. However, it failed to commit the attached funding. So that means that, for many independent schools, as to the 2023 allocation of funds received through the NSRA, they now have to stretch those funds across another year up until 2025. Bureaucratic, impractical and frankly unfair decisions like this have tangible impacts on the quality of education students receive. The industry have told me that they have struggled with this change, as they were given very little notice of the fact that the funds for 2023 would have to stretch across two years. Most, if not all, of the funds had already been committed to programs in the current year. And some of the non-government representative bodies are expected to continue to provide services and support for reform initiatives—particularly to their lowest-fee members—despite not being funded to do so. This undermines the position and tenability of the non-government sector in the wider education landscape of Australia and it punishes parents for their choice and their sacrifice. Throw this into this mix, of course: the Victorian Labor government has added salt to the wound by imposing payroll tax increases on non-government schools. No longer exempt from payroll tax, schools will, depending on the size of the fees they charge, be facing payroll tax bills of upwards of a million dollars in some instances. While the Premier has indicated that he may roll back some of this impost, the precise application is unclear. This will make life much harder for middle Australian families who want to provide their children with an education that suits their needs. Schools have told me that some will be paying more in payroll tax than they actually receive in state government funding. So let me repeat that: they will be paying more to the state government in payroll tax than they receive from the state government to undertake the necessary tasks of teaching and learning. In a foray into fantasy and nonsense, this tax is even called the COVID-19 debt— (Time expired) 19:25 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Recently I had the pleasure of hosting the minister in my electorate of Lyons for the Tasmanian early years strategy round table. It was a great pleasure to have her there. These round tables, which are being held across the country, deliver on the government's commitment to develop an early years strategy, in consultation with the sector, families and service providers. The strategy focuses on our children's foundational early years, from zero to five, to optimise their lifetime wellbeing and counter the factors that are detrimental to their wellbeing across many areas. We know that if we get those vital first five years right we are able to change the trajectory of a child's life. At the Tasmanian round table in Sorell, the minister and I heard from stakeholders their thoughts on what policy priorities should be included in the strategy and why. It was also a delight to host the minister at Tagari Lia in Bridgewater, as we visited stakeholders there. One of the key themes that emerged from this discussion was the need for greater support for the early childhood education workforce. In fact, just today the Mercury newspaper reported the results of the United Workers Union survey in which 73 per cent of the 4,000 respondents indicated that they planned to leave the sector within the next three years due to excessive workload and low pay—another legacy of the former government. The Albanese Labor government knows that a supported, valued workforce is critical to making early childhood education and care more accessible and affordable for Australian families, so my question to the minister is: can the minister outline what support is available in the budget to attract, retain and support the early childhood workforce? 19:27 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I want to thank all of those who made a contribution this evening. You thought that the decade of waste was over. We've just had three shadow ministers squander an opportunity to actually participate in a consideration in detail debate. After all their bellowing about the minister not being here, neither the member for Bradfield nor the member for Moncrieff bothered to stay. I find it incredibly disrespectful that they spent the majority of their time belittling my position as the Minister for Early Childhood Education. But I will go directly to points raised in the debate. The member for Bradfield mentioned Labor's track record in education, and rightly so, because Labor is the party of education. We have a very proud track record in education. In terms of the question raised about HELP debts, it is quite an act of hubris on the part of those opposite to come in here and talk about HELP debts when, under their leadership, Australian students paid more and had to pay their HELP debts earlier. They also mentioned school funding. I'm pleased to inform the Federation Chamber that school funding has actually been increasing. For every student in government schools, it has been going up by seven per cent over the last year. I want to go to the point that the member for Moncrieff made when she talked about our package on professional development, a question that was also asked by my colleague here, the member for Lyons. She said, 'This package offers opportunity.' She's right! I agree with her! The sector agrees with her! Educators agree with her! Teachers agree with her! If the member for Moncrieff were actually to talk to educators, teachers or anyone in the sector, she would know that. She would know that our professional development package, our package of professional development and paid practicum, is something that has been widely welcomed by the sector as a direct response to the workforce issues that we are very cognisant of. To summarise the debate this evening, the Albanese Labor government is committed to a fair and equitable education system that benefits every single Australian, from birth through to school and right through to university. My colleague the Minister for Education has demonstrated that. I have demonstrated that in the portfolio of early childhood education and care, and our Prime Minister demonstrates that when he talks about an Australia where every person, no matter who they are, has an opportunity to get an education to tap into that transformative power of education. We have been in office for just over a year now, and in just over a year we have managed to do so much more for education than those of opposite did in 10 years. They want to come in here and ask us why we haven't done the school funding in 12 months—my apologies to the member opposite, the member for Kooyong. They had a decade in office to do it, and they didn't. They want to ask us what we are doing about rural and regional access to early childhood education and care. We have invested half a billion dollars in the CCC Fund, supporting 900 early childhood education and care services in rural and regional areas. We have made early childhood education and care more affordable for 1.2 million Australians, including 265,000 in rural and regional areas. But they had a decade to fix these issues. They had a decade to build an education system that works now and into the future for every single Australian child, that takes every individual from zero right through to their university or post-school years, and they did nothing. They didn't do a single thing about it. We have demonstrated that in just over 12 months we have put education in the middle of our agenda because we know that a good education system is absolutely necessary for a fairer, a smarter and a more equitable country. We have laid the foundations for the future, and we will continue to do that through this term in government and through future terms in government because only Labor governments ever have a vision—a vision for education and a vision for opportunity for all Australians. Proposed expenditure—$1,521,988,000 agreed to. Debate adjourned. Ordered that consideration in detail of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:33