2023-06-15 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 15 June 2023

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Home Affairs Bill 2023 1

Home Affairs Bill 2023

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Home Affairs Bill 2023 will establish an act for the termination of the lease held by the government of the Russian Federation on a parcel of land adjacent to Parliament House located at block 26, section 44 of the division of Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. The bill will terminate any lease, any equitable or legal right, interest, trust, restriction, obligation, mortgage, encumbrance, contract, licence or charge granted or arising under or pursuant to a relevant lease or independence on a relevant lease in respect to the specified land. This action is absolutely necessary to protect Australia's national security interests, something that this parliament and our government will never shy away from. There are not currently any diplomatic or consular premises on the land. This action does not preclude the Russian Federation from a diplomatic presence here in Canberra, which they maintain at their existing premises, in Griffith, Australian Capital Territory. The termination of the lease has no impact on their Griffith site. This legislation is consistent with Australia's obligations under international law. The bill includes a provision that, if, by its operation, it results in an acquisition of property within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation. This bill demonstrates the government's continued commitment to protecting our parliament and our national security. The Australian government maintains diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation, but we will always act in Australia's national interest. 09:03 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise in support of this bill, the Home Affairs Bill 2023, which terminates the lease over block 26, section 44 in the division of Yarralumla, only a stone's throw away from this house. The coalition stands with the government on this issue, as we will always act to protect our national interest against risks posed by authoritarian powers. It was only five years ago that the former coalition government, with bipartisan support, passed historic and world-leading espionage and foreign interference laws to protect against unprecedented levels of espionage and foreign interference. We note that the task of preserving our sovereignty, especially our political sovereignty, which includes this House, is an ongoing task. Our adversaries adapt and so must we. Russia has not acted in good faith towards its neighbours in recent times. As the Prime Minister said this morning, it has launched an invasion of Ukraine that is both immoral and illegal, which has led to the deaths of thousands of innocents. It continues its campaign there, trashing the principles of territorial and political sovereignty. There is a trust deficit; there is a real risk to our national interest here, and the security advice is that this lease must be terminated. Therefore, we support this bill, and I commend it to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 1 09:05 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 2 Approval of Work 2 09:06 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Airservices Australia—Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Facilities, Navigation Aids and Digital Aerodrome Services project, Western Sydney International Airport. Airservices Australia is proposing works to provide essential aviation infrastructure, equipment and services at the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport. The proposed works will provide an aviation rescue firefighting facility; a hot fire training ground; the installation of an airfield navigation radio, fibre network and communications systems; a new digital aerodrome services camera mast; and the fit-out of operations facility. The estimated overall cost of the works is $98.9 million, excluding GST. The works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 29 March 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18.7 of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in late 2023 and to be completed in 2025. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 2

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 2 09:08 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning From the top, we support the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill does some important things. It seeks to centralise top-secret positive vetting within ASIO. It seeks to enable more persistent ongoing evaluations of an individual's suitability to hold a security clearance. It seeks to establish a framework for merits review of ASIO security clearance decisions. It provides ONI with a new function to drive uplift of insider threat capabilities across the Commonwealth, and to independently assure quality and consistency of top-secret positively vetted clearances. I think we all know that there has been an issue across the Five Eyes countries with leaking of sensitive intelligence information, and we must always seek to modernise and adapt as the challenges and threats to our national interests change. It's a really timely reminder of the importance of information security just as we're seeing an unprecedented revolution in technology—particularly with artificial intelligence and access to information digitally. As the ASIO directors-general Duncan Lewis and now Mike Burgess have said numerous times on the record, we're facing unprecedented levels of espionage and foreign interference in this country. That's why this bill is a welcome adaptation to our current system of governance around security vetting. This bill will bring security vetting responsibilities in line with the current security landscape, in which espionage and foreign interference are our principal security concerns. I think this bill recognises that ASIO is best placed to appropriately vet clearance holders, as the Commonwealth agency responsible for countering these threats. The government must ensure ASIO is properly resourced to take on this new responsibility so that the provision of new security clearances is not bottlenecked or delayed at a time when our cleared workforce must rapidly increase to deliver key initiatives: the $10 billion investment into ASD, which is called REDSPICE, and, of course, AUKUS. We're going to grow a workforce over the next decade and beyond of 20,000 additional people—not just the submariners, not just those involved in the nuclear industry but also those involved in industry. There's going to be a massive transfer of intellectual property and national secrets on a trilateral basis between the US, the UK and Australia. In order to demonstrate our reliability as a partner in AUKUS, particularly when we will be in receipt of very significant technology from the United States, in the form of their Virginia class submarines and all the attendant technology that enables those submarines, it's really important for our credibility that we have modernised our vetting processes and we can demonstrate to the US and the UK that we can be trusted with their secrets. In July 2020, the former coalition government established a multi-agency Future Positive Vetting Capability Taskforce to modernise vetting standards to increase consistency, assurance and transferability across Australia's highest cleared workforce. The task force developed a suite of reforms to incrementally replace the current PV clearance, and we are supportive of the additional measures in the current bill that will reduce the risk of compromise of trusted insiders, maximise utility from shared services and improve the mobility and agility of Australia's highest cleared workforce. I think we're going to see more people moving around the Public Service into defence and into industry, and we need to be able to track those with PVs. We need to be able to move them quickly; that's really important. As noted by the Department of Home Affairs, these reforms are not designed to accelerate the clearance process though. We should be prepared for a scenario where more stringent vetting for security clearance holders means more applicants are rejected at a time when the demand for a security cleared workforce is radically increasing to deliver projects such as AUKUS and REDSPICE. We call on the government to ramp up efforts to attract and retain a cleared workforce to ensure we don't fall behind on these commitments. We've got the Submarine Rotational Force-West that will be established in Perth in 2027, and from 2027 we will see a continued presence of up to four US and one UK nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling. In order for that to happen, over the next four years we've got to grow HMAS Stirling; we've got to grow a supply chain; we've got to grow a workforce around it. A lot of those people involved will have to have top secret positive vetting security clearances, and that means that the government really has to ramp up its effort to clear as many people as possible without dropping the standards, importantly, given the risk of insider threats and other challenges to maintaining our secrets. The government should also explain how it is going to properly resource ASIO to undertake these new responsibilities. ASIO, as the director-general has noted in his yearly updates, is working extremely hard round the clock. They are a 24/7 operation, and there are multiple threats that never stop. All you need is one significant threat to get through and we could have a crisis on our hands. So it's really important that we resource ASIO—that we send the signal to ASIO through funding and through manning that their work is important and it's a priority for government, because we can't afford bottlenecks or delays on these security clearances. Under this bill, those affected by ASIO security clearances will be eligible for internal review under a new statutory framework as well as external merits review in either the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, for existing security clearance holders and Commonwealth employees; or by an independent review appointed by the Attorney-General, for other applicants. The government has announced that it will abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new federal administrative review body. The government should explain what the abolition of the AAT will mean for the new statutory framework of external merits reviews, including the potential for delays that flow from the eventual transition to a new merits review body once it is established. In sum, we support this bill. It's an important bill. It's about modernisation. It's about making sure that our agencies are fit for purpose, particularly ASIO, in guarding against insider threats and other risks to our own national security but also our relationships. Five Eyes is a longstanding partnership with Australia, the US, New Zealand and the UK, and it's really important that we do our part to make sure that we have the integrity in our system so that we can keep up that really important intelligence sharing. With that, I commend the bill to the House. 09:15 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon At the outset, I want to acknowledge and thank all the members of not only the Australian Defence Force but all our intelligence and security organisations throughout the country. For all those Australians, men and women, who are every day countering threats, we want to make sure that they've got the best possible framework within which to do that incredibly important work in our national interest. As all honourable members know, espionage and foreign interference are now our country's principal national security threat. The scale of this challenge is unprecedented, and threats to our way of life increasingly demand that we shift our focus, with espionage and foreign interference now more prominent threats than ever. The threat from hostile foreign powers and their proxies is pervasive and multifaceted and has the potential to cause serious harm to our sovereignty, values and national interest. The interplay of existing challenges with new and emerging ones has changed how we think about these threats. A foreign power can be simultaneously interfering, spying and using cyber to put themselves in a position for sabotage, as an example. These threats originate from multiple countries, not just those that might be considered traditional adversaries. In his 2023 threat assessment, the director-general of ASIO, Mike Burgess, warned of 'the "hive" of spies' targeting Australians in unprecedented numbers and with growing sophistication. Foreign intelligence services have used cash to try to corrupt business people, officials and anyone they could try and influence to work for them. They target journalists, commentators, veterans and even judges. They hack into any database giving them access to the sensitive personal information of Australians. They attempt to compromise our journalists by luring them with lucrative study tours overseas to gain privileged information, only to be introduced, whether they know it or not, to spies of another country. These spies then use these opportunities to ingratiate themselves with the reporters, try to elicit insights on political, economic, defence and other issues and identify any vulnerabilities that could be leveraged at a later time. We have seen disturbing reports of former ADF members travelling overseas to sell their training and expertise to foreign governments for hundreds of thousands of dollars and other significant perks. We have read reports of Australia's defence industry being increasingly targeted since September 2021, when US president Joe Biden, then British prime minister Boris Johnson and then Australian prime minister Scott Morrison announced the AUKUS agreement to provide Australia with nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines. We have seen evidence of foreign governments intervening in our diaspora communities to choke community's ability to protest and to express their views freely and democratically, as is their right as Australians. Foreign interference and espionage are a big threat to our national security, and it's ASIO that's working around the clock with other agencies to protect Australians from it. This threat is deliberately designed to undermine our democracy and our values, and it's why we must remain vigilant—because it goes on every day of the week. It's important that the Australian community understand the significance of the threat and the persistence of this threat. To quote Mike Burgess: Based on what ASIO is seeing, more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history—more hostile foreign intelligence services, more spies, more targeting, more harm, more ASIO investigations, more ASIO disruptions. From where I sit, it feels like hand to hand combat. He went on: This means ASIO is busier than ever before. Busier than any time in our 74 year history. Busier than the Cold War; busier than 9/11; busier than the height of the caliphate. This is a chilling assessment that is worth all of us reflecting on. Australians are now targeted in greater numbers by foreign intelligence services and other threat actors than they were even at the height of the Cold War, after 9/11 and in the fight against ISIS. ASIO's annual report for 2021-22 said that the threat from hostile foreign powers was now the No. 1 concern, overtaking the threat of religiously motivated extremists, nationalists and racist extremists. That is simply extraordinary: to think back not that far into our past, when those other threats were massive, and realise they're now at unprecedented levels. But what's even more extraordinary is that some Australians appear not to take the threat seriously enough. Mike Burgess noted in his annual update that he had been counselled by individuals in business, academia and the Public Service that ASIO should 'ease up its operational responses to avoid upsetting foreign regimes'. Of course people are entitled to their views, but the reasons they offered ranged from, 'All countries spy on each other,' to, 'We were going to make the information public anyway,' to, 'The foreign government might make things difficult for us.' These are incredibly disappointing things to hear from some individuals in business, academia and even the Public Service. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said it was concerning that those Australians in positions of influence were not taking the threat of foreign interference seriously. The threat of espionage and foreign interference is real and growing, and it is capable of ruining people's lives as well as undermining Australia's national interests. Understanding and degrading the espionage and foreign interference activities of Australia's adversaries are among the most challenging types of intelligence work. ASIO works with all government agencies and the private sector to increase awareness of the threat and to implement effective mitigation strategies by focusing on two key areas. ASIO discovers espionage and foreign interference and degrades their impact, and it hardens the Australian government's defences against clandestine espionage and foreign interference. As it pursues both, the Albanese government is taking decisive action to ensure that our national secrets, our most sensitive information, and our capabilities are protected. We are ensuring our intelligence community can recruit the people they need—people we can trust—to protect our nation's secrets for years and years to come. That is what this bill, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023, is all about. The bill will harden our security environment by establishing the new national TOP SECRET-Privileged Access Authority for TS-PA clearance within ASIO. The TS-PA Authority will be centrally responsible for issuing Australia's new highest level of security clearance, the TS-PA clearance. This will replace the existing top secret positive vetting clearance over time. The new clearance is underpinned by a new TS-PA standard, which establishes stronger mandatory minimum security clearance requirements. The standard reflects contemporary psychological and insider threat research. Under the Australian government Protective Security Policy Framework, the PSPF, persons who require access to security classified information or resources must hold a security clearance at the appropriate level. The purpose of the security vetting process is to determine whether an individual is suitable to hold that security clearance. It involves an assessment of whether a person has the demonstrated integrity and loyalty to be trusted to protect Australia's classified information and resources. Currently, there are several vetting agencies who issue TSPV clearances, including AGSVA, ASIO, the ONI and ASIS. This creates inefficiencies with the recognition of clearances and for mobility of staff and causes duplication of resources. This bill will help to fix these inefficiencies. Over time, ASIO-issued TS-PA security clearances will replace positive vetting security clearances. The PV operations of those vetting agencies presently authorised under the Commonwealth's Protective Security Policy Framework will be transitioned to ASIO. The reforms will drive shared initiatives and investments that improve interoperability and burden sharing as the Australian government delivers critical national security capabilities—including AUKUS submarines, but many other capabilities as well. It will also improve the mobility and agility of our highest cleared workforce, allowing the Australian government to flexibly direct resources to its highest priority. Centralising Australia's highest level clearance in ASIO will also harden our security environment, meaning that ASIO can leverage its security expertise and existing holdings to assess a person's suitability for a security clearance, having regard to the most current and accurate information about the security threats confronting Australia. This helps us to put a stop to those who seek to do us harm. If a foreign government is trying to steal our secrets by planting foreign spies among our intel community or recruiting those from within ASIO, ASIO is the agency equipped to deal with those insider and other threats. Oversight and accountability of the intelligence community remains essential under the Labor government. This bill will create a consistent, stronger review framework for security clearance decisions and assessments. This will mean that those who are affected by adverse decisions will have clear rights of review, including internal and external merits review. It will also enable the operations of the Quality Assurance Office, the QAO, in the Office of National Intelligence. The QAO will be established to independently assure the quality and consistency of clearances being issued by ASIO. ASIO will continue to be overseen by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who has powers akin to a royal commission. This reform shows how seriously Labor takes national security, because we are listening to the experts and taking their advice. We heard the Director-General of Security when he said: … more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. That is what we are seeing and hearing not just from ASIO but from a range of government agencies. It's critically important that in this context we ensure the Commonwealth's most privileged information, capabilities and secrets are protected. It's commonly said by many—indeed, by this government, and by anyone across this chamber with a strategic bone in their body—that we live in the most challenging strategic environment since the Second World War. It is commonly said that we sometimes forget exactly what this means in reality, in practice, on the ground. It means that even the Cold War, with all the peril of nuclear war that hung over the whole world, did not represent as direct a threat to Australia's sovereignty as the present circumstances do. The only worse time within living memory for Australian security was the carnage of the last world war, which was fought over and around our sea lanes and approaches. Some of us in public life acknowledge this sobering fact. I hope most of us in public life acknowledge this sobering fact. What it means is that we should also pay tribute to the intelligence community, whose job it is to help Australia navigate the storms around us, to give the leaders of our country warning and foresight of dangers. As I started, so I'll finish. We rightly honour the military in our country, whose job it is to always be ready to defend Australia when our strategic circumstances go from uncertain to cataclysmic. We should also honour the highly capable men and women of our intelligence services and thank them for the work that they do. 09:29 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to join my coalition colleagues in speaking in favour of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023. I welcome the opportunity to progress it through this parliament because it is indeed an important opportunity for us to enhance the way in which the government undertakes the important responsibilities of vetting security and issuing security clearances for a wide variety of Commonwealth and industry personnel that are working on, and in possession of, some of the most vitally important information and, indeed, secrets that are in the possession of our government. Keeping protections in place for those secrets has never been more important, particularly, of course, in the environment of the AUKUS opportunity. Again, I take every opportunity to commend the former Prime Minister Morrison and the former Morrison government for that unbelievable, epochal moment that that treaty has created. It is a quantum leap forward for our nation in so many areas of capability. While I welcome the most significant and eye-catching part of AUKUS—the acquisition of nuclear propulsion technology and, therefore, nuclear powered submarines as a capability for the Royal Australian Navy, which will be completely transformative—it's important to remember that AUKUS is way beyond that unbelievable acquisition of technology. It is a framework for our country, the United States and the United Kingdom to collaborate and to share technology and other important, sensitive information within a framework that means so many of the previous pathways to individual capability acquisition and other information-sharing is suddenly standardised. Suddenly, we have such a preferential status, as an ally of the United States and the United Kingdom, to partner with them and acquire their great capability. Let's also always take the opportunity to talk about the unbelievable capability that is developed in our nation, which we're very proud of. We want to see our defence industry and other national security industries and apparatus continue to grow and have greater opportunity for the economic dividend of sharing that technology in a safe and responsible way with our allies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. That framework dramatically changes our access to the best capability and the best information for our government to keep our nation safe and to ensure the interests of our nation, which, of course, is the first responsibility of any government. That equally means that we need to make sure that we have the highest level of confidence in how we issue security clearances. I think this is a very opportune moment for this legislation to make the changes, have centralisation and ensure that ASIO is the pre-eminent agency within government for managing and overseeing the process of assessing and issuing these security clearances. So we very much welcome how the bill creates that legislative framework for ASIO going forward. I commend the member for Canning's point about the resourcing of ASIO, which is going to be so necessary in this area and in so many other areas of the vitally important work they do. We want to make sure that, with ASIO having these enhanced responsibilities, they get whatever financial and workforce resourcing they need to make sure that they can do every element of the new responsibilities that are being given to them through this legislation. That is an opportunity for me to make a point that I have made in the past, in other contributions in this chamber, about security clearances. Of course, it's absolutely important that we have the most robust framework in place to ensure that every appropriate process, check, interview and corroboration of data is undertaken and that we don't in any way have any form of lack of confidence in the robustness of our system of undertaking those processes to issue a security clearance. Something that is not as well appreciated as I would like it to be is that it's also quite important to see this happen in a timely way and that it's not ideal to have a circumstance where, at times, there is an unnecessarily long waiting period for someone to receive their security clearance assessment. Sometimes I say in debates that I'm sure all members have had similar experiences with constituents, but that's probably not the case on this topic. I'm from Adelaide, where we have a very significant and growing defence industry sector, particularly around naval shipbuilding, and I'm sure that not all members have the constituent matters that I have when it comes to the issuance of security clearances. Indeed, I've had quite a few experiences of people in defence industry contacting me to get assistance in progressing a security clearance. I'm not critical of the waiting periods in the past. You never really know whether there are unique reasons in some of these circumstances. For example, when someone comes from the United Kingdom, where they hold a security clearance, to work on the Type 26 program for a company that's equally operating in our country to build a frigate that is based on the Type 26 program, it is a surprise to me that it is a difficulty and a long wait for said person to get a security clearance when they have a security clearance from a Five Eyes partner, the original possessor of the technology that they're coming to our country to transfer to us. Then they have to wait more than 12 months to get their security clearance to give us the technology we are acquiring in a multibillion dollar program. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have proper robust processes, but I'm sure the waiting times, in particular, in cases like that are related to resourcing. I would urge the government to look at opportunities to make sure that we're resourcing the processing of security clearances. This would be the greatest saving available to government of anything that we could possibly do in any program. Delaying human capital into defence procurement can have multi, multi, multibillion dollar consequences. If programs run late because people from the UK or the United States are delayed from participating in the program because they're waiting on a security clearance, the impact on a multibillion dollar program can be truly significant. The uniqueness of some of the capabilities of the type of personnel we're talking about means that, until that one person is cleared to work on a program, a whole range of things come to a complete standstill. For example, very complex design elements and a whole range of decision-making are choked at that one single point. As those delays flow through the system, they can potentially have multibillion dollar consequences. I speak up all the time from a defence industry point of view on these types of bills because, whilst the other issues are important, that's one that really needs to have a spotlight shone upon it. There is a very consistent amount of feedback from a whole range of defence industry businesses that are having these challenges of bringing, at times, the only person in the world that can do a specific unique job on a program and having very significant delays in getting that person a security clearance. With the greatest of respect, if that person is coming from an AUKUS nation to work on the same program and technology they've been cleared to work on in the United States or the United Kingdom, it surprises me that they have significant delays in getting the same clearance to do the exact same work on technology they're not getting access to that they're bringing to us. We could perhaps work on a mind shift in the processing of these things to consider whether or not they're being prioritised to the right extent. At times, there is a need to choose an order to prioritise these things. You can't just join the back of a queue and slowly move through. There needs to be an ability for defence industry security clearances to be looked at and considered as to how we give significant weight to the fact they have an existing security clearance at the same level for a role they're performing in another AUKUS nation. That's a goodwill suggestion. I'm not criticising anyone; I just think it's an opportunity. As these programs become more complex, that is something I would like us to look at. We are talking about tens of thousands of people in my home state who will need some form of security clearance to work on all the great opportunities and programs, and they are not going to be in uniform; they are going to be in industry. My final point actually is on the uniform side. One of the great employment opportunities for veterans is in the fact that, generally speaking, they hold a security clearance, and a security clearance of significant value in the defence industry for the reasons I've just outlined. In my home state I've never visited a defence industry company that doesn't have a veteran employment program providing pathways for veterans to work in those businesses. That is fantastic. They're an unbelievable asset to those businesses. Not only do they perform the task they're employed to do but they've got spectacular coalface experience, unbelievable networks and a real ability to bring a whole range of perspectives and experience, as former uniformed serving personnel, into the development of future capability for the forces. The security clearances which are provided to service personnel are a great asset, and I'm interested in the concept of the government providing them to our veterans in a more enduring way so that our veterans have that asset to give them an advantage in seeking employment opportunities in defence industry roles, which will invariably require a form of security clearance. I'm all for veterans having an unfair advantage in their career prospects post serving our nation. I'm unashamedly of that view. I think that's an opportunity, on the topic of security clearances, that we should always look to maximise. With those contributions, I commend the bill to the House. 09:42 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Innovation has delivered much progress for society, particularly information, communications and technological innovation. Access to information has been liberated for many groups within our community because of technological advancements associated with the internet, with cloud computing, with artificial intelligence and with the development of microprocessors. But it has also shown up vulnerabilities in government systems, and potentially provided access to information for the wrong people. The other thing to note about innovation is that the amount of data and information being captured, stored by governments and transmitted between government departments and, indeed, between governments internationally has increased as well. That, of course, has brought with it the risk of unprecedented threats from espionage and foreign interference. That's why the Albanese government takes this issue so seriously. That is why we are legislating this change to the system of ensuring the integrity of Australia's most sensitive intelligence information at a number of levels of government. We're taking these assertive steps to safeguard our nation's most sensitive information and our capabilities—basically, the government's top-secret information. We're fortifying our environment against foreign interference and ensuring that our intelligence community has the capacity to recruit individuals that we know we can trust to protect our nation's secrets into the future. The Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 extends and solidifies our security environment by establishing a new national TOP SECRET-Privileged Access Authority within the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The TOP SECRET-Privileged Access Authority will be the central body that has responsibility for issuing Australia's new highest level of security clearance, the TS-PA clearance. This will supplant the existing top secret positive vetting clearance. The new TS-PA clearance is founded on the new TS-PA standard, which enforces a stricter minimum standard when it comes to security clearance requirements. The TS-PA standard incorporates contemporary psychological and insider threat research. It will be the most extensive examination of a person's credentials to ensure that they can be trusted to deal with the nation's most sensitive information. Under the Australian government's Protective Security Policy Framework, individuals that require access to security classified information or resources must possess a security clearance at the appropriate level. The goal of the security vetting process is to evaluate an individual's suitability to hold that clearance and to continue to hold that clearance into the future. There is also a regular process of continuing to verify whether or not that person is appropriate to continue to hold that clearance into the future, and that includes whether a person demonstrates the required integrity and loyalty to protect Australia's classified information and resources. Currently, there are multiple vetting agencies that issue top secret positive vetting clearances, including the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, ASIO, the Office of National Intelligence and ASIS. This system results in inefficiencies concerning clearance recognition, staff mobility and, unfortunately, resource duplication. This bill is designed to remedy those inefficiencies. Gradually, ASIO-issued TS-PA clearance will replace the positive vetting clearance. The positive vetting operations of vetting agencies currently authorised under the Commonwealth Protective Security Policy Framework will shift to ASIO. The reforms will encourage shared initiatives and investments, improving interoperability and resource-sharing as the Australian government provides crucial national security capabilities. It will also enhance the mobility and flexibility of our highest-cleared workforce, allowing the Australian government to allocate resources optimally to its highest priorities. Centralising Australia's highest-level clearance within ASIO will fortify our nation's security environment further. It will enable ASIO to utilise its security expertise in its existing holdings in assessing an individual's suitability for a security clearance, taking into account the most current and accurate information about the security threats facing Australia. This measure is an aid in thwarting those intending to do our nation harm. If a foreign government tries to pilfer our secrets by implanting a foreign operative within our intelligence community or by recruiting insiders, ASIO will be well equipped to handle it. Under a Labor government, oversight and accountability for the intelligence community remain a priority and are indispensable. This bill aims to establish a more consistent and robust review framework for security clearance decisions and assessments. This will ensure that individuals affected by adverse decisions have a clear right to review, encompassing internal and external merits review. It will also facilitate the operations of the Quality Assurance Office within the Office of National Intelligence. The QAO will be created to independently assure the quality and consistency of clearances that are issues by ASIO. ASIO's operations will continue to be overseen by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and will possess powers similar to a royal commission. It's critically important that we ensure that the Commonwealth's most privileged information, capabilities and secrets are protected, and that is what this new system will allow us to do. We've seen in recent times that the Australian government has moved to an online security vetting program called myClearance. That was introduced by the previous government and is currently being rolled out. The myClearance program is a digital system for sponsors, applicants, assessors, decision-makers and clearance holders. Unfortunately there have been some issues with the rollout of this particular program. It was due to go live last November. When it did, there were some issues with the system. There were problems that applicants were having with inputting data into the system and general fields not accepting certain data. Therefore applications were delayed or rejected by the system. Seven years of planning went into this scheme under the former government, and there was a $307 million price tag, but so far there have been problems with it. Several thousand lower-level clearances have been successfully granted through myClearance, but issues have emerged with the processing of the more complex, top-level security clearances. It's my view that there has been insufficient oversight of this project from the beginning and that it was probably in some respects too ambitious in terms of the time line that was put in place. Unfortunately, it reflected badly on the previous government, in that a number of defence policies and intelligence and security policies were announced by the previous government without the requisite oversight and investment to ensure that the programs were delivered before they were launched. We all know that the former government were good at announcements and not so good at oversight and following up. Unfortunately this is one of those projects. It was approved in 2018, and final approval was given in 2020. Nonetheless, despite the system being plagued by data issues and not connecting to the dependent systems of government that ASIO needed to process clearances, we are now working on a remediation project for the scheme. I'm receiving regular updates from the team within the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency and Defence to ensure that we get this project back on track as quickly as possible. With the Defence strategic review having been recently released and the AUKUS partnership having been announced, we know that there is going to be a greater need for Defence and our intelligence agencies to partner with industry to deliver those important capabilities into the future. An important part of that partnership is ensuring that people that work in defence industry have the appropriate security clearances to do the work that they're engaged to do. If there are delays with people getting those clearances, there can be delays in government delivering that capability into the future, and we want to avoid that at all costs, particularly given that AUKUS is going to create 20,000 jobs in the Australian economy over the coming decades. Having a properly functioning system with integrity around security clearances is going to be vitally important to ensuring that Australia can deliver that capability into the future, so we've put in place a remediation plan to get this project back on track as quickly as possible. The Albanese government takes these issues very seriously. We're acting to drive oversight and action to fix this system and address the growing backlog of clearances. We're heeding the Director-General of Security's warning that more Australians have been targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. That is why getting that myClearance system fixed as quickly as possible is so important, but it's also the reason for a reform such as this to ensure the integrity of Australia's most sensitive data is maintained. That is what this new system of top secret classification and security vetting will deliver, and that is why this bill is so important for our nation. 09:55 Mr WOLAH 235654 Menzies AN () (): Thank you to all of the speakers, from both sides, who have spoken about this. There is no more important task than to protect our nation's secrets. It's about keeping people alive. It's about protecting our national interest. The damage that can be done when our most sensitive secrets are leaked just can't be calculated. It is one of the most severe risks that we must address in this place and through the executive. This Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to do a number of things that we support. It seeks, in the first instance, to modernise the top secret positive vet clearance with a stricter system, going from a TSPV to a TS-PA. This area is full of acronyms. For those who work in this area, they will no doubt have to come to grips with many more. For those who work in ASIO, I could think of no more important or suitable agency to coordinate this than the officers and members of ASIO. They do incredible work for our nation. Most of it goes unrecognised. Most of their work is evidenced in the fact that we are safe, day by day, and they do it, often, when often we are asleep. So we thank them for that. I myself went through the process for a top secret positive vet clearance. It's a very intensive, long process. It's expensive. What struck me when I went through it was the professionalism of all the people who were involved in it—people who are psychologists, people who look into every aspect of your life, as they should, because, in the end, when we're talking about protecting our nation's secrets, we're dealing with humans, and humans are fallible. We may be perfect and suitable at a particular point in time, but that doesn't mean that that applies all of the time. So it's appropriate that this bill allows for a constant review of someone's suitability. If someone is suitable today, it doesn't mean they will be suitable in two years or five years or 10 years. It was made quite clear by a previous speaker that one of our most important assets in defence is our people. It's true. Our people are at the core of our Defence Force. It's easy to get focused on the ships, planes, tanks and weapons, but all of those are operated by people. Our people are being asked to do extraordinary things and they're going to be asked to do very sensitive things, including all of the things that are required to deliver AUKUS. When I think of AUKUS, that is probably one of the best examples of where tightly-held secrets were controlled in a way that reinforced the national interest. I remember the press release that went out saying there'd be an urgent announcement the next day. I tuned in to see what it was. Some people thought it might have been that there's evidence aliens have landed on earth, but it wasn't. It was a significant agreement, AUKUS, between three nations. What struck me was that the negotiation of that agreement was so tightly held. There wasn't one leak, and that was a credit to everyone involved. In order to keep secrets like that tightly held, there are two limbs to that that are important. The first is the need-to-know principle. The need-to-know principle means that even if you have the required security clearance, if you don't need to know that secret then you shouldn't be told it. It's an important principle. The second limb is whether you have the proper security clearance, and that's what this is dealing with here. We must never forget that both of those limbs matter. AUKUS was an incredible achievement in keeping our national secrets secure, and we are better for it. But the ongoing delivery of AUKUS is going to require that same level of discipline and appropriate sharing of information with people who need to know and are appropriately cleared. But it's not just in Defence and in our agencies. We also have a new agency that's about to launch in a few weeks, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That National Anti-Corruption Commission will have extraordinary powers, as it should, and we fully support the NACC. But creating this agency, which will have many hundreds of staff, will require some of its members to have the highest levels of security clearances. We want those people to be ready and able to go to work straightaway. So it's important that, if we are pushing so many people through this system to be cleared, we make sure that ASIO is properly resourced to do that task, because we don't want to have a situation where a year from now we are saying that elements of AUKUS are being held up because the security clearances are subject to delay. We don't want to see a situation a year from now where crucial NACC investigations are being held up because key staff are not able to be hired because they've been held up or delayed. One of the things we know through the economy at the moment is that finding staff and talent is really hard. It's very competitive. So this is a challenging task for ASIO, and it's an important one that means they need to be properly resourced. That will require, I'm sure, a lot of hard work by the people of ASIO. A lot of it will be done in overtime and on weekends. The other thing I would note here, which the member for Sturt pointed out, is that for those who already have a security clearance it's a very valuable thing, particularly for veterans in our community who seek employment in either a defence contracting company or another agency. That's a valuable ticket that they have that elevates them in the competitive recruitment process, and we must never forget that. Those employers who are doing defence contracting or any of the other agency work can't really look past veterans. They have proven themselves to be trustworthy, loyal and people of integrity, and it also saves a lot of time in the form filling that goes on with these security clearances. The other thing I'd like to point out is that, whilst the people subject to these security clearances are human, so are the people making the assessments. When you go through someone's life history—all of their travel, all of their partners, all of their financial affairs and every secret of their life—sometimes something's taken out of context, and someone might be unfairly refused a security clearance. That might be someone who's devoted their whole life to working in an agency or in Defence, and their career prospects have the door slammed shut, and it may be because of a misunderstanding. So it's very important that there's a merits review process here, because, again, the people making those decisions are human, and sometimes through a merits review process more context gets to be considered. I won't give the details of a particular person, but I know someone—in fact, more than one person—who went through a similar process, and on a merits review, on a further review, the context was shown to allow them to get their security clearance. So I'm pleased to see that that's a key element of this process here, because often the decision-makers aren't perfect or the decision-making process is not perfect. There must always be a right for review, because these are people's careers we're talking about, and it can be devastating for a person if that door is shut for them. We are seeing the greatest increase in foreign interference threats and espionage. It is right and proper that we make sure that the process is fit for purpose, it is right and proper that we make sure it's coordinated through one agency, and it should be right and proper that we make sure that they are properly resourced to do that. The member for Kingsford Smith also made the very good point that, as we see the development of AI and supercomputers and massive increases in availability of data, more than ever we require people who are appropriately cleared—people of trust, integrity and loyalty. They're easy words to say, but to actually find out if someone is a person of trust, integrity and loyalty, in the end, there has to be some risk taken with that person. For those who have engaged in recruitment of people in any walk of life, the best assessment of someone's future actions is their past actions. It's not perfect, but it's the best assessment. So that's what this security clearance process does. It takes a deep dive into someone's history. Through technology, that can be done online. Everyone leaves a footprint; we all accept that these days. It is important and proper that we do that. Agencies require it, our Defence Force requires it, and that includes the upcoming National Anti-Corruption Commission. So we do support this bill. It has an important role to play as we deliver AUKUS. It's not an easy thing to do to make sure that AUKUS is ready to be delivered; it's going to be something that could be held up by many instances of delay. There's an old saying that often it's middle management that holds something up, and that can happen in defence. Very senior officers or senior politicians can agree that, yes, this is something that needs to occur, but when we wonder why something is 12 or 18 months late, it's often because of things like this—the person who was supposed to sign off on that report is six or 12 months behind getting their security clearance done, and that cascades through our executive government and causes enormous delay. So there's an imperative that we get this right. If we don't properly resource ASIO and it leads to delay, as the member for Sturt pointed out, it could cost us billions of dollars. But it's more than that. It's also about keeping people safe and alive. That is the duty we have in protecting our secrets. Again I reflect on the time when I first applied to do this. I had been to Afghanistan twice, and I thought that was it, I was done, but there was an opportunity for a third tour, but it required a top secret positive vetting clearance. It happened with lightning speed, and I was very grateful for all of the staff who did that in such quick time. I can see why, because when I deployed in that particular task force it was a United States task force, and in order to work with our allies it is important that we have a security clearance that is recognised and appreciated by them, and that it's a comparable process. That's what these clearances seek to do. We have seen the recent footage of breaches of national security, and that can happen in any country. But it is important that we maintain best practice standards in making sure we are ready to face any threat, and that we are doing the best by our people who have been asked to protect our most secure secrets. 10:08 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Espionage and foreign interference are the principal national security threats to Australia. These types of threats to our country are unprecedented. We're going through a very, very difficult period. The Albanese government is ensuring we are taking the right steps to protect our nation's secrets as well as our national interests. This is what the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 is about—to ensure we are taking action to protect our most sensitive information and our capabilities. We're also ensuring our intelligence community is supported to recruit the people that they need, the people that we can trust to do the important intelligence and security work to ensure the long-term protection of Australia's interests. These are the principals like human rights, freedom of speech and equality before the law that make our democracy strong. Unfortunately, state actors and non-state actors try to influence and diminish these principles and these democratic processes. They try to diminish our democracy through corrosive and harmful narratives and attempts to undermine what we hold dear. This is sometimes done through the use of social media, and sometimes in more underhanded ways. Ultimately what they are trying to do, in summary, is seek to sow division, stoke hatred and spread fear. It is relentless and it is insidious. It can be quite hard to spot and even harder to stamp out. That is why it is critical to ensure we can protect Australia from foreign interference, espionage and sabotage, because these types of efforts are aimed solely at undermining our democratic processes and, effectively, our values. This year, as part of his annual threat assessment, the director-general of ASIO, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, said that 'more Australians are being targeted by espionage and foreign interference than ever before'. The government is very alive to this threat, as I know are other members of this place, and I appreciate the bipartisan support on a bill such as this. The government is taking action and proposing reforms to ensure that we can remain protected. The ASIO Amendment Bill will enable ASIO to issue, maintain and revoke Australia's highest level security clearances with more consistency and ensure that we continue to protect Australia's most sensitive information, capabilities and secrets. Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, which I chair, commenced a review of this bill. Just this past week, in my capacity as Chair of the PJCIS, I tabled the committee's advisory report on this bill, and I note the presence of the deputy chair in this place and the bipartisan support for those recommendations. Speaking now as the member for Wills and a member of the government in this place, I support this bill because I do really think it gets the balance right. It will protect Australia's national security interests while also upholding the rights and privacy of individuals, and that's a very hard balance to strike. Specifically, the bill contains amendments that uplift our highest level security clearance in response to the unprecedented threat from espionage and foreign interference. It will also drive shared initiatives and investments that improve interoperability and burden sharing as the government delivers critical national security capabilities. The bill provides ASIO with new security vetting and security clearance functions, enabling ASIO to make security clearance decisions for ASIO and non-ASIO personnel in the intelligence and security space. These security vetting processes are critical in determining the suitability of an individual to hold a security clearance. Before a clearance is provided, an assessment is performed to determine whether an individual has the necessary loyalty and integrity and can be trusted to protect Australia's classified information and resources. At the moment, we have several vetting agencies in Australia and each of them can issue top secret positive vetting, or what are called TSPV, clearances—the highest level clearances. These agencies include the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency; the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO; ONI; and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS. Having multiple agencies conducting our security vetting processes leads to some inefficiencies, and this bill will really help us to conduct security vetting processes in a much more efficient way. The amendments will strengthen our security environment by establishing—and this is the significant change—a new national TOP SECRET-Privileged Access Authority within ASIO, the TS-PA Authority. This TS-PA Authority and the TS-PA security clearances issued by ASIO will begin to start replacing the pre-existing positive vetting security clearances. The TS-PA Authority will be responsible for issuing Australia's new highest level of security clearance, which will be known as TS-PA, TOP SECRET-Privileged Access, clearance. As I said, it will replace TSPV over time as people drop off. Or, when they get to a point where they need to renew their clearances, they'll go through the new process. New members of the intelligence and security community coming in will go through the new processes. The TS-PA establishes stronger mandatory minimum security clearance requirements, as it is underpinned by the new TS-PA standard. That new standard reflects contemporary psychological and insider threat research, which is quite important. There's been significant change, particularly over the last decade, in this space. I think the other point to make is that the centralisation of the highest level of clearance in ASIO not only strengthens our security environment but also enables ASIO to leverage its expertise and existing holdings to thoroughly assess an individual's suitability when conducting those clearance checks, because ASIO does have access to the most current information about the security threats that Australia is facing. That's its job. If people are seeking to cause harm in Australia, to Australia or to our interests, or if a foreign government or foreign intelligence service is attempting to steal our secrets, plant foreign spies or recruit from within, ASIO is best placed to manage these threats and does so. There's a tie-in there, obviously, to a better understanding about how important those clearances are and the processes of providing someone with a clearance. The reforms will also enable ASIO and security clearance sponsors to share information about whether someone is suitable to hold a security clearance. That information sharing breaks down silos and is a very important element of these reforms. As I mentioned, this all does lead to creating greater efficiency because you'll have this single repository of information about security clearance holders, you'll remove duplication and you'll have a much more effective process. It means that sponsors can focus on responsibly managing their clearance holders as well. The reforms allow interoperability and burden sharing, because we do need fewer barriers as we deliver critical national security capabilities during this period. The bill also includes elements to improve accountability and oversight, and these are really important elements of due process that we place a high degree of importance on. I said earlier that this is about getting the balance right between individuals' rights and public security. This bill creates a stronger review framework related to security clearance decisions and assessments that individuals face. It means that if someone is impacted by an adverse or prejudicial decision, in their view, they will have rights of review, including access to internal and external merits review processes. This is really important to ensure procedural fairness and the right to challenge adverse findings. It should also be noted that a quality assurance office will be based in the Office of National Intelligence, and it will be established as another layer of quality assurance and ensure consistency of clearances issued by ASIO. Of course, ASIO will continue to be overseen in the work that it does with respect to the TS-PA authority by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, adding another layer of oversight and ensuring accountability and transparency where possible. This bill, I think, is emblematic of the fact that the Labor government takes national security very seriously and is doing the real work to ensure that we protect our national interests. This bill ensures that security clearance processes are robust, fair and going to be effective. It ensures that the national security interests of Australia are continually upheld. But it also, and importantly, as I've mentioned, continues to protect the rights and privacy of individuals who are undergoing those processes as well, and I think it gets that balance right. This is the perennial challenge in lawmaking, as we all know in this place—getting that balance right between an individual's rights, when it comes to certain legislation, and the importance of public security. Getting that balance right is often a very difficult challenge, but I think that the reforms of this bill do get that balance right, and they ensure that we remain committed to protecting our most privileged information, our capabilities and our secrets. 10:19 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 and join with my colleague the chair of the PJCIS. National security is one of those things where it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you sit on; anybody and everybody in this place should be working together for the national security. Whilst we will have differences of opinions on things at times, I think that the Australian public should draw some comfort from the fact that there's an unwritten rule on the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, that we leave our figurative guns at the door—that we leave our political guns at the door. I think I can speak safely for all current members of the committee that those members keep in the forefront of their minds the protection and security of Australians. That's very important, because government has no greater responsibility than the protection of its citizens. My short time on this committee of around 12 months—although I've worked with the Defence Subcommittee for a number of years—has really opened my eyes to the threat that Australia and Australians face from unprecedented attacks from foreign interference and espionage. If I were sitting up in the gallery right now, I'd be thinking, 'What's this bloke on about?' When you come into this place, you're given—entrusted with—certain information. My time on the PJCIS has certainly opened my eyes to the risk and threat levels we face from espionage and foreign interference. In fact, in his national security threat assessment only in February, the director-general of security, Mike Burgess, said that the amount of espionage and threats from foreign interference exceeds today what we had at the height of the Cold War. We live in dangerous times: Europe has a full-scale kinetic war underway as we speak. Without justification and without any moral imperative, Russia has invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine, and the world is suddenly a dangerous place. But we saw this coming. We have seen the level of foreign interference steadily rising in this country, particularly over the last five to seven years. That's something that this parliament, Australia, its previous government and this government are taking very seriously—as they should. We saw the previous government enter into a very important arrangement—a turning point arrangement—through AUKUS. That's a security arrangement between Australia, the UK and the US which, effectively, will see Australia equipped with conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines. This will change the dial around the national security of Australia from a kinetic perspective. It's very important that we recognise this is the first time since the 1950s that the US has shared its crown jewel technology—that is, nuclear propelled submarines—with another country. The only other time it has done that was in the 1950s, and it was with the United Kingdom. As we enter into this new world of nuclear powered submarines, quantum computing, artificial intelligence and new weaponry, Australia has to increase significantly its own ability to manage its own defence materiel and to manage the secrets of our allies. To do that, we need a better security vetting system than what we have. The current security vetting system's highest level is top secret, TSPV. Mr WALLACE 265967 I will. Top secret positive vetting. But there are five different agencies that are able to provide those TSPV clearances, and we have seen in the past that some of our intelligence agencies don't even recognise a TSPV issued by another agency. We have seen, particularly over the last couple of years, a fairly significant migration of people working for one agency moving to another, and this clunkiness of the current system prevents a seamless movement of personnel, as it does a seamless movement of personnel from our allies. At the end of the day, in order for us to be able to take advantage of the weaponry and secrets that are being provided to us by the Brits and by the US, we will need to rely heavily upon experts from those countries to come to Australia. With the AUKUS submarines and, in fact, under the AUKUS arrangement, it's estimated that some 20,000 jobs will arise out of that. They won't all be local jobs. We will need to rely on experts coming from other countries, and we need to have a better streamlined approach to our top-secret vetting classification. It will now be called TOP SECRET-Privileged Access. It's not just a change of name. Under the old TSPV system, those assessments were done at a point in time, when someone applies or when someone renews their application for a clearance. Under this new scheme it is ongoing, as it should be, because people's circumstances can change, sometimes very rapidly, and it's important that our security agencies can have confidence that the systems that we provide for these top secret clearances can at the very least keep pace with people's changes in circumstances. ASIO is the best placed organisation to be able to assess these arrangements. ASIO will have the central responsibility for administering these new TOP SECRET-Privileged Access clearances. Other agencies, including AGSVA, will still have the opportunity or the ability to manage the lower clearances, and that's appropriate. The deputy chair spoke earlier about the importance of managing our nation's secrets whilst retaining a degree of openness and transparency, and that's really important. That's a situation that we have to deal with regularly in this place. We don't live in a totalitarian state, and most of us in this place wouldn't want to see that happen. It's very important that we get that balance right and that, when decisions are made about these top secret clearances, people have appropriate opportunities for reviews if they are aggrieved by those decisions—for instance, in a circumstance where someone may get knocked back for a TS-Privileged Access clearance. If they are a Commonwealth public servant or they are already the holder of an equivalent—say, a top secret positive vetting clearance—then they will have the opportunity to go for an internal review and, failing that, they will have an opportunity to have that decision reviewed in the AAT. That is distinct from someone who is a new applicant, someone who is not a Commonwealth public servant or someone who doesn't currently hold a clearance. If they have an adverse decision they will have a right of review, but it will not be to the AAT; it will be by way of an internal reviewer appointed by the Attorney-General. I have some concerns around that, which I have raised with the committee, and I'm happy to see how it goes. Where you have the Attorney-General appointing an internal reviewer, that could create some issues around independence. We'll wait and see how that goes. It's appropriate that people who are new applicants don't necessarily have all the review rights that could clog up the AAT and ASIO. The last thing we want to do is have ASIO's efforts hampered by continuous applications for review. ASIO's role is a very important one, in this process, and we need to make sure that whilst we get the balance right we always have at the forefront of our minds that national security is paramount. What I would say to the government is it's incredibly important that, with these new reforms, ASIO is given the appropriate financial assistance to conduct its work. This suite of reforms will add a significant workload to ASIO. We would expect somewhere in the order of around 30,000 applications a year, and that will grow significantly as AUKUS ramps up. So they have to be financed appropriately. It's incumbent upon this government to ensure that ASIO has the appropriate funding to do its job. The last thing we want to see is TS privileged access clearances being gummed up for longer periods than necessary. The government needs to be very much on top of appropriately funding ASIO for that role. In closing, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—in fact, all our security agencies—does an incredible job for the security of our nation. It's rare that Australians will hear about our security agencies, and that is a very good thing. The work that they do is often clandestine, and if you don't hear about them then the work that they are doing is successful. Unfortunately, our national security agencies, unlike our military—we hold our military in great regard and that's wonderful, as we should, but we very rarely lift up the men and women of our national intelligence and security agencies. These agencies do wonderful work, both here and abroad, sometimes in very dangerous situations, away from family and friends for long periods of time. I would like to place on the record my appreciation, and the appreciation of those in this House, for the wonderful work they do in keeping Australians safe. 10:34 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023. The coalition is fully supportive of this legislation. Governments have no greater responsibility than the protection of their citizens. This bill deals with the work that is done by our security organisations, most of which is, by necessity, done in secret. I will take this opportunity to thank all of those men and women who work within our intelligence organisations for the work that they do in protecting all of us. I'm very grateful that I was in the House for the speech from my friend the honourable member for Fisher, who serves on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I commend his speech to the House. We live in unprecedented times. It is unfortunate, but we face threats from foreign interference and espionage, and these threats must be taken seriously. This legislation is concerned primarily with streamlining and centralising the way that we provide top secret vetting processes within ASIO and other organisations. The bill has a series of objectives. One of those is to enable more persistent, ongoing evaluations of an individual's suitability to hold a security clearance. In the times in which we live, we have recently signed the AUKUS arrangement that will provide nuclear powered submarines and really builds on our relationship with our very important allies the United States and Great Britain. The work that will need to be done on those submarines will necessitate us utilising skills from the US and also from Great Britain. So it is very important in that context that we as a country not only protect our own national secrets but also are confident that those who have access to the secrets of our allies are people suitable to hold those very important clearances. The legislation also establishes a framework for a merits review of ASIO's security clearance decisions. This is important. It's a fundamental of our legal system that, where governments and government departments are able to make decisions about us, every individual should have an opportunity to be able to review those decisions if he or she is aggrieved. So that is an important part of this process. The last stated objective of the legislation is to provide the Office of National Intelligence with a new function to drive the uplift of insider threat capabilities across the Commonwealth. That is also very important. Just by way of background: there are currently five separate vetting agencies that are authorised to grant positive vetting security clearances. The committee and others have said that this model has resulted in different applications and standards of this policy aligned to individual missions and requirements. So the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that there is a more streamlined and singular process when considering whether or not an individual should be granted this very important level of clearance. It has come about, overall, from a multiagency Future Positive Vetting Capability Taskforce that was established under the coalition government back in July 2020. Its stated purpose was to modernise the whole-of-government vetting standards to enable increased consistency, heightened assurance and transferability of Australia's highest cleared workforce. That task force has met and has come out with recommendations, and the government is seeking to put those recommendations into legislation. To conclude, the bill is supported. It is a sensible piece of legislation; it is an important piece of legislation. The process by which security clearance is granted is important. As I said in my opening remarks, a government has no greater responsibility than the protection of its citizens and it needs to ensure that those citizens and those workers that have access to our national secrets are properly vetted and are of sound character. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the House. 10:41 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I'd like to thank my colleagues for their contribution to this really important debate. We have come to government at a really distinctive time for Australia's national security. Our agencies are in agreement that, for the first time in many decades, espionage and foreign interference are the principal national security concerns that we face. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill that is before the parliament is one of a wide range of measures that the Australian government is pursuing to make sure that we're responding appropriately to that changing circumstances of our national security. This bill contains a range of amendments that will lift and harden Australia's level of security clearance in response to these unprecedented threats. It will drive shared initiatives and investments to improve interoperability and burden sharing as the Australian government delivers critical national security capabilities. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has reviewed this bill. I acknowledge the chair of the committee, the member for Wills, who is here with us in the chamber. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is, without question, one of the most important institutional features of the security conversation in our parliament. They work incredibly hard reviewing bills and policies of the Australian government to ensure that they are appropriately matched to the national security challenges we face. They've done really good work on this bill and provided an important suggestion for improvement, which we've adopted in the explanatory memorandum, which I'll come to in a moment. The committee made two recommendations when it reviewed the draft bill. The first was that we pass the bill; that it was important for Australia's national security. The second was that we update the explanatory memorandum to clarify that ASIO will not engage human sources or agents to undertake security vetting. The government has implemented this recommendation by updating the explanatory memorandum. Accordingly, I present the replacement explanatory memorandum to the House. In response to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report on the bill, the government has updated the explanatory memorandum also to clarify the exception to merits review for non-Australians or non-residents engaged for employment and duties outside Australia. This exception is necessary, reasonable and proportionate given the heightened risk that persons engaged in these circumstances may pose in relation to espionage and foreign interference, including that these persons may be exploited by foreign powers and their proxies. The Prime Minister has said that Australia faces the most challenging geostrategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War. That's a very significant and accurate statement. The Director-General of Security has said that Australia's security environment is 'complex, challenging and changing' and that our goal as a country is to out-think and out-manoeuvre those who seek to harm our national interest. Part of that is expanding our capabilities and sharpening responses. That is exactly what this bill does. The choice that the Australian government makes about how it manages the geostrategic circumstances we face really matter, about how we engage with the global environment but also about what we do here in our own country to protect our national interest. The information that we have is valuable, and the protection of that information is becoming more important by the day. One of the really important tenets of putting this bill together is that we fiercely believe that it is a privilege, not a right, to hold the highest level of Australian government security clearances. These clearances are not titles or rewards; they come with serious ongoing responsibilities, and we expect clearance holders to comply when they apply for those and to continue to comply with them. The reforms before the parliament will ensure that Australia's security clearance framework is uplifted and hardened in response to the threats we face. It includes providing for the ongoing monitoring of those highest levels of security clearances, rather than a 'set and forget', or what we might call a 'vet and forget', approach. Centralising Australia's highest-level security clearance vetting in ASIO leverages ASIO's specific security intelligence functions, holdings and capabilities, and it has regard to the most current and accurate information about the security threats confronting Australia. The reforms enabled by the bill will reduce the risk of compromise of trusted insiders, maximise utility derived from shared services to create efficiencies, improve the mobility and agility of our highest-cleared workforce and ensure the ongoing confidence of our most trusted allies. In closing, I feel very privileged in the work I do as Minister for Home Affairs to work very directly with ASIO and the incredible people who serve their country through working for that organisation. Their job is very unique. It is stressful, it is difficult and, perhaps most relevantly, it is secret. It is a very important thing these people do for their country. Unlike we parliamentarians who sit here and can talk openly about the work we do and can speak with our constituents and our families, the people who work for our security agencies are in an entirely different scenario where they're not allowed to discuss the important work they do. It is very special because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who work for these organisations do it with one motivation in mind, and that is that they care passionately about their country. They are creative, intelligent, amazing people who work so hard to make sure that all the citizens that we represent in this chamber can live safely and go about their everyday lives. I want to put on record the government's gratitude for that work and the parliament's gratitude for that work. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 15 10:47 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 16

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 16 10:48 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, it's always good to see you in the chair. Of all our wonderful deputy speakers, you are certainly up there, experienced, charming. You love it when we push the envelope. It's excellent. It's always good to see. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Bruce, and I ask him to return to the legislation at hand. Mr HILL 86256 Deputy Speaker, finally you are in the chair for some good news for the environment, and that, sadly, is a rare thing. To be frank, many Australians—me included—too often switch off when they see stories in the news about climate change or the environment, as it's generally bad news. It's depressing. There is a lot to be despondent about. The State of the environment report released by the minister last year shows that the Australian environment is in a bad way and is getting worse. The trends are wrong due to degradation, loss and inaction under the decade of the previous government. We're winning a prize that I don't think anyone in this chamber would actually want to win. We are the extinction capital of the world. Our country is the extinction capital of the world. It's a gold medal you don't want to win. That's after a decade of neglect, dysfunction, decay, division and dereliction of duty from those opposite. The government is committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030—the same goals under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. This bill is a key part of delivering on the government's positive nature repair plan, with the establishment of a nature repair market. Why? It will make it easier for people to invest in activities that actually help to reverse that decline and repair nature. The government is deadly serious about reversing the decline—not just stemming the tide or flatlining but reversing the decline and starting positive repair of our natural environment to reverse disrepair and degradation and to leave nature in better shape for our kids and grandkids. There's a lot of rhetoric like that bandied around in this parliament: 'We're going to leave things better for our kids and our grandkids.' With regard to the natural environment, that's exactly what we have to aim to do, and that's exactly what the government's bill will contribute to. It will contribute to the notion of stewardship—that, as custodians of this world right now, we should leave the place in better shape than we found it. We're at risk of being the first generation to leave a lower standard of living and a degraded natural environment for the generation to come after us, and that's a disgrace. This bill will support landholders, including farmers and First Nations people in particular, to plant native species, repair damaged riverbeds and remove invasive species. It will make it easier for business and philanthropists to invest with confidence in these efforts. The critical point is the focus on getting investment into privately held land. That is so important because 60 per cent of our country's land mass is in private hands, the majority of which is controlled by farmers and First Nations communities. It's on private land, also, that a large percentage of the critically endangered habitat rests. You cannot reverse the decline in our natural environment without investment in private land rehabilitation. There's only so much you can do with national parks and publicly held land, be they riverbeds or railway tracks. You just can't get there without dealing with privately held land. Of course, reversing the decline has environmental benefits in its own right, but it's also absolutely critical if we're to hand back that gold medal that we don't want of being the extinction capital of the world because the primary reason for the extinctions that we're seeing is the loss of natural habitat for threatened species. This is a positive, practical, long-term plan which, I might add, contrasts with the shameful record of those opposite. As I said, last year the Minister for the Environment and Water released the official five-yearly report card on the Australian environment, the State of the environment report. The former minister, now deputy opposition leader, the Hon Sussan Ley, hid the report from the Australian people, refusing to release it. She actually commissioned the State of the environment report and then hid it in the cupboard because the then government were too ashamed of what the report revealed about trends in the environment and their record. It's a catalogue of horrors. It reveals, in black and white, just how much damage a decade of the Liberal and National parties' neglect did to our environment. It's in bad shape and getting worse. It found that Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. For the first time, Australia has more foreign plant species than native species. Habitat covering the size of Tasmania has been cleared between 2000 and 2017. Plastics are choking our oceans—up to 80,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre. Flow in the Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels as at December 2019. Earlier, I said 'neglect'. I'd like to withdraw that. I was wrong. It's worse than neglect; it's active hostility. Those opposite took positive actions to damage the environment. In the last decade, they axed climate laws. They actually withdrew them. That's not neglect; that's damage. They failed to fix Australia's broken environment laws, despite having a blueprint which they commissioned which mapped out how they should proceed. They failed to act on it. The Leader of the Opposition actually laughed about our Pacific island neighbours going underwater. They failed to land a single one of the 22 different energy policies that they had in nine years. In a decade in government, they had 22 different energy policies, none of which were implemented. They sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They promised $40 million for Indigenous water but never delivered a single drop. They set recycling targets—they announced them. That was one of their special talents, announcing things but then not actually delivering. They announced the recycling targets but had no plan to actually deliver them. They had a recycling target that sounded very good, of 70 per cent. They were going to recycle 70 per cent of things. They were stuck at 16 per cent for four years, but they just kept re-announcing it. It's all about the press release. It's all about the Australian flags behind you while making announcements but not actually doing anything positive. They voted against the safeguard mechanism this term. It's a policy that they previously championed, of course. Such a rabble, they voted against themselves. They voted against energy price relief for households and small businesses. They actually cut the highly protected areas in marine parks by half. That was their great initiative to protect the marine environment. They cut the marine parks in half. They cut billions from the environment department. They then went and complained that there was green tape everywhere and that people weren't getting approvals for new infrastructure, developments and resource developments while they cut the environment department by billions. Who knew? If you don't have the Public Service processing approvals, the approvals don't get done! A decade of environmental crime. Is it any wonder that the Australian people voted these vandals out? On the government's positive plan, Deputy Speaker—how will it work? I'm glad you asked, rhetorically! The bill is establishing the machinery for a nature repair market. The 3Rs: register, rules and regulator. The market will apply to projects that enhance or protect existing environments or those which establish and restore habitats on land, in lakes and rivers, or in marine and coastal areas. The scheme will be open voluntarily—there's no compulsion. We've heard some of the histrionics over the last few days from those opposite. Smelling salts, I was thinking yesterday, may be in order. It will be open voluntarily to farmers—yes, we're allowed to say farmers too—First Nations communities, conservation groups, businesses and councils. When a landholder chooses, of their own volition, to conduct a repair project they get a tradeable certificate. It's setting up a market. That certificate will have standardised information, stuff like the land size; the kinds of work which are being done and a description of that; an outline of the environment, habitat or threatened species which will be protected as a result of the work; and the length of time that actions will continue. That certificate will be tracked, recorded and publicly available on a public register, setting up a transparent market. The market, importantly, will be based on science and will enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to promote their unique knowledge about land management on their terms. Establishing the marketing legislation, though, is key. I've actually had people to say to me: 'Why can't people do this now? They can just go and invest their own money. They can leave money in wills. Companies can do their corporate social responsibility and invest money now.' The importance of establishing a market in legislation is about ensuring its ongoing integrity; to encourage investment; to give investors, philanthropists and business confidence to invest in a tradable commodity; and to drive environmental approvements across Australia. Capitalism actually only exists because governments underwrite it. It's a serious point. You can only enter into a contract because the governments will set up the courts to enforce the contract. In this regard, we're setting up a market that has a tradeable certificate and transparency so people can invest with confidence. The bill will enable the third of the three Rs, the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, to issue those tradeable biodiversity certificates, which can then be banked or sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals. The projects will deliver real, long-term, nature-positive outcomes: weeding, planting trees and pest control, as I said, on land or water, in marine and coastal environments. They will create more opportunities for economic participation for First Nations communities through doing, and being funded and supported to do, environmental repair and maintenance on their lands, contributing to the reversal of habitat loss and stemming the loss of threatened species. There will be opportunities to actually design those projects that reflect that connection to country and the knowledge and wisdom of First Nations peoples. The market, importantly, will operate in parallel with the carbon trading market facilitated by the same regulator. Putting the two markets together under the same regulator will create both efficiencies and synergies. That alignment will encourage carbon-farming projects and also deliver benefits for biodiversity. The administrative efficiencies in this approach and, more importantly, the clear and accurate oversight of claims are critical to both markets. It is important that the regulator is competent, properly resourced and properly empowered lest we see more accusations and incidences of so-called greenwashing. People need to have confidence in making these investments, that the things they're investing in, the outcomes they're buying and the certificates they hold have a real and practical impact, and value on their balance sheets—on the books. That's important. Again, only government, through the power of government, can set up an enforceable regulatory regime, which is critical in giving confidence to philanthropists and businesses to invest. The biodiversity certificates have to have integrity. Through that transparent regulatory approach, people will be confident that there will be an actual environmental improvement as a result of their investment. The key integrity measure will be an independent expert committee responsible for ensuring that projects deliver high-quality nature -positive outcomes underpinned by a consistent approach to measurement, assessment and verification. There will be assurance and compliance requirements, including monitoring, reporting and notification of the delivery of project activities. And the regulator—all that transparency—will have strong monitoring and enforcement powers to ensure that things actually happen in accordance with the rules. The department is now working with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that certificates are not victims of more greenwashing claims, that the statements made on certificates accurately reflect the projects and the investments made, and that projects in both the carbon and biodiversity markets will not be affected by misleading claims. The Nature Positive Plan reflects the government's commitment to actually restoring accountability and trust in public administration after the damaging decade of those opposite. As I said, that information will be available on a public register. The bill will also establish the Nature Repair Market Committee, which will be responsible for providing advice to the minister following public consultation on the submission and their advice. There will be five to six experts who have significant experience and significant standing. Of course, the qualification to be one of those experts won't be being a member of the National Party or the Liberal Party; they'll be appointed on merit. Again, that might be triggering for those opposite, given how they stacked out every board and committee they could find. Look at the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation: half of them were ex-Liberal and National MPs, but not one of the people on that board had expertise in affordable housing. And it would be unkind to go over Infrastructure Australia again, wouldn't it, member for New England? We don't need to go over that— Mr Joyce e5d Unless you want my participation! Mr HILL 86256 That's right! I have to give you something to do over there! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member will return to the bill at hand. Mr HILL 86256 Those five to six experts will have substantial experience and significant standing in one or more areas of expertise, including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics or Indigenous knowledge. So we have committed to reversing the decline we inherited from those opposite. 11:03 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson We've just had the cartoon version from those opposite, but now you're going to get the movie! It's very important that the Australian people understand what this bill is really about. I rise today to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Under the previous coalition government, comprehensive work was undertaken which led to the development and introduction to the House of Representatives in early 2022 of the Agriculture Biodiversity Stewardship Market Bill. Sadly, this lapsed at the conclusion of the 46th Parliament. The core purpose of the coalition's bill was to establish the legal framework for the operation of a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. The coalition believed that incentivising farmers to improve the landscape would create better outcomes for the agricultural sector and the environment. It's no secret in this place that, in my previous life, I was a tomato farmer. So, when the conversation around climate change, biodiversity and farming comes along, I'm well positioned to put my hand up to speak. I know our farmers want what is best for our environment and their land. I know what they do to protect our landscape and our natural environments. I believe farmers should be growing food and fibre, not being suffocated by government green and red tape. So, at first glance at this bill, I thought: 'Why not support this? This could mean our farmers and landholders are financially rewarded when they conduct projects to repair and protect nature.' As I started delving further into the bill, I started to become extremely distressed. This bill has been changed so much from the coalition's proposal that now it is impossible to support. The Minister for the Environment and Water has added more complexity to this bill, and that's typical of how the Labor government roll. We see it all the time. There is absence of key detail, and there are so many question marks. It is clear that we will see many negative impacts on landholders, farmers and all Australians for generations to come. The Albanese Labor government has made the choice to not build on and complement the hard work and stakeholder consultation that has already been done by the previous government. Instead, they bizarrely decided to reinvent the wheel and start the consultation process all over again, wasting precious time and taxpayers' dollars. From the evidence provided at the October 2022 Senate estimates hearing, the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water spent $11.4 million in carrying out these activities that the previous government had already completed. It concerns me that $11.4 million can be spent without thought or need when we are in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis and so many across my electorate right now, including our farmers, are just scraping by. Let me remind the House that the former coalition government's proposed land stewardship scheme would reward farmers who restored and protected nature on their properties. All the work has been done. The stakeholder consultation was done, and the bill was deliberately confined to agricultural land. However, the Albanese Labor government's proposal expands this to all landholders, and that would apply to terrestrial, coastal and marine areas. This proposed bill will open it up to all freehold land, Crown land, Australian waters and native title areas. This is of great concern. At paragraph 69 on page 23 of the explanatory memorandum, it says: Native title land will … be either Crown land or Torrens system land So this would include all grazing homestead perpetual leases, forestry leases, grazing leases and freehold agricultural land. Then, at paragraph 77, it is noted: In practice, this means that all biodiversity projects to be carried out on native title land or waters would need either to be undertaken by the relevant native title holders, or would require the consent of the relevant native title holders before the project could be registered. What this essentially is telling us is that native title holders will have the final say on what kind of biodiversity process is carried out on or in native title areas. The minister has also put private investment at the centre of the government's plan for the environment, which includes a zero-extinctions target and a commitment to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea areas by 2030. Under the scheme, when a landholder conducts a project to repair or protect nature, they will be issued a tradeable certificate. Once projects are approved by the regulator, these certificates can be then sold to a third party, like a philanthropist, a business, a government or an individual. These biodiversity agreements will be for periods of 25 to 100 years in duration. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a 25- to 100-year period could see so many economic, political, government, domestic and international changes. The future is unknown. Recent events like the COVID pandemic just prove that we have no idea what could be around the corner in a year's time, let alone 25 to 100 years time. I note there are no allowances listed in the bill to adjust or change these committed time frames should the need arise. So there is a danger that unscrupulous green groups could target farmers in bad years and then lock up the land, leaving farmers stuck and unable to move for generations to come. This could mean a shortage of food, higher prices for individuals at the check-out and also fewer export dollars. In the explanatory notes of this bill, it says: Buyers are expecting to be able to invest in nature to achieve philanthropic objectives, meet their social and environmental responsibilities, compensate for their impacts on nature and manage risks associated with their dependencies on nature. So this will encourage our biggest corporate emitters and wealthy elite to invest billions of dollars to effectively lock up good-quality agricultural land just to tick a box and to offset their carbon emissions to make themselves feel better. All the while, we could potentially have excellent agricultural land locked up with no management, and it will just go feral, creating yet another set of problems like fire traps and an overrun of feral and invasive animals and noxious weeds. These pests don't just stop at the fence. Seeds blow next door and animals roam, all of which can be detrimental to our nation's environment and is exactly the opposite of what is trying to be achieved. It's pretty clear, when you drill into the detail of these bills, what the Albanese Labor government is trying to do here, and that is just a bandaid to meet unrealistic net-zero targets. But who will pay for this bandaid proposal if it's voted through? Our farmers will pay, our fishermen will pay, our resources industry will pay, our forestry industry will pay, our regional and rural communities will pay, and ultimately it is the Australian people who will pay. At the end and down the line, the Australian people will have to pay. We will see job losses and ultimately cost-of-living increases, and, when we start to have food supply issues, that is how you weaken a country. I am sceptical of this emissions trade-off scheme. I don't think it will achieve the outcome that is desired at all. It will not be good for Australia. It will not be good for the environment. Once again, rural and regional Australia will be all the worse off for it while the cities continue to create the bulk of the emissions with no consequences. I cannot stress enough that it is essential to look after our ag industry and our ag land. Rest assured, if the decision-makers in this place dared to visit a farm or even consult the National Party, we would be happy to let you know how farmers all around the country care for and look after the land. It is very disappointing that this Albanese Labor government decided to take this program from the department of agriculture and place it under the department of the environment. Not only did the government strip away funding from the ag and give it to the environment department, but they also took this program with it. It says a lot about where the Albanese Labor government's priorities really are. They let the ideology of the environment department take over the intent that was at the heart of this bill, which was rewarding farmers not just for carbon abatement but also for biodiversity improvement. Farmers are the real greenies in this country. They are doing their bit for the country and they need to be rewarded—rather than punished, which is what this bill will do. Our farmers value and protect land. It's what they do every day. It's how they make their money. Many of our farmers have had their farms for multiple generations. Of course they want to look after them. So why don't we bring a bill into this place that will support and look after our farmers? Perhaps offer a carrot rather than a stick. That's how you deliver better outcomes. Our farmers value and protect plant and animal species. The graziers spend multiple times trying to eradicate Chonky apple, rubber vine and all the invasive species that make their farming and grazing land unproductive. That's what they do. They are all united in their desire to produce safe, delicious and healthy food for the rest of us in Australia and throughout the world. I believe this bill has enormous potential to have a negative impact on farmers, landholders and our natural environment. Ultimately, all Australians will pay. All Australians will be worse off if this bill goes through. We need to support our farmers. They provide the food and fibre for all of us. If we don't have food and we don't have energy—because, clearly, the Albanese Labor government's energy policy isn't working—then we could be subject to a takeover. Let's get behind our farmers. Let's support them. Let's vote this bill down. I strongly oppose this bill. 11:16 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I was in here listening to the member for Dawson just now talking about farmers. I agree with him that farmers do a lot to take care of the land on which they have their farms. I see that with the farmers in my own family, and I know that's important. But this bill is about making it easier for farmers to invest in protecting the land they use. It's about rewarding people for looking after parts of their land, protecting areas, removing weeds, improving waterways, all those sorts of things. So it's about working with farmers and First Nations communities to improve our land. It's a really important bill. I want to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, on this bill as well as all the hardworking public servants in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for their efforts in putting it together. I want to commend the minister for her commitment to protect Australia's incredible natural environment and all the work that she has done in just one year since being sworn in. I've been so impressed by what we have achieved as a government, already, in this space. It builds on a strong Labor legacy of environmental stewardship and protection. We are the party that has delivered every significant environmental reform in Australia's history. Whether it's protection of the Franklin River, the Daintree, Kakadu or K'gari, formerly known as Fraser Island, or the creation of the largest network of marine national parks in the world, Labor has and always will stand up for our environmental heritage. This government is taking action to bolster that proud legacy. Our nature-positive plan pledges the federal government to protect our land and sea and to leave it in a better state than we found it. That's what nature positive means. Every day in government we want to improve and care for our wonderful natural environment, here in Australia, which we depend on as well. That's a stark difference to the decade of environmental decline that we saw under those opposite. As the minister points out in the forward of this plan, the equation facing Australia is simple. If our laws don't change, our trajectory of environmental decline will not change either. This legislation is part of those changes. It will help us to deliver on our nature-positive plan. It is just one part of this plan. We're amending our environmental protection laws—incredibly important, and something I discuss with my constituents on a daily basis. People are really keen to see laws that actually protect our environment going forward. It's something that Labor is committed to delivering. We've already legislated strong climate action. Just a few weeks ago, the minister tripled the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. We have also committed to no new extinctions. That is a really important commitment. It almost goes without saying, but it is a large commitment in terms of the work that is required, and it is something we are really serious about. The establishment of the nature repair market, a voluntary national market that will deliver improved biodiversity outcomes, is a key reform that will go a long way to leaving a stronger, more resilient environment for future generations. Why are we taking this approach? The Albanese Labor government knows that we need significant investment in conservation and restoration and that business and private sector investment can contribute to reversing environmental decline. This was highlighted in the findings of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review by Professor Graeme Samuel. We also know that private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders are increasingly looking for ways to achieve positive outcomes for nature. A recent report prepared independently by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the market for biodiversity in Australia could unlock $137 billion in financial flows by 2050. This legislation responds to that incredible demand. By passing this bill we will generate investment, job opportunities and new income streams for landholders, including First Nations native title holders and agriculturalists. It will also deliver on Australia's international commitments by building a nature-positive economy. It is of vital importance that we protect and repair ecosystems and reverse species decline and extinction. How will it work? Eligible landholders who undertake projects that enhance or protect biodiversity will be able to receive a tradeable certificate that will be tracked through a national register. The Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, will be responsible for issuing these tradeable biodiversity certificates to Australian landholders. The certificates can then be sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals. All landholders, including First Nations Australians, 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 through jobs and nature-positive economic activity. The nature repair market will be based on science and enable First Nations Australians to foster their unique knowledge on their own terms. It will promote and enable free, prior and informed consent for projects on their land or waters. It will create opportunities to design projects that reflect the knowledge and connection to country of First Nations peoples and utilise their skills and knowledge for a nature-positive future. This bill is deliberately designed to encourage participation and create employment and economic opportunities for First Nations peoples. Ultimately, the establishment of the nature repair market will facilitate private investment in biodiversity, including where carbon storage projects have biodiversity co-benefits. By establishing the market in legislation we will ensure its going integrity, encourage investment in nature and drive environmental improvements across Australia. Something that's important to highlight is that our nature-positive plan presents a different approach to biodiversity offsets. In this bill we are enshrining in legislation that offsets are a last resort. 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. It's important to note that 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 and it 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 will administrative efficiencies in this approach and, more importantly, clear and accurate oversight of claims made in both markets. Our government acknowledges the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb. Lessons learned from the carbon market have informed the bill and will continue to be reflected upon as environmental markets develop. Overall, alignment between the carbon and nature markets will help ensure that investments in land sector carbon projects deliver biodiversity co-benefits. The new register proposed by this bill will be a comprehensive and public source of information on these projects and the biodiversity they're protecting. Ensuring transparency and integrity in the market is vital, and that's what we'll do. The Nature Positive Plan reflects our commitment to restoring public accountability and trust. We want buyers to be able to invest in the market with confidence, knowing that the biodiversity certificates have integrity and represent an actual environmental improvement. There are a number of key methods in this bill which achieve this outcome. First, the bill establishes an independent expert committee which will be responsible for ensuring that projects deliver high-quality nature-positive outcomes underpinned by a consistent approach to the measurement, assessment and verification of biodiversity. The bill also establishes a public register and citizen oversight facilitated by the Clean Energy Regulator, which will regularly publish relevant data from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. 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 an active release of relevant data by the department. This will enable parliament and the public to monitor the scheme and will provide an opportunity for citizen oversight. And it will support certainty and value to the market. The Clean Energy Regulator will be responsible for monitoring, reporting and notifying stakeholders on the delivery of project activities and progress on the environmental outcomes. The regulator will also have enforcement powers to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with the rules. The bill also establishes the Nature Repair Market Committee. The committee will be responsible for providing advice to the minister following public consultation. It will be made up of experts with substantial experience and significant standing in one or more areas of expertise, including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics or Indigenous knowledge. The bill also mandates public consultation on methods and the instrument for measuring and assessing biodiversity, as well as conducting ongoing consultation and engagement on our environmental reform agenda. We'll work with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that certificates issued in the nature repair market are not subject to greenwashing. It is of vital importance 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. Transparency will be a core element of the scheme. In the time remaining to me, I just want to comment on the Conservation Council ACT Region's World Environment Day dinner here in Canberra, which I attended recently. It was a night to gather with all the environment movement here in Canberra, to celebrate and support the incredible work that they do. Significantly, they do mostly volunteer work through Landcare groups, friends of grasslands and friends of waterways here in Canberra. They volunteer to improve those areas. I'm not sure of the awareness out there of how much of that work is done by volunteers. I think that's why I am so proud that we have this Nature Positive Plan, that we're able to say we're working every day to leave the environment in a better state than when we came into government. When I see all those people who work so hard and fight so hard for this, I'm really proud that we in this place have the opportunity to vote on, and deliver, this one part of that plan. There was an incredible speech given at that event by Richard Swain, who is an ambassador for the Invasive Species Council. He's an Indigenous man from the Snowy region, and he is a river guide in the Kosciuszko National Park. He talked about what modern Australia has to learn about respecting country and caring about country and how really the problems that we have created and the damage that we have done to our environment are because of these modern ways. He talked about the very significant changes that we need to make if we really are to change that attitude and to care for country. We have so much to learn from First Nations peoples about the way that they cared for this country for 65,000 years. This bill, importantly, supports First Nations landholders and communities to look after land. It specifically creates opportunities to bring that knowledge into this process, and I think that is really important. I'll pick up on what the previous speaker, the member for Dawson, said about farmers and people in agriculture. They do work every day on the land, and they do care about the land, and this is about helping them and supporting them to look after it through these methods. It is a really important bill, and it is part of an incredibly important plan to protect Australia's environment that is long overdue, and I'm very proud of this work. I commend this bill to the House. 11:31 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill and the related bill. I welcome these bills, which represent a step towards achieving a nature-positive Australia. I also acknowledge the government's professed commitment to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. However, I call on the government to be bolder and to state clearly and definitively that it is committed to achieving a nature-positive Australia at a minimum by 2030. To this end, there are more actions that need to be taken. For example, we must, without delay, stop all native forest logging, and we must protect rainforests, particularly in incredible areas like the Tarkine in Tasmania. These must be protected. We can't talk about biodiversity loss and conservation and continue to ransack pristine and important ecosystems and environment. It's my hope that this bill is a step towards that and that we're going to do better. In Warringah, my constituents are passionate about the protection of nature. We celebrate our access to the ocean in the protected Cabbage Tree Bay marine park reserve, the Sydney Harbour trust and the national parks at North Head and Middle Head, as well as the protected areas of Manly Dam and Bantry Bay. We would love to see more of these areas, as well as greater protection of wildlife corridors and investment in the restoration of nature. It's my hope that this bill will assist in the achievement of that and that we can do better in protecting our environment. We need to pull all the levers at our disposal to rebuild nature, and, if private investment is a willing participant, then that is great. I'd also like to thank for their active engagement the many groups concerned about this issue, including the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, the World Wildlife Fund, the Australian Conversation Foundation and many others. The bill establishes a nationally regulated market for investment in nature. It sounds great, but the question is: who will invest and for what purpose? There is much discussion at present about the value of nature. The Australian Conversation Foundation and the Pollination Group found that roughly half of our economy—or some $900 billion in Australia's economy—directly depends on nature. So this is not a nice-to have; this is a must-have. Also, 50 per cent of global GDP depends on nature. We're talking about food and water. All these aspects are directly linked to nature. Despite this, there hasn't been significant investment in its protection, let alone its repair and conservation. There's this idea often that these things are separate and that somehow it's a nice-to-have, when it's intrinsically linked to so much of our way of life. In briefings about this bill, the government has made many speeches in this place about the predicted $137 billion in investment that this market could drive into nature, as modelled by the PwC report. Many also dispute this advice. It's important to put into perspective that even that report by PwC argued that a regulated market is just one pillar of the four needed to drive investment in nature. The other pillars that are urgently needed include: a national biodiversity strategy and plan; the establishment of national standards and foundational science; a regulatory framework; and compliance and enforcement measures—and, I would argue, government investment to kickstart this market. These points are supported throughout the submissions to the Senate inquiry, with the key concerns surrounding the integrity of the market and the lack of driver for investment without all the other pillars lining up. Again, this looks good in practice and on paper, but, for it to work, it's going to need a much more significant and serious commitment. The Australian Sustainable Finance Institute in its submission stated: … the development of a nature market framework will not be sufficient to redirect financial flows towards nature positive outcomes. I've called on the government and discussed this with the minister, and I call on the Prime Minister to show leadership. There needs to be public funding to incentivise, to kickstart, this market. Just as we saw with renewable energy, where the CFC and ARENA took care of some of the initial market risk so that the private sector could follow, the same needs to happen for this market to work and be successful. The first pillar is a national biodiversity strategy and plan. Australia is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It has had an overarching strategy for biodiversity since 1996. The latest iteration is Australia's Strategy for Nature 2019-2030. However, the Samuel review, released in 2020, showed our current national environmental protection laws are not working. The 2019 Samuels review of the EPBC Act criticised the act. It said: The Act is complex and cumbersome and it results in duplication with State and Territory development approval processes. This adds costs to business, often with little benefit to the environment. The reform of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act is urgent. We need to see those enhanced protections in place now. That was in 2020. The last government failed to meaningfully implement those recommendations, and, to date, this government has also failed to implement those recommendations. When in opposition, the current government called for urgent action and implementation of the recommendations. Now, in government, we see further delay. Many are now saying that, despite the government's commitment to implement the reforms by the end of the year, the time line is slipping and next year is now more likely. This is all vital for this bill to have meaning. If we want this to work, the EPBC Act amendments are needed and the Samuel review recommendations need to be implemented. Without these reforms there's no true transparency about how this nature market will operate. The reform of the EPBC Act will determine whether the credit generated from this scheme can be used as offsets and, therefore, whether they will enhance nature or merely maintain the status quo at best. I believe offsets can be a useful tool, but the net result must be nature positive. Business as usual is not working and is not acceptable. I welcome the minister's assurance that it is in the intent, but I won't be convinced of this until we see the EPBC Act amendment legislation. The second pillar is standards and foundational science. National environmental standards are and must be part of the EPBC Act reform. They were central to the Samuel review recommendations. In addition, both government and industry need timely data and analytics to provide them with a robust baseline. I welcome the funding in the federal budget for the establishment of Environment Information Australia to enhance that data collection and improve the transparency of the performance of our natural environment protection. This new body will be essential in monitoring the performance and success of the nature market. Specifically, within this bill, there are concerns about the permanency of the credits. The bill allows for a creation of credits for anywhere from 25 to 100 years, or less than 25 years as agreed by the regulator. What is the value of a biodiversity credit of less than 25 years is a very relevant question. The government's response to this has been that it will be a market driven price. However, when this is combined with broader concerns about integrity, I don't support the inclusion of this level of flexibility. The 'less than 25 years as agreed by the regulator' is problematic and undermines the integrity of the scheme. My third point is on a regulatory framework. Arguably, this bill will help to achieve some regulatory control through the establishment and role of the market regulator. However, there are questions about whether the Clean Energy Regulator is the right body to oversee this market. There are clear conflicts in certain cases. The Clean Energy Regulator acknowledges in its submission: While the CER has sophisticated tools and a strong regulatory framework, there may be some gaps in our current skills and toolset to monitor compliance for some NRM methods. While there are clear benefits in having the same body oversee the carbon market and the nature market, we need to make sure that the Clean Energy Regulator is resourced to effectively fulfil both roles, or else we will see further questions of the integrity of the markets, such as we're still dealing with in the carbon market space. My proposed amendments in relation to this bill and the amendments of other crossbench members are seeking to implement some of the recommendations of the recently completed Chubb review to ensure better trust and integrity in the market system—the carbon market into the nature market. My fourth point is on the compliance and enforcement aspect. Clearly, in addition to the overhaul of the EPBC Act, there must be an authority set up to police and enforce obligations under the relevant legislation—in particular, the overhauled EPBC Act. The establishment of Environment Protection Australia will be essential as an independent cop on the beat to enforce standards and compliance. Without this, the government strategy, however well intended it might otherwise be, will fail. Tradeable certificates such as those envisaged by the Nature Repair Market Bill may serve well as a carrot, but the hard reality is that there also must be a stick. On government investment, I and many groups who are active in this space strongly feel that the government investment in this market is key and absolutely essential to the achievement of the desired nature-positive outcome. The government has a responsibility to kickstart investment and help mitigate risk. In order for this market to be successful, we need co-investment from government. We need a Clean Energy Finance Corporation equivalent—a nature finance corporation, I would suggest—that the government and the Treasurer should be putting some significant funds behind. We can't achieve the objectives without it. The government argues that the Natural Heritage Trust can fulfil that role, but I don't believe they have sufficient mandate or resources to adequately fulfil that role at present. The Bob Brown Foundation put it well in their submission: The purchase of submarines under the AUKUS deal is direct Government investment of $368billion. It is not tradeable certificates or offsets; it is straight up Government spending because 'prevention is better than cure' on national security … I absolutely agree. But prevention is better than cure when it comes to conservation as well, especially if 50 per cent of our GDP is tied up in nature. And so it is incredibly important that we address that. I fear that, however well intentioned this bill is, it doesn't go far enough to enable that target to be achieved, and the government has missed an opportunity today. Repairing nature is a key part of making sure that we have a sustainable future and of having any chance of negating the worst effects of climate change. We know there are so many impacts already locked in, so restoring and regenerating the degraded natural environment is a critical part of ensuring the planet's survival and that of our way of life and our ecosystems. We can bring back to life dying ecosystems, and delicate natural balances can be recognised and restored. In other words, participating in a market which puts a value on strategies to achieve nature positive must not be just convenient and a new way of offsetting other shortfalls in corporate behaviour; it's a critical end in itself. These tradeable certificates need to be additional to other measures taken by individuals and corporate entities and should not be just used as offsets. There are many groups that have raised concerns in relation to that, so it's really important that the government grapples with these concerns so that this can have some integrity. Of course, there must be a balancing of priorities. For example, the National Farmers Federation made a submission: … that this legislation must first and foremost address the needs of the farm sector, others can follow. Again, that is an interest at work. WWF indicated: The use of nature repair certificates to meet mandatory biodiversity offset obligations should be ruled out or at least deferred until the Nature Repair Market is established … The Property Council of Australia submitted: Our members have further reported there will be a significant appetite for purchasing biodiversity certificates, and engaging in projects, if the NRM functions effectively and delivers high-integrity environmental outcomes. We can see from all of this that there are some concerns. Empowerment of rural and remote Indigenous communities is incredibly important, and I have provided amendments to that effect to ensure that remote and regional communities, and in particular Indigenous communities, are at the centre of this land conservation. Finally, I'd like to thank the many organisations and volunteers who dedicate so much time, so many hours to cleaning up and protecting our local environment. There are some incredible initiatives. We know Australians care about their environment. To date, politics and regulations haven't properly reflected that. But we are now at a time where it is a priority and so many, especially our young people, are calling on this place to do more to protect our environment. 11:46 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I'm pleased to rise to speak in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Sometimes people might recoil at the notion of markets being deployed in policy areas such as the environment or the promotion of biodiversity. In those contexts, we are perhaps more used to using other regulatory mechanisms such as setting standards or limiting damage. But markets can have a very important role. In my contribution I want to talk about the ways in which this bill sets up extremely important architecture that will benefit our environmental protection policies more broadly. I think it's worth remembering why markets can be so beneficial not just in the broader economy but in the achievement of policy goals as well. Firstly, markets, at their heart, are about connecting people—not just buyers and sellers, which is the context in which we usually think of markets, but in all sorts of other contexts. In this context, the parties being connected are landholders and those seeking an environmental outcome. It might be a developer seeking to offset damage that is being incurred as a result of a development, or it might be a company seeking to achieve an ESG outcome. But ultimately at the heart of markets is connecting people. I want to start with that, because that's why it's so critical that the right regulatory framework is established. Secondly, markets are about achieving effective, efficient outcomes once people are connected. One thing I think that's often forgotten with markets is that, particularly where markets involve voluntary transactions, those transactions will involve a benefit for both parties. That's something that I think is extremely important and sometimes forgotten when we think about markets. They're win-win transactions. But markets need to be well designed in many contexts in order to achieve the maximal win-win aggregate across those transacting. There are many contexts in which markets are used—obviously throughout the economy but also in many areas of public policy, in our employment services and in the NDIS. There are many areas of public policy where markets do both of these things: they connect people and they achieve mutually beneficial transfers. But there are also many contexts where markets need to have regulatory architecture. We talk about free markets, but even the markets that we often think of as free have a great deal of regulatory architecture. They often have disclosure arrangements. They often have consumer protection arrangements. There are often clearing houses, for example, in equities markets. Stock exchanges can only open at certain times. There are often standards applied to goods or services. So regulation is key even for markets that we think of as 'free', but regulation is doubly important where we are seeking to achieve complex and important public policy goals. Markets for biodiversity and environmental outcomes are becoming more common around the world. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program in the US was the first, or one of the first, biodiversity environmental protection markets, but other schemes have since been trialled or implemented in the UK, France, Germany and, indeed, some state jurisdictions in Australia. These schemes take a number of forms, but at the heart of them is connecting different parties, through appropriate and well-designed regulation, to achieve the maximum mutually beneficial gain and policy outcomes. I want to talk about the importance of well-designed regulatory arrangements for markets in the context of what we're trying to achieve here, because this is a setting where well-designed regulation is absolutely fundamental. Let's think for a moment about a simple possible transaction between a developer and a farmer or landholder. We could leave that to a bilateral arrangement, as we might do in other situations. For example, in the situation of a consumer looking for a seller of food we tend to leave those people to find each other. We set some regulatory standards—for example, by having minimum standards for the food—but we generally let people find each other. But in this context, if we didn't have a well-designed market—if we instead left developers or other companies seeking ESG outcomes to find those who hold land—extremely complicated searches to find matches between those parties would be required, and that wouldn't occur in practice. That's why well-designed markets in this context are extremely important. We would also find there was insufficient integrity in these markets in many cases. In some contexts in the case of offset markets a party might have an obligation. Not in this context at the moment but in examples of similar markets overseas, integrity is absolutely critical in seeing those obligations satisfied, in order for the ultimate objective to be achieved. It's also critical, when there is complexity in the transactions, that markets are designed in order for there to be transparency. We have here a situation where we are trying to achieve biodiversity or environmental outcomes but there are a number of complexities. I want to run through a couple of the complexities that make absolutely clear why we can't simply leave it to people to find each other, which is what happens in some other parts of the economy. There can be what you might describe as transactional complexities. Let's say, for example, that somebody is trying to achieve a particular outcome by planting five of tree type A and three of tree type B. They might be able to find a landholder who can achieve part of that but not all of it. In trying to achieve environmental outcomes there will be many instances where the person who is trying to achieve the outcome has to find multiple landholders. That adds a great deal of complexity to the achievement of the goal. The other side of the transaction in these contexts can also be complex. You might have a landholder who has a great deal of environmental benefit to gain from repairing their land, but that potential may not be realisable through an engagement with just one particular developer or corporation. So what we have here is a double-sided complexity where, on one side, landholders have to transact with multiple parties—multiple developers or corporations—with ESG obligations or goals and, on the other side, each of those parties needs to seek multiple landholders. In reality, that often won't be possible through letting people find each other. That's where markets, if they're well-designed, can step in, because they can match those different parties in such a way that their obligations and goals can be simultaneously achieved. There are other transaction complexities that arise in the particular context of environmental goals. It's often critical that certain environmental goals be achieved by coordination across multiple landholders—for example, if you're trying to achieve a wildlife corridor. That will require a degree of coordination that may not be possible if you let everybody engage with each other in bilateral transactions in, what you might call, a free-for-all. There might be benefits from achieving environmental outcomes of a particular type—for example, the planting of particular trees or the development of particular ecosystems at a certain scale. That might require contiguous developments. Again, that kind of coordination may not be possible if you allow everybody to engage in a free-for-all. So achieving the environmental obligations will often not be possible unless you set up arrangements that are well designed and a market that connects people in a way that maximises the achievement of policy goals. There can often be policy complexities in this setting. There might be dozens or hundreds of different tree types, dozens of different types of ecosystems that are being repaired. It can be very difficult, in practice, for those who are seeking to achieve these policy objectives to do it through bilateral transactions between themselves and landholders. There can often be strategic difficulties. Well-designed markets can help because integrity is achievable, and that won't be achieved if the market doesn't have some standards set for each transaction. There can be thin markets. If there are many different types of ecosystems or trees, for example, it might be that there aren't that many people transacting on either side. This is a problem that we see in many contexts. That's why many markets establish what are called clearing houses or central trading areas, where all the different buyers and sellers come together to thicken markets, to make markets more effective. While that is a beneficial regulatory move, in and of itself, the critical thing in this context is that it often won't be enough to achieve the objectives. Where you have thin markets, where you have not many buyers or sellers in a particular type of transaction—for example, for a particular type of tree—you also need to deal with all of the complexities that I talked about earlier. All of these are examples of why, if you don't design markets well, if you don't bring people together, the kinds of outcomes that you're seeking—the kinds of environmental outcomes, the kinds of offsets from particular types of development or the satisfaction of ESG goals, ultimately repairing the environment as the goal—won't be achievable. They won't be achievable unless you set up markets that can coordinate people's activities and bring them together. A well-designed market can match people, bring them together and coordinate their activities. As other speakers have talked about, the potential here for gain is massive. It has been estimated that biodiversity markets could generate more than $137 billion in financial flows. That represents a huge amount of repair of the environment. So the potential gain here is massive. But that potential gain relies upon well-designed markets, which take us from a position of relying upon very limited bilateral swaps to one of helping bring people together, to achieve win-win transactions in a much more socially optimal way. I've talked a lot about market design, which can become a very technical subject but it's a very important one. Just about everybody in this chamber agrees that nature repair is important, but the mechanism we use to achieve that is also extremely important. It's not enough for us to have aspirations to achieve public policy goals. In some contexts, we also need to define, design and implement mechanisms that, in practice, overcome a lot of the transaction and policy difficulties that can thwart those attempts. As I mentioned earlier, and also in other speeches in this place, there are many other contexts where I believe that these kinds of markets could produce significant social gains. Whether it's services in areas like assisting people to get a job—our employment services market—or whether it's the NDIS or a range of other areas, well-designed markets have the potential to bring people together in ways that significantly increase the surplus and the mutual gains that arise from trade. At their heart, markets are about connecting people or organisations. We usually think about that in the context of very simple transactions—somebody down at the market looking for fruit and deciding whether or not to buy the fruit based upon whether they value that particular object more than the price it's being offered for. Or it's somebody wandering around a supermarket, or hopping online to buy services. I think it's absolutely critical to remember that, at their heart, markets are about connecting people and doing so in a way that brings together mutually beneficial transactions. That's what drives so many of the benefits that all of us enjoy in our broader economy. But in the context of many public policy applications of markets, we need to be very careful in how we use markets. That's why I think this bill is so important. If we don't have a well-designed market in the context of the environment, we're not going to achieve the ultimate goals—the biodiversity goals and the nature repair goals which we're seeking. That's why this bill is such an important step forward. 12:01 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I want to state from the outset that I'm not opposed to farmers being compensated for protecting the environment for the benefit of the greater good. But I will say that I've been watching this debate with some interest, and speech after speech has been by people who actually have no concept of what this means in a practical sense. These are people who live in suburbia, who live in completely concreted and altered parts of the environment. I haven't heard one speech where they talk about the people they represent maybe changing what they're doing. One of the great misconceptions is that the environment in Australia is somehow in a terrible state of decline. I find that deeply offensive to the people of regional Australia. My own family—my brothers and I—was one of the first to experiment with zero-till farming back in the 1970s. That has been a revolution which increased soil carbon, reduced erosion and made large areas of Australia highly productive. I'll say from the outset that the motivation for protecting the environment and biodiversity is always around the increase in production. The motivation to look after the land that you're in charge of is in production-earning income, because if you let your land decline and haven't looked after the health of your soil or planted trees along waterways, shade lines or whatever, then you're not productive. Many of those issues which are being spoken about here may have been relevant in 1920 but they're certainly not relevant today. I've heard that in some of the speeches. The member for Warringah was a classic example. She called for the stopping of old-growth logging in forests. She lives in an electorate that's completely altered. Where do the houses in Warringah come from? Trees are being cut down and there are holes in the ground where the bricks were made. Carbon has been emitted while the cement was being made. What sort of a fairyland do these people live in? And then they say, 'We've got what we want, so you folks out there can just stop what you're doing.' The world's population is at seven billion, and heading to 10 billion in a very short time, but not one of these speeches has talked about what they're going to eat. These credits and agreements that are being signed up to are for 25 to 100 years. How do we know what the circumstances will be in that time? Are we locking future generations into poverty because we reduced or stopped the ability to produce food because it suited people who live in urban areas to balance off their emissions—the large corporations to pay farmers to lock-up their land and plant trees? What possible benefit is that going to have for future generations of this country? It's breathtaking to see. It's like we're in a vacuum, in a debating chamber in a first-year university class where people are signalling their virtue and having all the theories under the sun but not having one practical idea of what it means to people on the ground. Returning to my friend the member for Warringah and cutting old growth forests, 15 years ago the Labor government in New South Wales wiped out the cypress pine timber industry in the Pilliga Forest. It employed hundreds of people in a forest that was managed. The undergrowth was managed. Since that time, it has burnt in large amounts in incredibly hot fires. Koalas and sensitive vegetation have been destroyed by very hot fires because the forest has just been locked up and left. At the moment we have an issue with some very sensitive caves in the Pilliga that have great value to the local Gamilaraay people that are being destroyed by feral goats because there's no management in there looking after these things. In the wetlands of the Gwydir River west of Moree there are thousands of feral pigs because there's no-one in there to manage them. So the idea that locking up land—I'll tell you what the idea is, Member for Macquarie. Locking up land, thinking that locking it up is good for the environment, is a falsehood. It's an absolute falsehood. Adjoining my property at Bingara is a stock route that hasn't been used for years. It is now overgrown with cypress pine and prickly pear; rabbits and feral pigs live in there. Over the fence on my property, where we rotationally graze—we manage the level of vegetation—the hardest working people on my farm are the dung beetles. They are the unsung heroes of regional Australia, building up soil carbon. We're going into a dry time. The livestock are still doing well. It's a healthy, active environment. This idea of locking it up—and then the next step over is somehow this idea that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have an innate ability to be the overall best land managers. Handing over the final say in a deal that you might be doing on conserving a part of your land, taking the money—I understand all of that; I'm not opposed to that—but then having another body, the local land council or someone like that, come in to have a final say on whether this ticks off or not is not what Australia is all about. Freehold land is freehold land, and the decisions should be made on that by the people that own it. Bringing in a third party is not going to help this process. It will be just another clip of the ticket, another lot of rent-seeking going on in this process. My concern, if we go forward into the years to come, in a hundred years—if you go back a hundred years, in Australia people were farming with horses, in horse teams. The government with closer settlement would take blocks of land from people if they actually hadn't cleared it and turned into it productive use. Soldier settlers—I was at Piallaway hall celebrating its hundredth birthday on Saturday. That community was built by closer settlement, by people coming in and changing the landscape. A hundred years on, that is still a productive area. It's still a vibrant living environment that's sequestering carbon, that's doing its bit because of the stewardship of the people that are there. We need to be very careful with what we do here. As I said at the start, I'm not opposed to farmers being compensated because they are using part of their property for conservation. This was actually a policy started under the previous government, and I was supportive of that. But, as per usual, because of the current government's lack of any practical understanding outside these four walls of what this stuff means, it's going that step further. It makes this unworkable. It impinges on the rights of individual Australians to produce and own land. But, big picture, it's about understanding that Australia feeds 50 million people outside of Australia. Countries around the world that can't produce the protein that we can rely on us. So why on earth are we trying to restrict that ability? Members opposite know the balance of payment. The sectors that got us through the pandemic, agriculture and mining, are all being negatively impacted by this sort of legislation. Back to the idea that we will cut all old-growth forests—we'll just buy our timber from a Third World country's old-growth forest where they don't have any regulations. 'That's all right. We'll let them denude their country because they need a balance of payments.' No regulations and it comes in on a ship, but boy we feel good. We've stopped our timber workers, the ones down in Gippsland now being told by the Victorian government that they have no future, but we feel good about ourselves, don't we? Now the timber is going to come in from Indonesia, South America or somewhere like that. We live in a global environment. It's not just about signalling our virtue with what we do here. We need to understand that, if we do things here and start importing things from somewhere else, the environment of the globe actually suffers. We saw that with the cement industry. Way back in 2008 or 2009, when the first discussion on a carbon tax came in—I'll digress a bit, Deputy Speaker, please—just on the strength of that, Cement Australia shut the plant at Kandos. It had been there for years and years. So where does the cement that comes in to build the suburbs that our good friends on the other side live in come from now, do you think? It comes in on a ship through the harbour, probably from Indonesia. No environmental laws there, but we feel good. We've closed down an industry in Kandos that was there for dozens of years, maybe 100 years or so. Those people don't have a job, but we've done our job here in Australia, haven't we? That's what happens with going a step further. If it had stuck to its original concept, I would have supported this bill, because the other thing that's related to this is offsets. Taking your family to Disneyland for a holiday and ticking the green box so someone locks up a bit of forest somewhere or plants a few trees helps your conscience, but it still hasn't reduced your own emissions. What I want to see and hear is a debate where everyone in here looks at what their electorates can do to reduce emissions and look after the environment. It's all well and good for the member for Warringah to talk about the Tarkine—how far is that from Warringah? It's across the Bass Strait. Seriously, when will we start to see policy in here where all Australians can carry the weight evenly rather than just regional Australians, the people who have actually been carrying the economic responsibility of keeping this country solvent? We keep trimming away their ability to do that, whether we're restricting mining—we've had the Greens over here wanting to ban coal mining and gas—or, now, having this attack on productive agricultural farming. A bit of this is fine. I've got some carbon sinks in my electorate. A bit of it's fine, but I don't want the whole of my electorate covered in trees. We're talking about the environment. You take out a productive farm, you plant it with trees and everyone feels good about themselves. What happens to the people that ran that farm? What happens to the business that supplied the drench, the fertiliser, the seed? What happens to the people that sheared the sheep on that farm? What happens to the company in town that owned the truck that carted the grain to the terminal? It's all gone. Then what happens to the person in town who's a schoolteacher with a reduced number of kids? What about the hairdresser, the coffee shop, the supermarket? This is an attack on country Australia. While we're all feeling good over there about protecting the environment but not doing one thing ourselves, bit by bit you're strangling regional Australia to a point where it's no longer viable. I'm opposed to this bill. I'm sorry that I have to be, because in its original form, as put up by the last government, it would have been a positive one. Now I'm afraid to say it is potentially dangerous in the longer term for this country, and I no longer will support it. 12:16 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill before the House of Representatives today, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Labor wants to leave our natural spaces better off for the next generation. I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Parkes. We represent quite different regions within New South Wales. I'm sad that he feels unable to support a bill that will leave this country better off for the next generations. There are plenty of farmers who actually regard themselves as some of the best stewards and guardians of this land and are very, very keen to participate in a scheme that would assist them to ensure that their productive farmlands are able to both produce product for the nation and export but also conserve really important parts of our biodiversity in this nation. I look forward to working with farmers not just in New South Wales but across this country who have a deep, deep connection to this land, and their knowledge and skills will be vital in helping ensure that we do leave our natural spaces better off for those that come after us. This bill is going to introduce a world-first scheme. No-one has tried this before. But it should not be beyond Australia to lead the world in these matters. This is going to be a scheme where landowners can be paid by a third party for protecting and restoring nature on their land. We're supporting farmers and First Nations communities—who, of course, are significant landholders in this nation—to do things like replanting vital stretches of koala habitat, repairing damaged river beds or removing invasive species. It will mobilise and make it easier for business, philanthropists and others to invest in repairing nature across Australia, and it will allow them to buy a quality product that is verified and regulated so that they can be sure that their investment is big, long lasting and has great environmental impacts at the end. Investors, philanthropists and landowners everywhere want to know that their investment is going to count for something. This scheme will help ensure that is the case. A recent report found that by creating this biodiversity market Australia can unlock $137 billion to repair and protect our environment by 2050. That is an extraordinary sum of money—$137 billion. It is extraordinary that those opposite might be offended by the creation of a market solution to our biodiversity issues, but there you go. Strange things happen in politics. The purpose of this bill, let's not forget, is to establish a voluntary market framework to support landholders in protecting and restoring nature. It will include, importantly, a traceable biodiversity certificate, assurance and compliance arrangements, a public register and a nationally consistent approach for measuring biodiversity outcomes. There are some terrific examples of what this scheme might deliver and some of the possible projects that it could include. Where landholders see that they have a natural marsh that needs restoration because it's a critical habitat for diverse native frogs, fish, turtles and wetland bird species, this scheme might assist in the provision of money to help remove drainage ditches and carve out livestock and feral herbivores from those areas as necessary. It might include projects like the Indigenous rangers, who undertake a lot of feral animal exclusions now but need additional support. They do things such as buffel grass removal, feral cat control and cultural burning, like we see in the central desert and the savannas in northern Australia. The certificate generated for projects like that could support Indigenous rangers working on country for activities for many years to come. It's a whole new source of income for the Indigenous rangers project, which we know is phenomenally successful in this country. It could help with projects like restoring a seagrass meadow permanently lost from historic poor catchment water quality, providing habitat for sea turtles, dugongs, marine fish and seahorses. Monitoring could be provided by local commercial and recreational fishers, who foresee local increased fish stocks. That's what they want to see in their waters, which they want to see as continued productive spaces in this nation. After 10 years of inaction on this front—we heard that there were some possible thoughts and some groundwork being laid by the former government, but nothing happened—the Labor government have taken up that baton, and we've said that we can't tolerate inaction on this front any longer. We can't see the state of our natural surrounds fall to disrepair and misuse. We need to rebuild trust. We need to restore public confidence and public accountability. These are key to the government's Nature Positive Plan. The market will be regulated by the Clean Energy Regulator, which 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 outcomes. An independent committee will be there to provide advice to the minister about the methods that set the rules for the projects. That's important too. The status and ownership of certificates will be tracked through a public register. So high levels of accountability are built into this scheme. As I said, this scheme is a world first. Australia is absolutely well placed to be a leader in this regard, and it comes as no surprise to me that it will be the Australian Labor Party to lead on this front. We are, after all, the party that has delivered every significant environmental reform in Australia. No other party has consistently acted to protect our natural assets, as the Australian Labor Party has. In 1983, Labor saved the Franklin River from being dammed. Labor protected the Daintree, Kakadu and Tasmanian World Heritage areas. Labor reformed the native forest industry and protected the most important old-growth stands across the country. Between 2007 and 2013, the federal Labor government built the largest network of marine national parks in the world, and we set Australia on a path to a low-carbon future. We protected 170,000 hectares of Tasmania's forests as World Heritage and halted the supertrawler. While these are big, headline actions that inspire, Labor, importantly, have also embedded environment into our planning processes, and we've built ways to assess, regulate and enforce environment controls. In the early 1970s, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam appointed Australia's second federal environment minister, Moss Cass, and the country's first urban planning minister, Tom Uren. Under Whitlam, the nation's first environmental impact statement inquiry was established and found that the sand mining on Queensland's Fraser Island was untenable. Embedding environmental outcomes while building the nation and its prosperity was central to the endeavours of the Whitlam government and the modernisation of the Labor mission. Australia is home to some is of the most stunning natural environments in the world, but, after a decade of neglect under the Liberals and the Nationals, many of those places are now in a state of unacceptable disrepair. This has jeopardised efforts to protect threatened species and conserve natural habitats while undermining tourism opportunities for our regional economies. The nature repair market forms part of our Nature Positive Plan to protect more of what's precious to us all, repair more of what's damaged and manage nature better for the future. The government is rewriting Australia's old, broken environment laws to better protect our environment and make clearer, faster decisions. At the heart of this plan is $121 million to establish Environment Protection Australia to restore trust to a system that badly needs it. The EPA will be a tough cop on the beat. It will transform our system of environmental approvals. It will be transparent and independent. It will make environmental assessments, decide project approvals and the conditions attached to them, and it will make sure that those conditions are being followed on the ground. Our budget last month provided urgent funding to save some of Australia's most precious places and those who look after them, including $262.3 million to support our Commonwealth national parks. This is new funding that will go to upgrading or replacing outdated infrastructure, ensuring staff can carry out threatened species protection, increasing opportunities for First Nations employment and businesses and much more. We also had $92.8 million for urgent upgrades in the town of Mutitjulu within the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park to provide critical infrastructure like water, sewerage and electricity—basic essentials many of us take for granted. We'd like to provide those and make sure that the Mutitjulu community also get to enjoy important infrastructure and connectivity. We want to help deliver better outcomes in terms of health and housing in that community, too. This is an important investment. We also had $163.4 million to ensure the Australian Institute of Marine Science can contribute to providing world-leading scientific marine research and protect our oceans, including the Great Barrier Reef. We had $45.2 million for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to address a critical backlog of repairs there. There are deteriorating walls, docks and seawall stabilisation, and there are safety concerns, like the rock falls from the cliff. Other maintenance is needed to ensure public safety and avoid permanent loss of heritage value. We're also investing $236 million to establish a national and reliable flood warning system—an issue that is important to each and every one of us in this parliament, I would have thought. The funding will be used to purchase and upgrade gauges, ensuring that communities in flood-prone areas can be better prepared and supported. We want to protect our environment from destruction, but our ambition for nature is much bigger than that. Just like the Hawke government established Landcare, we want to restore environments that have been damaged in the past. That's how we build a truly nature-positive Australia, leaving our environment in a better state for our kids and our grandkids. The Albanese Labor government is investing in projects that repair nature, including money to support our programs that repair world heritage properties and restore Ramsar wetlands. I have a Ramsar wetland in my electorate, at the Hunter Wetlands National Park. They are critical to our natural wellbeing. Having money go into those wetlands is something we should all applaud. We also have funds towards conserving threatened species and ecosystems. There's another $118.5 million to help community groups, NGOs, local governments and First Nations groups carry out projects to clean up and restore local urban rivers and waterways. These projects include activities like planting native species along creeks and building small-scale wetlands to filter pollution and improve water quality. We're investing $7.7 million to support landholders to carry out activities to repair nature, by establishing a world-leading nature repair market. That's the subject of today's bill. That's what I seek support for from everybody in this House. We want to be a country that stops environmental decline and does the heavy lifting of repairing our nature now. I ask everyone to join the government in this ambitious goal. As I said, it should not be beyond the Australian government to do so. We have long fought for nature on the world stage. Let a Labor government again put us on the world stage with the passage of this legislation today. 12:31 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on this bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. The need to repair and restore our natural environment, particularly in the face of alarming species loss, is upon us. Australia is experiencing high rates of extinction, with countless species teetering on the edge of disappearance at a faster rate than anywhere else on this planet. It is our moral duty and responsibility to take immediate action to protect and restore nature, preserving the incredible biodiversity that sustains our ecosystems and enriches our lives. The Nature Repair Market Bill provides a sensible framework to assist landholders to facilitate the repair of our lands and waterways, through a market mechanism. Such a mechanism will encourage the committal of land that would otherwise not be offered for this purpose. I would just like to consider a couple of the issues raised by the member for Parkes. It's fair to say that there is potentially a concern about prime agricultural farmland. About four to six per cent of South Australia is considered prime agricultural farmland. I don't think we want to see that locked away. I think that that's reasonable. We know we are going to have a growing global population, and we want to be able to produce as much food as we can. I do think, though, in many of our electorates, it's actually urban sprawl that's the biggest challenge our farmland faces. We need to make sure that we are limiting urban sprawl. Certainly in my electorate I'm seeing far too many really good hectares carved up and lots of tiny 400 square metre blocks put in their place. The cows are gone, the lucerne's gone and there are wall-to-wall houses. We need to make sure that, when we do development, we need to do it sustainably so that it still keeps our farmland—much like they do in France and most of Europe—and that, when we're looking at urban development, we do it within those urban areas. We know from experience that market driven systems are an effective way to provide an outcome by financial incentivisation. Allowing diversity certificates, that may also be sold to interested persons in the market, will create an opportunity for landholders to assess the value of their land in terms beyond its agricultural or other working use. It will provide landholders with the opportunity to remove portions of their land for specific environmental projects, with appropriate financial compensation. I might also say that I do recognise what the member for Parkes was saying with respect to us sharing, right across this parliament and right across our electorates, the burden of reducing our emissions. That shouldn't just be sitting purely with regional Australia. We need to make sure we're all doing our fair share of lifting. I know, in my community, many farmers are concerned about the conversations in here that some people have had with respect to methane, and those conversations have often been from members that I don't think would even have a cow in their electorate. However, I digress. It is so important that we consider all options to improve the health of ecosystems that are vital for the survival and recovery of species. This bill is just one tool and complements the suite of other environmental legislation that seeks to preserve our natural habitat. This bill will foster a sense of stewardship and promote sustainable practices, and it will inspire individuals and communities to actively participate in the protection of endangered species and their habitats beyond present levels. Landholders, particularly in the agricultural sector, are proud custodians of their land, despite the many wrongful criticisms of this sector, having engaged in continual land management improvement practices. This has resulted in linear improvements in crop yields, low fertiliser use and the maintenance of soil profiles. I'm confident that this bill will encourage these custodians of the land to look at how they can further improve the land beyond its productive capacity, and I know that within my own electorate I have many landowners who would jump at this opportunity to set aside sections of land for projects that will result in tradeable biodiversity certificates. One such landholder is a lovely gentleman I know called Richard Lintern. I've spoken about Richard in this place previously. Richard is a generational landholder in Mount Torrens in the Adelaide Hills. His property has been used over the generations for various farming enterprises, including grazing. Richard's property has a unique history. Not only was it used for productive agriculture; it was also home to the locally renowned Boundary Race. The race brought riders and their horses from surrounding areas to battle for the honour of winning the local race, which criss-crossed his property. Riders would race past many historical buildings, which were used for barbecues, tickets, betting and beer service. These buildings and the home straight posts remain as a reminder of the once grand community event. Richard is proud of the history and natural beauty of his property and wants to return a significant portion of that property to native vegetation title, to create a conservation oasis for the many flora and fauna species—such as kangaroos, echidnas and black cockatoos—that are thriving on his property now. In Richard's case, this Nature Repair Bill will provide an opportunity to monetise a great contribution to environmental repair. This is about choice for farmers, and it is about monetisation, which I think is really important and certainly due. I'm sure there will be many others like Richard, and the environment will be a beneficiary. So I support this bill. 12:37 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Australian poet Judith Wright wrote of the wild black cockatoos: Tossed on the crest of their high trees Crying the world's unrest. And the world is restless. We have come to a point where our own actions have made life more difficult for many species, both flora and fauna. Where I come from, in Noongar boodja, the karak—the black cockatoos—of three subspecies are under severe pressure. Mammals, birds, reptiles and vegetation are under threat in different ways and through different causes all over Australia. If we agree that this is an issue—and I'm sure we agree on that point—then we can only differ in the way in which we decide we need to respond. There are different ways to respond to biodiversity threats, and they are not exclusive. One way is to improve protection. The budget provides for a new Commonwealth protective regime for the environment, an overarching EPA, which will better ensure that development occurs in a manner consistent with environmental values and outcomes. This is no small change: $121 million has been budgeted over four years for Environment Protection Australia and $51.5 million for Environment Information Australia to ensure that decisions by the EPA are well founded and better information is available to the community as well. It would be wonderful if protection were enough. The parlous state of many of our environments tells us that we need to do more. Members are often on their feet in this place speaking of evidence based policy, and that is fair enough. We should always look for evidence to underpin our policymaking in health, in education and in every area of government. Failure to base our policymaking on the best available evidence leads inexorably to ills such as the terrible delays in this country taking proper climate action, with this Labor government now having to play catch-up. Protection has not been enough. The evidence for this is contained in many places—in the hills and the valleys, in our towns and waterways, and in the diminishing count of many species that once flourished in this country. It is contained in the Samuel report. In October 2020, Graeme Samuel stated: Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. He called for: … actively restoring the environment and facilitating the scale of investment needed to deliver better outcomes. The new Commonwealth environment protection agency, as good as it will be, will not be charged with actively restoring the environment, nor will it be charged with facilitating investment. It will have a different regulatory role. The current bill is designed to meet Samuel's challenge. He further stated: The scale of the task ahead is significant and is too large for governments to try to solve alone. To support greater collaboration between governments and the private sector, new mechanisms are needed to leverage the scale of investment that will be needed for decades to come. We already engage positively as a society with nature, through cultural activities like hiking and camping, and we engage positively through laws and regulations designed to protect. The budget goes further than ever before in that regard, as I mentioned earlier. This bill for a nature repair market seeks to allow more people to engage positively with nature through the economy, by making the repair of nature more visibly and actively an economic good. It encourages those who already do this work to do more and to receive benefit, and it encourages more people, businesses, not-for-profits, associations, councils, Indigenous organisations and companies to engage. I have heard the usual wobblies from some members opposite, that the scheme will somehow be compulsory. It isn't. I've heard that it will eat up valuable farmland. It won't. Members need to catch up. On 29 April this year, I attended an incredibly informative workshop hosted by the knowledgeable Chris Ferreira, founder of the Forever Project. That organisation is proud to have provided environmental education to over 130,000 people over the last 30 years. Chris taught us how to create our own patch of rural paradise through healthy soil, water and land management. Sharing details with the workshop attendees of the government's nature repair market plan gave life to those ideas and gave hope to those landholders as to how they could enact that change to restore their land by having the backing of those businesses, not-for-profits and community organisations through the unlocking of their share of the $137 billion that this is forecast to provide. This will enable them to put into practice the nature restoration that Chris spoke about. There are dozens of environmental groups within the peri-urban electorate of Hasluck, each with a particular focus. I will name just some: the Perth Hills Climate Change Interest Group, Trillion Trees Australia, the Citizens Climate Lobby Hasluck Chapter, the Susannah Brook Catchment Group Inc., the Blackadder Woodbridge Catchment Group, the Jane Brook Catchment Group Inc., Kanyana Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre and the Ellenbrook Bushland Group. These groups and others will follow this debate with keen interest, and some of them will no doubt seek to add economic action to their political advocacy. The business community, too, is happily waiting for this scheme to begin. Law firms up and down the main street of every city—Minter Ellison, Corrs and others—have already published advice to their clients about this new market. I invite members opposite to get on board. I understand that this legislation is heralded as the first of its kind in the world. That, by itself, it might cause some disquiet. I've only been here for a year, but I know this about legislation: for every piece of legislation, sometime, somewhere, it was the first of its kind. Pensions, universal education, Medicare, superannuation—some innovative person somewhere came up with an excellent idea and then everyone else copied them and later called it normal, even mundane. It's okay to be first. It's wonderful. 12:44 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina What is particularly interesting in this debate is how city-centric members come into this chamber— Government members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I didn't interrupt either of you, so don't you interrupt me—and tell us what is good for country people, like they'd know, as if they're some sort of authority as to how regional people should be living their lives. I note that the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the amendments have amendments by the Teal members for Goldstein and for Wentworth. I also note the procession of metropolitan Labor MPs who have lined up to tell us what is good for us. When I say 'us', I mean country people. Mrs Marino HWP Yes, they're doing us a favour. Mr McCORMACK 219646 As the member for Forrest says, as though 'they're doing us a favour'. I'm glad that the member for Flynn is in the chamber. I would urge and encourage anybody who wants to know more about this Nature Repair Market Bill to read the speech he delivered in this chamber last night. He had five years of experience in the Queensland parliament before he came here. He's doing a great job as a first-term member for Flynn, an electorate that is large and wide and takes in a considerable amount of agriculture. The member for Flynn himself knows all about transport and farming and comes to this place with lived experience. When you finish reading Colin Boyce's speech, then read the Member for Parkes's speech. He just delivered a great speech. It's one of his best ever. He got quite animated—and for good reason—because when you hear the Nationals and the Liberals talking about this Nature Repair Market Bill legislation, they come here with lived experience. They give firsthand accounts of having spoken to people in their electorates, in their communities, about the important things that we need to do to improve soil, to enhance productivity and to improve agriculture—not necessarily what is contained in this legislation. I note in the Treasurer's May budget speech, very early in his address, he obliquely—and it was very obliquely—referenced the 'high prices for the things we sell overseas'. I note that he could not possibly bring himself to say what those things actually were—coal, gas, iron ore, farm production, agriculture. They're the things that those opposite just don't seem to have a reality around. They don't seem to have that lived experience concept about what might be good for the mining or the agricultural industries. The member for Flynn will back me up on this. The Queensland budget surplus this week—apparently a record on the back of what we dig out of the ground and what we produce from regional areas—will pay for a lot of public servants, a lot of their pay increases, a lot of power, a lot of state hospitals and a lot of public schools, hospitals and schools which were once always the remit of state governments. Somehow, someway, as the Commonwealth, we have to pay for everything nowadays. But we're not going to be able to continue to pay for everything if we cruel those industries which are carrying this country, which, certainly during COVID-19, provided the backbone for this country to keep people alive. It absolutely angers me when members opposite, from their Labor dirt unit talking points, say, 'A trillion dollars worth of Liberal debt,' which ain't true. It's nowhere near a trillion dollars. But they say, 'What did we get for it?' What did we get for the debt that we are in now? I'll remind those members opposite, and I'll remind any member of the public listening, what we achieved from the spending during the worst times of COVID. I'll note we're not out of the woods yet with the global pandemic. We kept at least 60,000 people alive. That's 60,000 Australians who are alive now who otherwise would not be alive had we not spent that money, and who have jobs now who otherwise would not have jobs had we not spent that money. There are those businesses whose doors are still open that would be closed and bankrupted and forever have their doors shut but for the money that we spent. I say: good on the former member for Kooyong, the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg; he did an outstanding job and I hope to see him back here in the not too distant future. This city-centric Labor government does not, unfortunately, have a high regard for the regions. If it did, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have seen the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, help those regions with infrastructure money. Do you know what? For very first time in a quarter of a century the Treasurer of Australia stood at that dispatch box, just there, and did not mention the word 'infrastructure' once—not once, for the first time in 25 years. I call that out and I say it is a disgrace. I'll credit Labor with one thing: they are very sneaky, tricky and clever when it comes to naming bills. Some might say these bills, the 'nature repair market' bills, are cleverly titled. I call it out. I say they're deceptively titled, because, as the member for Flynn quite correctly pointed out in his contribution last night, nature is not broken. It's challenged, but it always is. It's challenged by the very fact that we live in a country of floods and droughts followed by more floods and more droughts. That is the nature of this country. It always has been; it always will be. Let me tell you, when we have a drought and then we have rains, nature bounces back far more quickly and far more easily than the farmers who till the soil, the farmers who work that land for a living—the farmers who every day we should say thank you to. We should say it every day, three times a day. Do you know when that is? When we tuck our knees under the table and eat something. We should say: 'Thank you, Australian farmers, for doing the job that you do. Thank you, Australian farmers, for the service that you provide, often without getting the money that you deserve.' That is because they are price takers, not price makers, our Australian farmers. I am proud to say that I come from a family of generational farmers. I am proud to say that my Riverina electorate produces some of the finest goods that our nation eats and our nation exports. I stand here beside a fine dairy farmer from Western Australia, in the member for Forrest, and I know how proud she is of her farm, her electorate and, indeed, the good folk of Western Australia who till the soil to provide market opportunities to help our balance of payments and put food on the table of Australians three times a day, every day. Mr Deputy Speaker, I'll tell you who will be broken if Labor continues its anti-rural policies. It won't be nature; it will be our farmers. The coalition is extremely worried about the passage of these bills. You only have to look at some of the media releases that the member for Capricornia has issued recently about her concern for farmers forced off the land because of renewables. We all like renewables. I appreciate that they are part of the transition to a clean energy future—I get that. I can stand here and say that. I can stand here and voice that view. And I know that certainly in the halls and classrooms of our schools, in community halls and in the corridors of power right across this nation renewables are widely and readily accepted and discussed, and that is a good thing. I also appreciate that at the last election, for whatever reason, people voted in some members who, quite frankly, have probably hardly ever visited regional Australia. It is a shame, because I think every member of this House needs to know what goes on in regional Australia and needs to know those industries that pay for the things that we all need in this nation. Unlike the Treasurer, I'm not frightened to say what those things are. I talk about things, not in oblique terms but in real terms. We do need to keep the lights on. We keep the lights on, at the moment, because of the mining industry. We keep the lights on, at the moment, because of coal. We keep the lights on, at the moment, yes, because of hydro energy. There's a mix, and it's important to have that balance. As the member for Capricornia rightly suggested in her 15 February 2023 media release, titled 'Farmers forced off land for renewables,' we shouldn't have renewables pushed at some holy altar ahead of what our farmers are doing. Farmers have been forced off prime agricultural land because of a situation with the Queensland government—and, no doubt, the Commonwealth government too—putting in place the risks for a dire situation which is facing farmers and locals of the Pioneer Valley and Eungella. What we're doing there is sacrificing prime agricultural land for renewables. At the moment, in my electorate, we've got a situation with massive solar farms taking the place of vital prime agricultural land. We only have a certain amount of prime agricultural land. You can't create prime agricultural land from the desert in the middle of Australia. Maybe they might invent something in the future that might be able to do that, but at the moment that's not quite possible. I appreciate that renewables are important, and also appreciate making sure that we have an energy transition in the future. I appreciate all of those things. But there's going to be a place for coal and gas, and that place is going to last for decades and decades and decades. That's not just because of the thousands upon tens of thousands of workers that they provide with jobs, but also because they keep the lights on, they keep us cool in summer, they keep us heated in winter and they pay for a fair amount—a jolly good amount—of exports which keep our schools and hospitals running. The member for Parkes, in his contribution, talked about the dire consequences of this strategy that Labor seems to engage in, and that is to lock it up and leave it. When you have a situation—and the member for Flynn mentioned it too—whereby some beaches and some hilltop walks are now shut to all of those except for native titleholders, I think that's a worry. I know the member for Flynn does too, because those sorts of places are important places for fishing, boating, camping and tourism. But we saw in the Black Summer bushfires what happens when you lock it up and leave it; what happens when you go down the Greens' way. The Greens' way would never, ever consider regional Australia and make it a priority. When you don't have controlled burning, when you lock up state forests and national parks and leave them, they get overrun by pests. They get overrun over by feral animals. They get overrun over by weeds and they get overrun with undergrowth. Then when you get hot summer weather and bushfire-prone conditions, it just takes a spark, or some idiot to throw a cigarette out the window of his or her car, and next thing—boom! You've got a conflagration. You've got a bushfire season, like we had in 2019-20, that costs lives, houses and businesses, and which comes at the expense, dare I say, of koalas and so many other native animals. So this legislation, the Nature Repair Market Bill, is, like most things with Labor, a doozy. It's ill-named. You've got to read the detail before you think, 'Well, is this worth supporting?' As with everything that this government brings forward, it's probably not, because the devil is in the detail. We want to have the best soils—and the member for Paterson and I are co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Soil—and we want the best outcomes, but they have to be practical. Locking up land and leaving it isn't doing the trick. 12:59 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I only caught the last portion of the member for Riverina's speech, but there was a fair bit of hyperbole there, I think, in those comments. I would say this to the member: what's clear about the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is that we're committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that nature, our nature, is better off for future generations. That's the fact. Our local parks and reserves don't just provide a precious habitat; they're also a place for people to get together for picnics, for kids' birthday parties, to enjoy nature and to enjoy being out there in the great outdoors. We teach our kids to ride their bikes out there, and we walk the dogs. So fixing up the waterways and the catchment areas around them gives people in the community better access to a higher quality of living, and will help protect threatened plants and animals in those spaces. The Albanese government wants to make it easier for people to invest in activities that help repair nature because they've invested in it; they're committed to it. We want to support landholders such as farmers and First Nations communities to repair the environment. This is through a whole range of activities such as planting native species, repairing damaged riverbeds and removing invasive species. The nature repair market is being formed as part of the broader Albanese government strategy to deliver on its Nature Positive Plan. This sets out the government's plan to reform our environmental laws to better protect, restore and manage our unique environment. At the moment, Australia's natural environment is deteriorating. That's just a fact. Our environment is simply not resilient enough to tolerate the threats that exist and are to come over the horizon. Native species are going extinct, habitat loss is occurring and cultural destruction is on the rise. That's why reforms are urgently needed. That's why the Albanese government is reforming our environmental laws, ensuring that we can protect our land and leave it in a better state than we found it. This includes taking steps to improve the repair of nature. The government is committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. This is the same goal adopted internationally under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. In order to attain these goals, we need significant investment in conservation. Business and private sector investors play an important role in helping to reverse environmental decline. These were important findings that Professor Graeme Samuel AC had highlighted as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review. The government is committed to supporting positive outcomes for nature. But we don't have to do it alone. Private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders continue to seek ways to support positive outcomes for nature. A biodiversity market could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in financial flows by 2050. This includes things like real estate, agriculture, mining, tourism and hospitality, which can help build nature-positive opportunities for Australia. When it comes to environmental protection, broader stakeholder engagement and collaboration is absolutely essential. All landholders, including Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, conservation groups and farmers, can be and should be involved. The projects will deliver long-term, nature-positive outcomes through activities such as weeding, planting native species and pest control—all good, practical measures. I'm not sure why those opposite are opposing that. These projects will even have scope to support regional Australia through jobs and nature-positive economic activity. Working with Indigenous Australians in a co-design capacity, we will listen to their unique knowledge and understanding of the land on their terms. There will be free, prior and informed consent for projects on their lands or waters. There will be employment opportunities for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. The nature repair market will work in line with the carbon market. This will be made simpler by the fact that they will have the same regulator. This alignment not only encourages carbon farming projects but also, in turn, delivers biodiversity benefits. This speaks directly to the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb. We're listening to the experts and ensuring learnings from the carbon market have shaped the bill. This bill will require that biodiversity certificates have integrity and represent an actual environmental improvement. This helps buyers invest with confidence. It will also have an independent expert committee that will ensure projects can deliver high-quality nature-positive outcomes. This is a key integrity measure this government is putting in place. Ongoing compliance requirements will also be monitored and reported on to ensure projects are implemented in accordance with the rules and procedures. The regulator will of course play an important role in this. The Nature Positive Plan will also help restore public accountability, trust and transparency. Transparency is clearly important to our government. We will ensure that detailed information about projects and certificates will be available on a public register. Additional information will also be published by the regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This will ensure additional oversight by the public and community. The department is also committed to working closely with the ACCC and ASIC. We want to ensure that certificates that are part of the nature repair market are reliable and that projects in the carbon and biodiversity markets are not impacted by misleading claims. But, as I've alluded to, those opposite are not only opposing these measures and this bill; when they were in government, our environment was simply deteriorating on their watch. They received, when they were in government, so many reports showing this. One of the biggest issues was having an offset system. The Nature Positive Plan approaches biodiversity offsets in a new way. We're making a commitment to offsets being the last resort. This government is also designing a new national standard for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets. These standards will give us the confidence we need in using biodiversity offsets under Commonwealth laws. Projects under this scheme will not be used as offsets unless and until they meet these new standards. This government—our government—actually wants to protect our environment. Last year, the Minister for the Environment and Water released the official five-yearly report card on the Australian environment, the State of the environment report. The former minister, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, refused to release this report to the Australian people. The opposition put their heads in the sand, thinking, 'If we ignore all these problems, they will simply go away.' They're not going to go away. That's just not true. That's just not our reality. Under the Liberal and National parties, there was a decade of damage and neglect to our environment. The report that was released by us, the Labor government, tells us that our environment is deteriorating. It tells us that Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. It tells us that plastics are choking our oceans. It tells us that the flow in most Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels. It's no surprise, given the environmental neglect by the opposition when they were in government over the last decade. They axed climate laws, they failed to fix our broken environmental laws and the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, publicly laughed about our Pacific Island neighbours going underwater, as if it were a funny joke. They set recycling targets, I'll give them that, but they had no actual plan to deliver them. They voted against the Safeguard Mechanism. They halved our protected areas of marine parks. They slashed billions of dollars from our environmental department. They've left this government, the new Labor government, with plenty of work to do. We recognise that. But it's no wonder the Australian people had had enough of them and their neglect. That's why today's bill is so important. It is important, as it gives our environment the attention and the support that it needs. I can't talk about positive outcomes for nature through this bill without also referring to one of my local residents in my electorate of Wills. Her name is Anne McGregor. She is President of the Merri Creek Management Committee and Vice-President of the Friends of Merri Creek, and she was awarded an OAM this week for her services to conservation. Anne's pivotal volunteer role has helped restore and repair Merri Creek and its surrounding areas—the nature in our area. Anne and her husband, Bruce McGregor, helped establish the Brunswick Merri Creek Action Group, which has advocated to protect and support important community areas and nature. I want to take a moment in this place to congratulate Anne and acknowledge the incredible role she plays in protecting the environment and protecting the nature around us in our electorate of Wills, in the northern part of Melbourne. I also want to reiterate this government's genuine commitment to repairing and restoring our environment through this bill. And, of course, as part of the Albanese government's first budget, we delivered our commitment to secure much-needed investments to recover and revitalise two creeks in my electorate, particularly—Merri Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek. We made a commitment of half a million dollars for Merri Creek and $2.16 million for Moonee Ponds Creek to remove the concrete, to renew those urban waterways that are so important as part of the local nature that can be enjoyed by our local communities. This government is genuinely committed to ensuring that our environment and our precious sites can be looked after. We've already got a track record on it since we got elected. This bill helps us to collaborate, ensuring that we make it easier for people to repair the environment. This bill also creates a new market for investing in nature-positive outcomes. It will support our commitment to repair ecosystems and reverse species decline and extinction. It also creates more investment and employment opportunities for a nature-positive economy. This will be a world-first scheme. Under our nature repair market, landowners can be rightfully paid for protecting and restoring the nature on their land. We'll make it easier for business, philanthropists and others to invest in repairing nature right across this wonderful continent. This bill will make it easier to protect and repair what we have, ensuring that nature is looked after for the future and, yes, for our kids and our grandkids. We've heard this being said by many members here. This is about future generations and our obligation and responsibility to do the best we can as lawmakers to protect our environment. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Home Affairs Bill 2023 37

Home Affairs Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 37 Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 37

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 37 13:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The government has moved amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill which have been passed by the other place, which I'll briefly explain. Amendments (1) and (2) relate to personal work related conduct. These first two amendments would insert avoidance of doubt provisions to clarify how the framework will operate where a person makes a mixed disclosure that contains elements of both personal work related conduct, such as an allegation of bullying, harassment or undue performance management, and integrity related wrongdoing, such as fraud, corruption or maladministration. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that the explanatory memorandum for the bill be amended to clarify the application of the personal work related conduct provisions. The government has implemented that recommendation and has tabled a replacement explanatory memorandum in the other place containing further detail on these provisions. These amendments go a step further to make clear that disclosures of integrity related wrongdoing will not be excluded from the public interest disclosure framework only because they also contain information or allegations about personal work related conduct, and they provide greater clarity for authorised officers in agencies about how to handle mixed disclosures. The third amendment deals with notification obligations where an authorised officer decides not to allocate a disclosure because there is no reasonable basis on which it could be considered an internal disclosure. In this circumstance, the amendment would require the authorised officer to notify a disclosure of any other course of action that might be available to them under another law or power. This amendment would broadly mirror other existing requirements in the act for authorised officers to provide information about how else a disclosure may take forward their disclosure of wrongdoing where the authorised officer has determined that the matter cannot be dealt with under the act. Question agreed to. Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 38

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 38 13:15 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I take great pleasure in joining the debate on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Many speakers on this side of the House, particularly within the National Party, have expressed some significant reservations with this bill from the outset, and I want to make it clear that I share many of their concerns. If passed, these two bills would create a legislative framework for the operation of a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. It must be recognised that, during our time in government, the coalition was moving in a similar direction, although it should be pointed out that the coalition approach was exclusively focused on agricultural land, whereas the application of Labor's bills has been widened to all land tenure and water. I am concerned, from the lived experience of a member in a regional location, that there are some unintended consequences coming down the pipeline with an initiative such as this. Communities like Gippsland are at the very pointy end of all aspects of natural resource management. On the surface, I would argue, we would almost always be supportive of additional resources being applied to national resource management, but it does need to be in a balanced approach. It does need to recognise the importance of agricultural land, particularly in terms of food security and particularly in terms of our national security as well. I have been concerned during this debate to hear members opposite and from the crossbench, in particular those from the privileged position of their city electorates, lecturing rural and regional Australians about issues surrounding biodiversity and climate change, and making sweeping statements about the environment which are often quite accusatory and almost always ill informed. In my electorate, the public land estate is enormous. In one of my municipalities, East Gippsland Shire, 75 per cent of the land is unrateable Crown land. Without any hesitation or any risk of being corrected, the public land estate has been neglected in Victoria for decades. So my reservation around the bill before the House today is that plans to lock up even more land—in this case, privately owned land—for privately funded biodiversity reserves will make many landholders in my community very, very nervous. It is well known in Gippsland that the worst neighbour to have is the state government. The worst neighbour is to have is land that is being managed by Parks Victoria because the land isn't being managed. 'Lock it up and leave it,' seems to have become a mantra in the state of Victoria. To lock it up and leave it is a recipe for disaster. We have seen the intrusion of feral animals through the public land estate—feral deer, pigs, foxes, cats and wild dogs. We have seen an increase in the amount of introduced species in terms of weeds impacting on private land. I have continually argued in this place over the last 15 years that we need to see more boots on the ground—more boots and fewer suits; more boots on the ground doing the practical environmental work, and fewer suits in Melbourne making excuses for why that work can't be done. The true environmentalists in this nation do not live in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne. They're not sitting in Adelaide and giving lectures to the people in the country. The true environmentalists of this nation are out in rural and regional Australia right now, doing practical environmental work on an almost daily basis. The people who own farmland in my electorate are absolutely committed to eliminating pest animal and plant species from their properties because it helps with their productivity. They fully understand the value of balance and making sure we get that balance right so that they can continue to earn a living in the communities they love but also to recognise the important biodiversity values of the surrounding land. The reason I have such great reservations about this bill and any unintended consequences that might come as a result is the current debate I'm seeing in Victoria, in relation to the native hardwood timber industry on public land. This is an example where we have a world-class and sustainable industry in Victoria. Again, members opposite and from the crossbench are speaking from a position of enormous privilege. They represent electorates with the highest individual household incomes in the nation and are calling for the abolition of all native timber harvesting in this country, calling for people with some of the lowest household incomes in this nation to lose that income. That is what we're seeing in Victoria right now, and it plays into my concerns about the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. We need to put a few facts on the record, in relation to the timber industry, in the context of this bill. To begin with, there are internationally recognised definitions of deforestation or land clearing—that is, the permanent removal of a forest and its conversion to non-forested land. That is not what is happening in Victoria today. In Victoria today we have sustainable native timber harvesting, where the forests are regenerated following harvesting, to ensure there's no net loss over time in a forested area. In Victoria today, the customers and contractors to VicForests make significant economic contributions to the Victorian economy—around $500 million per year, supporting 4,000 jobs. These are real jobs for Victorians who rely on the forest industry, and the forest industry actually contributes to the biodiversity of our region. Beyond those directly involved in the forest industry, all Victorians benefit from the operations of VicForests, which produces high-quality timber products in our state. This is an industry that provides the state with structural timber, which is used for homes, high-grade wood for furniture and musical instruments, and a range of other everyday and essential products. The reason I raise this in the context of today's debate is to talk about the alternative source of timber in our nation. The alternative source is plantation. Plantation timber comes from a monoculture. Whether they're pine or hardwood plantations, these are monocultures. They are not contributing to the biodiversity outcomes that the government says it wants to achieve through the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. They are not contributing to the biodiversity outcomes that a well-managed native hardwood forest and mixed species forest achieves. My scepticism about this bill stems from the failure of those opposite to stand up for the native hardwood timber industry in Victoria, when it is an industry that is entirely sustainable and would achieve some of the outcomes and ambitions—the rather glorious ambitions—of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 before the House. We would get poorer biodiversity outcomes from plantations than we do from mixed species hardwood timber. These managed mixed species forests are delivering social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits to our communities, yet the Labor Party in Victoria wants to ban all of the native hardwood timber industry, and those opposite in this place who come from Victoria are too gutless to stand up for blue-collar workers. That's a sad but simple fact. They are too gutless to say to Premier Dan Andrews, 'We don't support you. We don't like what you're doing to blue-collar workers. We don't think it's a good idea to take orders from the Greens.' They are too gutless—as Labor members who used to stand up for blue-collar workers—to stand up to the Premier and say, 'Enough is enough. We want to use our own sustainable hardwood timber in Victoria.' It's important to note that when we talk about the timber industry in Victoria we're not talking about old-growth forests. Those on the crossbench, the teals, the Greens, will have you believe that in Victoria today we are harvesting old-growth forest. In 2019, as part of the Victorian forestry plan, the Victorian government announced an immediate end to harvesting all old-growth forest. The majority of old-growth forest was already protected in Victoria's comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. Even prior to the 2019 announcement, most old-growth forest in Victoria was protected. The industry goes even further than protecting old-growth forest; it also protects old trees. In 2018 the Victorian government committed to protect all large old trees, greater than 2½ metres in diameter, across the state. Again, we have a good biodiversity outcome being achieved from a well-managed forest on public land, which is being thrown out the window for a political purpose, not environmental purposes, and which is the basis of my concerns with this legislation before the House. If we're not already prepared to look after the publicly owned reserve system—it's already being overrun by weeds and feral animals, and the Labor Party in Victoria is already abandoning regional communities and taking people out of those communities who would be responsible for managing that public land estate—why on earth would we believe the Labor Party in this place when it says that locking up more land, in this case private land, is going to be a good result? What happens when we have a farmer who is living next door to a new biodiversity reserve, and the owners of that biodiversity reserve fail to look after it properly—when it becomes overrun with pest, plants and animals just like the state forests in Victoria? What happens is those poorly managed areas of land become a haven for feral animals. They become a haven for weeds. They become the cause of bushfires which come out of public land—and in this case would come out of a biodiversity reserve area—and burn out the properties of nearby landholders. So I do have great concerns with the legislation before the House, notwithstanding the fact that I do see some benefits for farmers, in particular, if they can be paid to be part of the biodiversity and conservation challenge. I do see some benefits, indeed, but the bill before the House raises more questions for me than answers. And I'm unconvinced that this government, taking orders from the Greens, is properly placed to make the right decisions. I want to refer members opposite, and tell them to take the opportunity to listen to—or at least read through—a couple of speeches that were made in this place in the last 24 hours from members of my own party, the National Party. I encourage them to have a look at the speeches from the member for Riverina, beside me, but also those yesterday from the member for Flynn and today from the member for Parkes. They all raised some very substantial questions in relation to the risk of more productive agricultural land being locked up. All three of them raised questions about how we're going to achieve our food security as a nation, in the future, and how we're going to continue to feed people throughout the world if we continue to lock up our productive agricultural land. There's a great divide in this place at the moment between those of us who live in the regions and those who lecture us from the privileged position of their city electorates. I want to quote the member for Flynn's speech yesterday, which I think is worth mentioning: There are issues which have substantial ramifications for the agriculture, mining and resources, forestry and fishing that could last for generations if these voluntary agreements are made. While this was originally an initiative of the previous government, it has been substantially widened in scope, and as such the future ramifications will not be fully understood by those taking up these agreements or by the general public. The biodiversity agreements will last for periods of 25 years or up to 100 years in duration. Such long periods of time do not allow for the ever-changing political climate, both domestic and international, nor do they consider fluctuating economic demand and supply, which change with time and which are a complete unknown 100 years from today. The member from Flynn is spot on. The member for Flynn was also spot when he said: The wealthy virtue-signalling elite want to invest billions of dollars in Australian agricultural land, lock it up and forget about it to appease their own self-loathing of their irresponsible lifestyles while they continue their jet-setting, latte-sipping affluence, whilst priorly declaring they're environmentally aware. This is just some more of the monumental hypocrisy we hear from metropolitan Australia. That is the divide in this place right now between those of us who live in rural and regional Australia, who are responsible for practical land management in our electorate and who believe in things like the sustainable native hardwood timber industry, and those who seek to lecture us, condemn us and tell us what jobs we can and can't have from that extraordinarily privileged position where they don't actually want to live in the environment; they just want to tell everyone else how to manage it. They don't actually want to work in the timber industry because that would involve getting their hands dirty and doing practical work. They want to tell everybody else they can't possibly have a job in that industry. There is a divide in this place, and it's up to us on this side, particularly in the Nationals, to continue to ensure the voices of our blue-collar workers, farmers and those in the resources sector are heard in this place and that they're not drowned out by the bleating of those opposite. Those opposite used to represent blue-collar workers but now are so obsessed with securing the preferences of the Greens in the city that they dare not mention a word in support of the blue-collar workers of this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, they will be granted leave to resume speaking if required. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 41 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Cunning Electorate: The Disability Trust 41 13:30 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham On the last Saturday of each month, the Disability Trust hosts CycleAbility. Last month, the state member for Wollongong and I were lucky enough to attend and have a ride with participants. It was our very first ride on an electric bike. The Saturday morning CycleAbility program teaches participants bike riding and safety skills, road awareness, road rules, bike maintenance and how to be active and healthy. The CycleAbility program was created in 2021 when the chief operating officer, Ed Birt, raised start-up funds by riding his bike from the coast of Western Australia to Sydney. The program supports people with disability to learn how to ride bikes and to enjoy all the benefits and joy of cycling. Riding a bike may be taken for granted by some, but for some others it can be an empowering experience, supporting independence, fitness and social inclusion. Like any community program, there is a large team behind its success, and I would like to thank the following staff, volunteers and participants for their contributions: Carol Berry, Matt McMaugh, Carol Heijo, Ben Mayhew, Brad Heffernan, Helen Bugg, Fred Day, Clare Berry, Oliver Garbutt, Bodhi Dreyfus Ballesi, Mitchell Kober, Benjamin Manzin, Stephen Garvan, Benjamin Biehl, Michael Norris, Mel Norris and, of course, Ed Birt. I'd also like to give a massive thankyou to the sponsors: Illawarra Cycling Club, iBUG, Wollongong City Council, Destination Wollongong and Healthy Cities Illawarra. Hughes Electorate: Holsworthy Public School, Smythe, Mr Jack 41 13:31 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to talk about some very important visitors that we've had down to Parliament House this week. First I had one of the schools from my area, Holsworthy Public School. It was great to meet the year 5 and year 6 students. They were a credit to their school, to their parents and to our overall community. They had some very interesting questions. Most important, I think, was, 'How old are you, Jenny?' I did appreciate their other questions, to understand the issues that are important to them. Ms WARE 300123 It's on Wikipedia, so I had to be honest! I was also very pleased to meet with some constituents yesterday who make the trip down to Canberra on a regular basis: Jack Smythe; his mum, Carol; and Jack's partner, Danielle, who live in the beautiful suburb of Engadine, within the electorate of Hughes. Jack has battled with cystic fibrosis throughout his life. He expressed to me the gratitude he had to the former Morrison government that he is now able to access his medication, called Trikafta, on the PBS. It would previously have been an expense for him of up to $250,000 a year. To the Holsworthy Public School students and the Smythe family: thank you for coming down to Canberra. Canberra Electorate: Hockey ACT 41 13:33 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to congratulate Hockey ACT on their incredible achievement of being named the 2023 sporting organisation of the year at the Pride in Sport Awards. This award is a testament to their unwavering dedication and exceptional efforts in fostering LGBTIQ inclusion within Australian sport. Throughout 2022, Hockey ACT embarked on a journey to promote inclusivity and create a welcoming environment for all. Their initiatives are truly commendable. They hosted the pride round, a significant event that not only increased the visibility of the LGBTIQ community but also raised awareness and provided education and training to the wider ACT region. Additionally, the organisation appointed seven Hockey ACT pride ambassadors, reinforcing their commitment to LGBTIQ inclusion. By improving governance among LGBTIQ members and fostering a safe and welcoming atmosphere, Hockey ACT set a new benchmark for inclusivity in the sporting realm. The recognition Hockey ACT has received is even more exceptional when considering it has come with the highest pride index score in the history of the award. I also want to pay tribute to the ACT government's Office of LGBTIQ+ Affairs, which was instrumental in providing support, resources and knowledge to drive these positive changes within Hockey ACT. While this award is an important milestone, Hockey ACT also acknowledges that the journey towards full inclusion is an ongoing one. Thank you, Hockey ACT, for showing the rest of the country how it's done. O'Connor Electorate: Local Government 42 13:34 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to welcome to Canberra representatives from six of the 57 local government authorities that make up my enormous electorate of O'Connor. They're here for the National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association. I take this opportunity to congratulate ALGA vice president and WALGA president Karen Chappel on being made a Member of the Order of Australia in the recent King's Birthday Honours List. I extend a warm welcome to the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the shires of Menzies, Coolgardie and Dundas, from the Goldfields region; to the Shire of Narrogin, representing our productive Wheatbelt region; and to the Shire of Nannup, representing the magnificent South West of Western Australia. It's been a busy week for all the delegates. One of the highlights of ALGA Week was the presentation of the National Awards for Local Government. I'm proud to acknowledge two amazing women from the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder: Mia Hicks, director of community development, who is in the gallery today, and Lauren Chapman-Holle, manager of community development, who both won the Women in Local Government category for their outstanding leadership and mentoring of women in their workplace and the wider community. I congratulate Mia and Lauren on this well-deserved accolade and look forward to continuing to work with them on the many diverse and unique projects they deliver for the Goldfields region of O'Connor. Thank you. World Environment Day 42 13:36 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I had the pleasure of celebrating World Environment Day at the Gurdwara Siri Guru Nanak Darbar in Officer with our community. My thanks to Harpreet Ji and the other volunteers for organising this fantastic event, which was attended by over 200 people. I was fortunate to be joined by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles MP, and several state MPs, including Belinda Wilson, Gary Maas, Emma Vulin and Lee Tarlamis. Over 50 organisations, representing various communities and cultures, participated as one united community in planting 200 new trees to make their contributions towards a greener tomorrow. The event was symbolic of the values we are so proud to celebrate in the south-east. There were many people from different walks of life coming together to ensure a better future for our future generations. I was so proud to address the gathering about Labor's strong track record in delivering environmental reforms, including legislating net zero by 2050 and allocating $121 million in the 2023-24 budget to establish Environment Protection Australia. Once again, kudos to Gurdwara Siri Guru Nanak Darbar for organising such a thoughtful and wonderful event. Thank you. Calare Electorate: Bushfires 42 13:37 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Alpha Road Hill End bushfire in March of this year was absolutely devastating for our region. Today I'd like to thank all of the generous people and organisations who came together to get relief for farmers so quickly and effectively. Our Hill End hay drive was coordinated by local farmer Penny Hundy, who had the key assistance and support of Lions disaster relief coordinator Anne Jones and the Geurie Lions Club. I acknowledge Peter Sargent and the team at Bathurst RSL Club, which donated just over $19,000. And Tony and Rose Spina donated an amazing $10,000. Thank you, Tony and Rose. Generous donors of feed included Belinda and Brian Fanning; Natalie and David Amos, with the help of Tim Arnold; Stafford Orange; Will and Sue Johnson; Jaimie Zell; Rowan Chandler; Pete Rothwell; David and Andrew Taberner; and Alistair McDonald. Generous monetary donations came from Mudgee Lions, Ilford Public School, Kate Doherty, Nicole Hendy, K and Y Thurtell, M Roth and B and S Donoghue. Business supporters included Sussex Transport, Gilgandra Truck and Engine Repairs; Nutrien Ag Solutions Mudgee; and also On-Trac Ag in Orange. Once again, I'm calling on the New South Wales government to activate the $75,000 special disaster grants for Hill End as a matter of urgency. It should have been done by the last New South Wales government, and it needs to be done by this one. So please, Premier Minns, step up and deliver this vital relief for our region. Bennelong Electorate: Seniors Morning Tea 42 13:39 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong On Tuesday 27 June I'll be hosting a seniors morning tea at the Epping Club from 10 am. Valued senior citizens throughout Bennelong will be joining us that morning for a cuppa, some morning tea and a chat. There might even be a surprise birthday cake for those celebrating a milestone that month. I'm sure that, like my last seniors event, this one will again be vibrant and filled with laughter, heartfelt conversation and shared memories. Our seniors deserve nothing less from their MP. This event is our little way of saying thanks to them for the immense importance of the value they give to our community. Apart from spending time together and enjoying a delicious morning tea, we'll have an important presentation from Scamwatch, Australia's antiscam watchdog. Online, text message, phone and in-person scams cost Australians a whopping $3.1 billion last year, and, disturbingly, that's an increase of 80 per cent on the year before. The average amount lost per scam is now a whopping $20,000. The presentation will give advice on how to spot a scammer, how to avoid being scammed and what to do if you fall foul of these criminals. To round out the event, we'll have a very special performance from the St Charles' Catholic Primary School choir and string band. I'm sure they'll delight and captivate the audience with their brilliant musical talent. I'd encourage seniors in Bennelong to come along to this free event on 27 June at 10 am. Parliamentary Standards 43 13:40 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Deputy Speaker Claydon, it's great to have you in the chair as I rise to deliver this statement today, because it's been a bruising week in parliament and I wanted to reflect on the behaviour in this place and how it meets, or not, the expectations of our communities. Yesterday my team took a call from a woman who had seen me stand during question time on Tuesday. I stood up then to call out what I saw as completely inappropriate, disorderly conduct and to remind everyone in this place that there are real people with lived experience of sexual violence here in this building and others beyond these walls who may be dismayed and retraumatised by our actions. This debate has been driven by party politicking and, while there may be questions to be answered, I believe Australians expect better of us. As leaders of our community, we must deal with difficult issues with respect and sensitivity. To reduce these conversations to bombastic cross-chamber yelling reduces us all. Yesterday's caller said in a shaking voice: 'This is so dangerous. They're playing with fire. Who knows what state of mind the key players are in?' The shocking allegations of 2019 led to the Jenkins review, which ultimately led to the development and endorsement of the first ever code of conduct for parliamentarians and their staff. But codes are only as effective as the people who uphold them. The behaviour of the past week shows us that we have a long way to go to change the culture of this place, but we must. I call on my fellow parliamentarians: revisit the code, refresh your memory and reset our standards of behaviour in this place. Men's Health Week 43 13:42 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins This is Men's Health Week and a timely reminder for men to prioritise their health and wellbeing. As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Men's Health, I'd like to focus on gaps and the need for action. Loneliness and social isolation are an emerging public health problem. According to Healthy Male, a respected organisation with roots in Higgins, an alarming 43 per cent of Australian men experience loneliness. Loneliness is not merely a fleeting emotion; it has far-reaching health consequences, comparable to smoking half a packet of cigarettes a day. It increases the risk of stroke, depression, anxiety and even cognitive decline. On average, Australian men die six years younger than women. According to the Men's Health Forum, four out of five deaths from heart disease are of men. Similarly, three out of four suicide deaths, road deaths and violent deaths involve men. Men under 75 are twice as likely as women to succumb to preventable causes. So what can we do? A handy acronym for men is CYM, 'check your mate'. C is for connection and Y is to have a yarn, while M is to motivate yourself and others towards wellbeing and away from illness. Connected, self-motivated men who confide in others are going to be healthier and more effective in their families, their workplaces, their sporting teams and our communities. Whitsunday STEM Challenge 43 13:43 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to share the incredible opportunities offered to students in our Whitsunday STEM challenge. Science, technology, engineering and maths skills are so important for our next generation, and that's why I want to show off Dawson's best and brightest and what they're achieving in my neck of the woods. The event was officially opened in Mackay Northern Beaches State High School last Friday, and I was absolutely blown away to see what these guys and girls are up to. Chatting with students Noah, Dylan and Noah, I heard these young enthusiasts explain how this program is providing them with skills they need to take advantage of the many new opportunities on offer in Central and North Queensland. Speaking of skills, you don't have to look much further than the Pedal Prix competition, a race where 17 teams of student-built human-powered vehicles go head-to-head at our legendary Palmyra Dragway, with teams from as far as Goondiwindi and Bundaberg participating. Not only that; 1,200 students from right around the region filled the Mackay entertainment centre to take part in F1 in Schools, which is about robotics and drone challenges. They also had a mini career expo. Congrats to the students, staff and teachers involved in this wonderful project. What a great way to learn vital skills while having a blast. I look forward to seeing what Dawson's best and brightest achieve. Gilmore Electorate: Coastal Erosion 44 13:45 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Madam Deputy Speaker, spare a thought for people at Surfside at Batemans Bay who have been living the ultimate and distressing nightmare, over many years, of coastal erosion so bad that it gets the headlines 'Fears Batemans Bay's Surfside could "wash into the sea"' and 'Coastal erosion has South Coast residents fearing they are one bad storm away from beaches disappearing'. While the previous member for Bega liked to talk the talk on this, he delivered little. People were let down by broken promises in the face of what they described as a clear and present danger. That's why I'm thrilled that our new Disaster Ready Fund, which we proudly legislated and delivered, has delivered the first round of projects to be funded. I couldn't be more thrilled to have joined with the new member for Bega, Dr Michael Holland, to announce $12 million in joint federal and state funding. I'm pleased to work constructively with Eurobodalla Shire Council to finally get this much-needed funding for disaster mitigation and relief for Surfside residents. I want to thank residents and Eurobodalla Shire Council for advocating for so many years. This is what one constituent said on hearing the news: Just a quick note to thank you for securing some funding to reduce the erosion on our local beach. It's not often I see government announcements that feel like they will make a fairly direct improvement to my life. So, it makes sense to show gratitude when I do. Best wishes to you both … and for your respective governments. That's what delivering does. Gambling 44 13:46 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Since my election in 2016 I have worked hard to hold the gambling industry to account and reduce gambling harm. I've worked with banks to find solutions to the use of credit in online wagering. I've fought for age verification, addressed the risk of loot boxes and rallied my community to say no to council's casino on the Sunshine Coast. And the coalition has now committed to banning sporting betting adds. Gambling costs Australians roughly $25 billion each year, representing the largest per capita losses in the world, and that's not including unlawful gambling and the criminal underbelly that comes with the sector. On Four Corners this week Australians were brought face to face with the stark reality of gambling's malice and reach. The idea that big gambling companies are betting on local community sports should send shivers up the spines of mums and dads and community organisations everywhere. Gambling's insidious tentacles reach into our soccer clubs and locker rooms, seeking to profit from our kids. Enough is enough. We in this place need to do better, and I'm calling on the government to hold international bookmakers, data scouts and Australian sporting bodies to account on these issues. Our kids deserve better. Woy Woy Hospital Auxiliary 44 13:48 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to commend the phenomenal volunteers at the Woy Woy Hospital Auxiliary, who do so much good work to ensure Woy Woy Hospital can continue to provide outstanding patient care. Recently, I visited the Woy Woy Hospital kiosk, which is run and managed by the Woy Woy Hospital Auxiliary members and volunteers. This kiosk has only just reopened following 18 months of closure during the COVID 19 pandemic and then renovations to the premises. I am pleased to inform the House that the kiosk is open and ready to serve the community on the peninsula and across the Central Coast. The cafe has an exceptional menu with exquisite beverage options. It's open Tuesday to Friday 10 am till 2 pm, with all funds raised at the kiosk going back into patient care and to purchase much-needed medical equipment. I would like to thank the Woy Woy Hospital Auxiliary president, Phyllis Thomas, for her leadership over the past 11 years, and the following brilliant members: Eileen Crawford, Lucy Sharpe, Mary Mathews, Val Knox, Tracey Peterson, Lynda Thomas, Debbie Gause, Lynda Howell, Cecilia O'Meara, Pat Elliot, Wendy Goswell, Janet Goldsworthy, Lorraine Krause, Catherine Sutton, Kay Kennaugh, Lin Griffiths, Coral Pawelko, Rikki McIntosh and Jenny Dos Santos. They are all amazing volunteers on the Central Coast and on the peninsula, and I thank them for the work that they do. Hunter Valley: Bus Crash 44 13:49 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Warrandyte, in my electorate, is not just a suburb; it is a community—a community of families, of sport, of friendship and of people who serve others. It's a community that is proud of its history and hopeful for all our futures. It's a community that loves our Yarra River, cherishes our green space and cares for our wildlife. It's a community with a strong sense of self and a beating, compassionate heart. After one moment of horror in the Hunter Valley, this community is now in shock and grief. The bride and groom were originally Warrandyte locals. Many of the guests were their family and friends who made the trip from Warrandyte, and Darcy Bulman, who lost her young and promising life, was from Warrandyte. Her family and friends are in mourning, and her partner, Nick, who was with her, remains in hospital. I am so proud of how Warrandyte has responded. I'm so proud of the volunteers and members of the Warrandyte Cricket Club, the Warrandyte Football Club, the Warrandyte Netball Club and the Warrandyte High School for wrapping their arms around each other and those affected. I'm so proud of our community, who have called our office and asked how they can donate blood, offered financial support and begged to help. Warrandyte is hurting, but Warrandyte is the best of us. They are there for each other, and we are there for them. Vaccination 45 13:51 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby The truism of primary health care is that $1 spent in prevention saves $9 in treatment. We all know that the health system is under enormous strain across the country, so any illness prevention has got to be a good thing, both for the individuals and for the health system. Vaccines are often seen as the most cost-effective form of preventative care after the provision of clean water. Vaccines can limit the incidence or severity of infectious disease and the resulting issues that can occur—cancer, chronic disease, post-viral syndromes and, of course, in the worst cases, death. That's not to mention the pain and distress to the individual. I heard recently from Monica about the effect shingles has had on her partner. Nine months later, his skin still feels like it's burning, and he can barely tolerate clothing touching his skin. This has of course had a financial effect on their family, as he can't go to work. Childhood immunisation is important, but my message today is that vaccines are of benefit across the life span. Adult access to vaccines for diseases such as shingles, flu, whooping cough and, of course, COVID is an important part of keeping ourselves healthy, staying out of the acute health sector and preventing the spread of disease to our loved ones. We are now in the season when it is time to have your flu vax and possibly your fourth or fifth COVID vax, and I'd encourage people to consider that. Police-Citizens Youth Club Caboolture 45 13:52 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman This morning, I had the pleasure of meeting with the stakeholders for the new PCYC in Caboolture, in my electorate of Longman, to discuss how this new building project is coming along. This is a collaborative project, with the Moreton Bay Regional Council, state and federal governments and the PCYC all contributing funding at various levels. This project is particularly special to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it will assist with engaging with our local youth and young families to provide much-needed services like Get Set for Work, Braking the Cycle and the Rise Up, Be Yourself, or RUBY, program, as well as gymnasium facilities, gymnastics, trampolining and so much more. The second reason is that it was the first project I took on when I was first elected back in May 2019. The then officer in charge of the Caboolture police, Mick Brady, was on the phone, I reckon, three days after the election, hounding me. After much lobbying of coalition ministers in the previous government, I was able to secure $5 million of funding under the Community Development Grants Program. There has now been an additional $5 million of federal money, which means the total project will have a budget of $17 million. Of course, there will be a, hopefully, short consultation period and various other administrative items to attend to, but the bottom line is that it's finally happening. Thank you to all the stakeholders for their work and the people of Longman for their patience. Now let's get on with building. Dunkley Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 45 13:54 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Last week I was at the Woodleigh School's Minimbah campus, where the incredibly impressive Millie, Tilly and Mia interviewed me for a podcast. One of the questions they asked me on that podcast is: what is leadership to you? I talked about the ability to listen, understand, motivate, make hard decisions and model behaviour and standards you ask others to uphold. What I didn't talk about but has occurred to me I should have said is that leadership involves an ability to give of yourself for the benefit of others. That is a quality that two Dunkley residents, who received King's Birthday honours this week, show in abundance. Neil Kinsey and Jackie Galloway give of themselves for the benefit of others because they know it's the right thing to do. Neil is the long-serving president of the committee of management of the Langwarrin Community Centre and one of the fine voices of the Australian Welsh Male Choir. Jackie is the CEO of the Peninsula Community Legal Centre and is on the board of Community Support Frankston, and, quite frankly, there isn't a not-for-profit or social welfare group that hasn't benefited from her assistance. It's not only the leadership shown in places like parliament that matters; sometimes it's the leadership in the communities that really matters. Wright Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 46 13:55 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Today I rise to acknowledge five ordinary people from my electorate who have done extraordinary things and were recently acknowledged in the King's Birthday honours list. In no particular order, firstly, I'd like to commend Mrs Sandra Johnston OAM for an honour achieved for her services to the local community through a number of volunteer organisations like Lifeline, BreastScreen Queensland and particularly the establishment of the Women's Cancer Support Group Gold Coast. Secondly, I'd like to commend Mr Ian Langdon OAM, who was awarded for his contribution to the community as the chair of the Gold Coast Hospital, health board and Autism Queensland, and additionally for his contributions to the primary industry sector. I'd also like to acknowledge Dr Philip Moses AM, who was honoured for his services to the veterinary profession as a doctor, administrator and educator. Professor Moses pioneered many surgeries using techniques that are used in koalas and kangaroos. Further, I'd like to commend Professor Alexander Brown for his services and contributions to the law and to public policy, particularly to whistleblower protection. Last, but certainly not least, I'd like to commend Mr Leonard Kennedy OAM for his services to the community through emergency response organisations. Leonard was the founding member of the Upper Flagstone Rural Fire Brigade and has served for nearly 50 years. None of these people go about their tasks seeking accolades, but I thank them for their contribution. Spence Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 46 13:57 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence This shortened sitting week in aid of the King's Birthday honours was celebrated by most of Australia. On Monday, a well-known identity in Spence, particularly in the top end of the electorate in Gawler, received a well-deserved Medal of the Order of Australia. Paul Little OAM certainly has a very good ring to it, and although the award was noted as being for his service to local government and to the Gawler community, it falls short of fully capturing the breadth and depth of Paul's service to the local Gawler community and, indeed, to our nation. You see, Paul served our country with dignity for 12 years with the Australian Regular Army. When he retired from the Army, he then gave 22 years of service as an officer with the South Australian Police Force. Not finished with his service to public life, he then gave more than a decade of service to the Gawler Health Service in our community. On top of that, he gave two decades to our local football community in the Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association in several different roles. He also served over three terms for a total of 11 years on the Gawler Council. What really stands out is that, following his service with the Australian Army, he joined Gawler RSL, my local branch, where he's now a life member— (Time expired) La Trobe Electorate: Roads 46 13:58 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to raise with the House my great disappointment in the 90-day independent review of the infrastructure pipeline. I note that it's caused the pausing of projects, including the $10 billion airport rail link. But, importantly, in my electorate of La Trobe, it has stopped the Racecourse Road and the McGregor Road projects. Both of these road projects were fully funded under the previous Liberal government. In fact, I have a letter from Dan Andrews to his minister saying, 'We've assessed the alignment of this project.' It goes on to say, 'I recognise that the project will deliver economic, social and environmental benefits by improving connectivity and safety.' It's a shameful decision that these two projects are being stopped. What has happened to the construction company? Are they being paid not to work because of this 90-day freeze? I then go to the Wellington Road. Sadly, Wellington Road was also cancelled. It was a project funded under the previous Liberal government. Since 2014— Mr WOOD E0F I hear the Prime Minister interject. You cut the funding back in 2010. You were the minister responsible. It was a shameful decision! Since 2014, we've had 71 serious injuries and five deaths on the road. Five people have died because of your shameful decision. A government member: Withdraw! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I will deal with this matter. I will ask the member to withdraw that last matter and remind him to direct his remarks through the chair. Mr WOOD E0F I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure and the member for Latrobe—the House will come to order! The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Alannah and Madeline Foundation, National Museum of Australia: Port Arthur 47 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier today, I joined the Prime Minister at the National Museum for the unveiling of a permanent display of letters exchanged between Mr Walter Mikac and then prime minister John Howard which were instrumental in the decision by Mr Howard to deliver historic gun control reforms. On 28 April, Mr Mikac's wife, Nanette, and his daughters, Alannah and Madeline Mikac, aged six and three, were amongst 35 Australians murdered at Port Arthur. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation honours their memory and champions the right of children to live free from violence and trauma. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the importance of the foundation and of the permanent display unveiled this morning? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and for joining me today at what was a very moving ceremony. It was my great honour to be the patron, along with past prime ministers, of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. I want to acknowledge in the gallery today, Walter Mikac AM, the founding patron, the person who took such personal tragedy and turned it into a story which has made Australia a better nation. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr ALBANESE R36 I want to also acknowledge Walter's partner, Bridget, who joined us this morning; Sarah Davies, the CEO of the foundation; and Greg Sutherland, the chair of the foundation, who are with us today. I spoke with John Howard this morning. Unfortunately, he wasn't well enough to travel, but the Leader of the Opposition ably filled his position this morning. The letters that we added to our National Museum today tell the story of such a devastating tragedy. The first letter that Water Mikac wrote to the Prime Minister, John Howard, in ordinary blue biro on foolscap paper—it's there for people to see—is one of the most extraordinary things anyone could read in their life. And now people that visit the National Museum will be able to do it. The opening sentence alone I think stands as a monument to the grace and bravery of this truly great Australian that we've just honoured. It said this: To Mr Howard, As the person who lost his wife & 2 beautiful daughters at Port Arthur I am writing to you to give you the strength to ensure no person in Australia ever has to suffer such a loss. It is pretty remarkable that Mr Mikac wrote to Prime Minister Howard about giving him strength at that time, a bare nine days after losing those three people who he loved more than anyone in the world to this act of unspeakable violence at Port Arthur. Not only did he find the strength to think of others, he tried to make sure in reaching out that no-one would suffer as Mr Mikac had—sharing that strength, encouraging the Prime Minister to act. I want to pay tribute to John Howard for the courage and the determination that he showed in that moment of national challenge. Importantly, he had bipartisan support from Kim Beazley and from the Labor team, which meant that it was possible to go forward. As I did this morning, I want to single out Tim Fischer. Tim is someone I had enormous respect for. I travelled to his home town for his funeral. For Tim, the National Party leader at that time, with the angst and, quite frankly, fury and threats that went on, to stand up as the National Party leader I think puts his place in history—for other things, as well, but for that above anything else his place in history is assured. I know that's felt across the chamber. The reforms that were passed have seen the death rate from firearms in this country halve since 1996 at a time when our population has just about doubled and at a time when we wake up too many mornings to news of school shootings and mass murder in the United States of America. The world looks at Australia and looks at those reforms and says, 'That's where we should be.' But it takes political leadership to get there, and John Howard showed it. The reforms, though, need to be continued. Just last Friday, the Attorney-General and the Police Ministers Council unanimously agreed to present options for a new national firearms register to be considered by National Cabinet. This is action arising from the tragedy we saw in the Leader of the National Party's electorate, with the murder of two police officers and the neighbour who went to help. It is important we get this done, and premiers and chief ministers are all committed to getting it done. Again, you can only do these hard things with bipartisan support, so that's important as well. It's important to recognise that arising out of this incredible tragedy that Alannah and Madeline through the foundation—they didn't live long enough, tragically, to know that their dad is a hero not just to them but to all Australians, but he certainly is that. Today, I'm sure I speak on behalf of myself and the Leader of the Opposition to say that it was our great privilege to be present while a hero spoke and give that example to other Australians. You've made a difference, sir, to this country, and we pay tribute to you today and we honour you. Economy 48 14:09 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. The government assured Australians that the budget would bring interest rates down. Instead, we now find it has forced interest rates up. New data from Finder shows that 40 per cent of Australians with a mortgage are struggling to meet repayments, up 24 per cent alone from 12 months ago. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for making things worse for middle Australia? 14:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Flinders for her question. Of course, the world is dealing with inflationary impacts. Inflation, therefore, has an impact on interest rates. The Australian interest rate, of course, is lower than the UK's of 4.5, the US's of 5.25, Canada's of 4.75 and New Zealand's of 5.5. They're the interest rates in other Western industrialised countries. It is noteworthy that other English-speaking advanced economies do have higher interest rates. But, as the Governor said at the Morgan Stanley Australia summit, on 7 June, 'The situation is improving.' He said: … inflation is coming down. And: There is also evidence of declining inflation pressures in global markets. He then went on to speak about employment, and we have some employment figures out today as well. He also said, very clearly, at Senate estimates: I don't think that the budget is adding to inflation; it's actually reducing inflation in the next financial year. One of the things that we're doing as a government is making sure that fiscal policy works with monetary policy, not against it. That's why the $78 billion deficit that was forecast by those opposite has been turned into a forecast of a forecast of a $4.2 billion surplus. We know that inflation, of course—those opposite would recognise, and I'm sure that they know, that the highest inflation rate of any quarter this century was, indeed, on their watch, of 2.1 per cent in the March 2022 quarter. We know also that their budget, their last budget that they got to hand down, where money was sprayed around in order to try and win an election, certainly did not have an impact of working with monetary policy—indeed, the exact opposite. National Security 48 14:12 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security. What recent actions has the Australian government taken to protect our national security? 14:12 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Bean for this question and also for his leadership as a local member here in our national capital. We've come to office at a really, really important time for our country's national security. The Prime Minister has been clear with our citizens. Australia faces the most difficult geopolitical circumstances that we have confronted since the Second World War. About a year before our election, our national security agencies informed the Australian people that, for the first time, the biggest national security challenges that we face as a country are espionage and foreign interference. Grappling with these issues is difficult, it is complex and it is a core priority of our government. Today, the parliament worked together to bring to a close a long-running national security concern facing our country. Russia has an embassy, in Canberra, located in Griffith. In 2008, they obtained a lease to build a second embassy here in the national capital. Our government has been advised that the construction of the embassy on that land would represent a threat to Australia's national security. The concern is one of proximity. The land is a stone's throw from Parliament House. Our government received specific national security advice that allowing this proposal to proceed on that land would not be in the national interest and, indeed, that the scope for espionage and foreign interference from the site would have been a substantial risk for the nation. That's why, today, our parliament passed a law which brings to an end the lease agreement that existed between the National Capital Authority and the Russian Federation. The action is direct and decisive. We do not have any interest in sugar-coating this message. We will not stand for espionage and foreign interference in our country. We will act in the face of danger to our democracy and our citizens, and we will do so without any apology to anyone. I want to note something for Australians about the way in which this was dealt with by the parliament. The reason we have been able to move so swiftly on this matter is the support for this decisive action from right across the parliament. There is necessarily a lot of focus on the conflict that goes on in this building; there is not as much reporting and discussion about the moments of goodwill and national unity. I want to thank the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench for the way in which they have worked with the government and the concern they have shown for the national security information that we have been providing them. We face a lot of difficulties that will come to us in the decades ahead. I think Australians know that. I hope that incidents like today give them some confidence that in moments like this, when it comes to the national security of our country, we in this parliament are all on the same side. We face challenges, but we bring to them the most important of assets, and that is the national unity you saw in dealing with this issue today in the parliament. 14:15 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to commend the minister and the Prime Minister of the government for moving swiftly in relation to this matter. I think the point the minister makes is incredibly important to underscore. It is incredibly important for the Australian public to hear and, as I said yesterday in response to a different matter, for our friends and adversaries to hear that there is an absolutely unified position from the Australian parliament, representing the Australian people, that we won't tolerate foreign espionage conducted in a way that is against our national interest. We won't tolerate people seeking to interfere with electoral processes in our country. The work of the government was briefed to me, the Leader of the Nationals and Senator Birmingham last night. We received that advice and pledged to the Prime Minister during the course of that meeting that it was our view shared that it was in our national interest that this matter be dealt with expeditiously by the parliament. We were able to do that. Again, I think it sends a very clear message to those that would seek to act against our national interests that they find no friend in this parliament in relation to their activities. We will do whatever it takes to make sure that we ensure our sovereignty, and that will always be the case. 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—May I very briefly acknowledge as Prime Minister the confidence that I have that this parliament will always act. We provided confidential briefings on the national security issues to the coalition yesterday evening. They pledged immediately their support. It is that confidence that's very important for our nation and for the crossbenchers as well in both chambers. All were briefed or offered briefings, and I thank them for their support as well. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 49 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Pacific Islands Forum 49 14:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I want to advise the House that present in the gallery today are a delegation from the Pacific Islands Forum led by Secretary-General Henry Puna. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 49 14:18 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. The government assured Australians that the budget would bring down interest rates. Instead, we know that it has forced interest rates up. New data from ABC News found that amongst young, growing families with a mortgage, 88 per cent are now in mortgage stress. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for making things worse for middle Australia? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. I say that it underlines why he will have 'shadow' next to his name for a long period of time. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 He presided over an economy that had the largest deficit since the Second World War, a trillion dollars of debt with very little to show for it, sluggish economic growth, productivity sliding backwards, declining business investment, interest rates going up, the highest inflation quarter of any quarter this century, deliberate wage suppression and more Australians than ever in insecure work, and he comes in here and tries to make things up. Compare that with our budget and our position that we are responsible for: the first projected budget surplus in 15 years. We had the largest number of new jobs for any new government in its first 12 months: 465,000 jobs. Pay packets are growing at a faster rate than they have in more than a decade. The gender pay gap is falling to a historic low. Compare the G7 countries. In GDP growth, we're on 2.3. Canada is next at 2.2—a little bit lower. France is at 0.9; Germany, minus 0.5; Italy, 1.9; Japan, 1.3; the UK, 0.4; and the US, 1.6. If you look at participation rates, ours is higher than any of the G7 nations. In employment growth, we're on 2.4 per cent, which is higher than any G7 economy, and, of course, we're the only ones with a projected budget surplus going forward. So we're very proud of our record, in spite of inheriting a bin-fire when it came to the economy under those opposite. It's no wonder the shadow Treasurer can't ask a question of the Treasurer about the budget in the budget sessions. He can bring in a novel and just read from it, because, from those opposite, he can't get a question about the budget. No wonder! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. The minister for health and the minister for climate change are not helping. The House will come to order so I can hear from the member for Aston. Employment 50 14:21 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Treasurer. What does the latest labour force data say? How is the Albanese Labor government laying the foundations for more secure, well-paid jobs into the future, and why is it important to get this right? 14:22 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I acknowledge the hero in our midst, Mr Mikac. I salute you for your remarkable contribution to this country. I thank the member for Aston for her question, as well. The member for Aston has only been here five minutes, and she's already asked twice as many questions about the budget as the shadow Treasurer has since the budget reply! Today, we received very welcome news that 75,900 jobs were created in May, and the unemployment rate fell to 3.6 per cent. This is a remarkable achievement for the Australian economy and, most importantly, for the Australian people. More Australians are in work than ever before, the participation rate is higher than ever before and a greater share of women are in work than ever before. The number of Australians with a job is now more than 14 million for the very first time. The participation rate is a record high of 66.9 per cent. Women's participation is a record high of 62.7 per cent. The employment to population ratio is a record high of 64.5 per cent. These figures mean that more than 465,000 jobs were created in the first 12 months of the Albanese Labor government—also a record. This is the most jobs created under a new government ever. It's six times the number of jobs created in the first year of the Abbott or Howard governments. We know our economy is slowing because of higher interest rates and weakness in the global economy, and this will impact the labour market as well in the coming months. We still expect unemployment to tick up over time. We see in the data today that New Zealand went into recession. Europe went into recession last week. There are pressures coming at us from right around the world. What makes these job numbers so remarkable is that, with everything coming at us from around the world, we still have an unemployment figure with a three in front of it. That means that we go into this period of significant global economic uncertainty from a position of relative strength. We also go into this period of global economic uncertainty with the right plan and the right budget, providing assistance to people experiencing cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation, laying the foundations for future growth in our economy and the sort of spending restraint which is necessary to ensure we are forecasting a surplus this year for the first time in 15 years. These job numbers and the budget position show that we are demonstrating in the first 12 months under this Prime Minister and his government the type of responsible economic management which would be unrecognisable to those opposite, and that's why he doesn't ask me any questions. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: United States, Australian Local Government Association 50 14:25 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the 26th Australian Political Exchange Council Delegation from the United States of America, led by the Hon. Zachary Ista. I also have a number of councils to recognise—only the once today, so if you haven't got them in, everyone else will just have to have a warm welcome. We have Karen Williams, the Mayor of Redland City Council in the electorate of Bowman; mayors and councillors from the Ipswich-Somerset region from the electorate of Blair; representatives from Moreton Bay in the electorate of Petrie; Councillor Richard Lim from the Greater Dandenong region in the electorate of Holt; mayors and councillors from Randwick and Bayside Council in the electorate of Kingsford Smith; and Mayor Jock Barker from the town of Claremont in the electorate of Moore. Welcome to all other local government officials. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 50 14:26 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. Thirteen House and Senate crossbenchers have called for a citizen's assembly on the housing affordability crisis. If 100 randomly selected everyday people from around the country—renters, owners, investors, people of all ages and backgrounds, rural, regional and urban—come together, consider the evidence and reach a consensus on housing reform, will the Prime Minister show them the respect of providing a formal response to their recommendations? If not, why not? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Wentworth for her question. I also acknowledge her serious commitment to dealing with the challenges which are there in housing and her motivation for the suggestion that she's put forward. I've always been of the view, though, that this is the citizen's assembly here in the House of Representatives. That has been my position. That's not to say that there's not a role for people to come together in different forums and for us to acknowledge that more input, more democracy, is a good thing. I of course would acknowledge any suggestions that are put forward in the spirit in which the member for Wentworth raises it. We know the big challenge in this country is housing supply. That's why part of the reforms we've put forward—reforms we went to the election on and have a mandate for—is the Housing Supply and Affordability Council to work with not just the Commonwealth government but state governments. I will be speaking at the Australian Council of Local Government tonight and again tomorrow about the role that local government has to play in approving supply of medium-density housing where it's appropriate; and making sure, along with state governments, that land release occurs where it's appropriate in dealing with the issue of supply. That's why we had in the budget the initiative to encourage investment in the private rental market through the build-to-rent program that the Property Council estimates will create somewhere between 150,000 and 250,000 new homes. That's why one of the first things we did on coming to government was to unlock $575 million in funding from our National Housing Infrastructure Facility to be invested immediately in new social and affordable homes. These funds are now flowing to projects around the country. That's why we put an additional $2 billion into community housing in the budget. That's why we have the Housing Australia Future Fund before the Senate, which will create 30,000 new social and affordable homes, with 4,000 properties for women and children fleeing domestic violence. In its first five years, it will also fund $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children as well as funding for housing for veterans who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. We have all of that, and we'll have more to say about housing in coming days. Employment 51 14:29 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Prime Minister. What do today's labour force figures tell us about economic participation, particularly for women, and how have the Albanese government's actions contributed to these positive indicators? 14:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lyons for his question. Indeed, today's employment data demonstrates that when you remove barriers to participation in the workforce it does make a real difference: more than 465,000 jobs created in the first 12 months in which we've been in office, almost 76,000 jobs added in the last month. The participation rate is now at a record high of 66.9 per cent. But, importantly, women's participation is at a record high as well, of 62.7 per cent. Let's not forget what we inherited just over a year ago from those opposite. When it came to women's position in our economy, Australia had fallen to 70th in the world for women's economic participation and opportunity. We went from being the 24th most equal country in the world for women and men to 50th during those opposite's time in office. But my government have put enhancing economic opportunity for women at the heart of our agenda. We see this as part of developing the national interest. Under our government, the gender pay gap fell to its lowest level on record recently. There is more work to do but we're making progress. Closing the gender pay gap will help close the superannuation retirement gap as well. More women than ever before are now in full-time work. Women got two-thirds of all the full-time jobs created in the past 12 months—two-thirds!—and almost 233,000 women have entered the workforce since last May. All of this, of course, has been led by the exceptional Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Senator Gallagher has presided over an expanding of paid parental leave, making child care cheaper, implementing all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report, establishing 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave, investing $2.3 billion to end domestic violence, funding a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers and developing a national strategy for the care workforce, which we are doing. Of course, importantly, Senator Gallagher was one of the key reasons for us improving the single parent payment, helping 52,000 single mums out there to actually be able to participate much, much more equally in our society. All of these things make us a stronger nation. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England will cease interjecting immediately. I give the call to the member for Parkes. Infrastructure 52 14:33 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories' statement, during the infrastructure portfolio consideration in detail this week, regarding Labor's first 12 months, where she claimed, 'We've done more in these 12 months than the former government did in 10 years.' How many of Labor's 448 community infrastructure election commitments have been assessed, funded and commenced construction within the past 12 months? 14:34 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I thank the member for his question in particular. We have had a hell of a job to do in cleaning up the mess that was left by those opposite. Let me name all of that. Can I thank very much the Minister for— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. Members on my left, the minister is 20 seconds into her answer. This wall of noise is unacceptable. A general warning now has been issued. I want to hear the minister. I cannot hear a word she is saying. I heard the question in silence. I want to hear the minister in silence. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I particularly want to thank the minister for local government for the fantastic work she is doing and, in particular, for repping me at consideration in detail while I was in cabinet. In particular, can I say that, in cleaning up the decade of mess that's been left by those opposite, the first and one of the biggest projects we've had to clean up, of course, is Inland Rail, a project that started, I think, at $4 billion, then got to $9 billion— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Honestly! The minister will pause. The member for Parkes on a point of order? Mr Coulton HWN On relevance, Speaker: there was no mention of Inland Rail. It was a very tight question. There was no preamble, and if the minister spent more time on her job than trying to get me booked— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The members for Riverina and Paige and the Leader of the Nationals—all three of you—just cool it. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the question included the statement that we have done more in 12 months than the previous government did in 10 years, and the minister is certainly being relevant to that. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm just going to ask the House to come to order. The noise level is far too great. The minister in continuation, and I want to hear what she's saying. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Of course, the first of those projects we've had to clean up is Inland Rail, a project that started, I think, at about $4 billion and then $9 billion has blown out, we think, to $31 billion under the previous government's watch. We've had to do the work. It was a project on which there was no planning done. It was a project that was truly Inland Rail, as it had no end and no start point. It was a project that the National Party had their hands all over and that they should, frankly, be absolutely ashamed of. We've then had to clean up the grants program—in particular the Community Development Grants Program, a $3 billion slush fund that we saw from those opposite and that, frankly, we have had to deal with. There were grants that went back to 2016 that had no proponent and no land, and we've actually had to clean up those and take the time to do that, which is what the grants hub has been spending its time doing over the course of the last few months—cleaning up that mess opposite. Of course, we are cleaning up the mess those opposite left under the Building Better Regions Fund—again, projects that go back to round 2 and round 3 that simply cannot be delivered. We're also having to clean up the infrastructure investment pipeline, with the review to try and look at— Ms 00AMR Did you want me to stop? Sorry? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of The Nationals, the member for Gippsland and the member for Page: you've had a pretty good go. If you continue to interrupt this minister one more time, I'll take action. Ms CA 00AMR The infrastructure investment pipeline that we've had to clean up was riddled with projects that are underfunded and were all about a press release and actually not about delivering infrastructure, particularly into our regions. We've made sure that in the budget we have delivered on our election commitments, and we are working through that process to make sure that they are actually delivered with integrity and with proper guidelines, and I make no apologies for that at all. I'm amused, frankly, by those opposite, who seem to have no concept of the notion of competitive grants or merit in grants, which is what we're getting on with delivering. Workplace Relations 53 14:39 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How accurate have reports been about the potential consequences of the government's workplace relations reforms? How will the government's policy to close labour hire loopholes affect workers? 14:39 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Moreton for the question. He may be surprised to learn that the fear campaigns last time were completely wrong and that the fear campaigns this time happen to be wrong again. What we saw today with the employment figures really says it all. I remember when the secure jobs, better pay bill was being debated last year, and we were being told by those opposite that it would be a bad outcome for jobs. They also claimed that it wouldn't deliver what we were saying it would deliver for gender equality. What we see now, when you change the laws in ways such as Minister Rishworth is doing with paid parental leave; such as what Senator Gallagher is doing with implementing the Respect@Work recommendations; and such as what this House did with the secure jobs, better pay changes, improving flexibility and improving pay equity laws, is changes in the workforce. We have not got what they predicted. We have, today, record employment. We have, today, record employment for women. We have, today, record women's participation. When you look at what has happened over that last period, where has the employment growth come from? Forty-nine per cent of the total employment growth is women moving into full-time jobs. That's what happens when you change the law. But, not to be deterred, we now see a new fear campaign about closing the labour hire loophole. First of all, we heard of one company claiming it would cost them billions of dollars, even though the policies they were assuming had not yet been determined. We then had an ad campaign based on a policy that was not the government's, not being contemplated by the government and not being contemplated by any government in the world—possibly North Korea, but no one else. Yesterday we saw a headline claiming that the IR reforms will 'blast a hole', with a multibillion-dollar figure attached, based on new modelling that had been done. We asked the modelling company whether we could see it. They said no. We asked the Minerals Council whether we could see it, and I got yesterday, but not in time for question time. We went through which of our policies they'd modelled. Had they modelled the labour hire loophole? No. Had they modelled our changes to the gig economy? No. Had they modelled criminalising wage theft or multi-employer bargaining? No. They actually hadn't modelled a single Labor policy. They had simply invented what it would look like if you took one per cent out of the economy, out of productivity—and, yes, it would look bad. But for the people's pay packets who are suffering from this loophole, it means they will be paid properly. (Time expired) Members Of Parliament: Staff 53 14:42 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was asked on Tuesday if Senator Gallagher had misled the Senate, his answer was no. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to confirm the accuracy of his answer? 14:42 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I stand by my comments. I outlined in a previous answer this week why that is the case, using indeed even Senator Reynolds own words when she returned to the Senate that evening. Medicare 53 14:43 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier to see a bulk-billing doctor, and why is this important? 14:43 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Robertson for his question. We are so lucky to have this talented, young emergency physician as part of our government. We all deeply rely on his advice, particularly in relation to health care, because he campaigned so hard to deliver better health care to his community on the Central Coast. Better than most people in this place, he understood the impact of nine years of cuts and neglect to Medicare. He was seeing it every single day at his workplace in the hospital. Billions of dollars cut from Medicare under those opposite had seen gap fees rise and bulk-billing rates decline. Indeed, some of the biggest drops in bulk-billing over recent years have been on the Central Coast and in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales. That might not worry those opposite, because we remember that the father of the modern Liberal party, John Howard, described bulk-billing as an absolute rort. The Leader of the Opposition, in his first budget as health minister, tried to abolish bulk billing altogether. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. It was a commendably tightly drafted question: 'How is the government making it easier to see bulk billing doctors, and why is it important?' It was not an invitation to range across the record of other parties going back 20-plus years. The minister, who is a serial offender in this regard, should be drawn back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The question contained a statement in there about why it was important, so I'm going to allow some latitude. It is not a free-for-all for the minister to talk about previous governments, but he can set some context and continue with his answer. Mr BUTLER HWK It does, though, bother the member for Robertson, and it bothers everyone else on this side of the House to no end. That's because, for Labor, bulk billing is the beating heart of Medicare. That is why the centrepiece of our Strengthening Medicare package in this year's budget was $3½ billion invested to triple the bulk billing incentive. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners described that initiative as a game changer, and so it is. It's a game changer for millions of mums and dads who want the confidence that, when their kid is sick, they can take them to a bulk billing doctor. It's a game changer for millions and millions of pensioners and concession card holders who have always relied on bulk billing GP services. It is game changer for tens and tens of thousands of general practitioners—the backbone of our healthcare system—who now know they have a government in Canberra who deeply respects and deeply values the hard work that they do every day. These are practices like the East Gosford Medical Centre in the member's electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales—a practice that services more than 3,000 patients. Before our budget, that practice was preparing to close, but now they say they can keep open. With the injection of confidence and the injection of investment, particularly into bulk billing, this practice will continue to service the needs of thousands of patients on the Central Coast. That is a Strengthening Medicare package from our budget, which is already making a difference. Members of Parliament: Staff 54 14:47 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Section 4.1 of the Prime Minister's Code of Conduct requires that ministers 'take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the parliament'. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to consider whether Senator Gallagher has breached the Prime Minister's Code of Conduct? 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I refer to my previous answers on this. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 He gets angry. He promised to smile if he became leader, but we see it so infrequently. Senator Gallagher has more integrity than some of the people who are pursuing these issues. I stand by Senator Gallagher. She has my absolute confidence, both as finance minister and as Minister for Women, but also as a human being who cares deeply about women in particular— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause for a moment. Whomever was interjecting then can cease. I didn't hear it, but they will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister incorrectly suggested that this question is the same as the previous question. It is not. Respectfully, Prime Minister, the question is about what steps you took to secure your own reassurance about the minister's misleading or not. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will turn back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 One of the things that characterises the very nature of who Senator Katy Gallagher is is that she's someone who deeply cares about women. As the member for Sydney said the other day, 13 per cent of women who experience sexual assault take action and report it. I know that— Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker— Honourable members interjecting— Mr R36 Well, forget it then— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 Do you want an answer or not? Honourable members interjecting— Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. Resume your seat, we're moving to the next question— Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, on a point— The SPEAKER 53517 It can't be about the Prime Minister's answer, because he has concluded his answer. But I will hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was clearly flouting your ruling. That point needs to be made, with respect. The SPEAKER 53517 With respect, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I'll determine who is flouting my rulings. Defence Procurement: Submarines 55 14:50 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government changing previous approaches to deliver on AUKUS and what is the pathway by which Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines? 14:50 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service in the Australian Army Reserve. And, if you'll indulge me, Mr Speaker, I also acknowledge the presence today of my good friend Henry Puna, the Secretary-General of the Pacific Island Forum. Next week it will be 100 days since our government announced the optimal pathway by which Australia will acquire a nuclear-powered submarine capability under the banner of AUKUS. This announcement represents one of the biggest defence decisions that has been made in our country's history. It brought to an end an 18-month process by which this pathway was established. But, obviously, in a larger sense we are just at the beginning of this journey so, since this decision, the government has been proceeding in earnest. The first tranche of legislation to help support the enterprise which will ultimately deliver the nuclear-powered submarine capability has now passed this House. The decisions have been taken to establish the Australian Submarine Agency, which will commence operations in just a few weeks time on 1 July, and, as we speak, there is a process underway for the appointment of its head. In the budget we saw funding for an additional 4,000 university places in STEM subjects, including nuclear engineering, which will underpin what will be one of the biggest industrial undertakings that our country has ever seen. The global rules based order today is under as much pressure as it has been since any time since the end of the Second World War. We are witnessing great power competition. The assumption that nations which trade with each other will never go to war with each other has been completely dispelled by the appalling invasion by Russia of Ukraine. The truth is that we live in a difficult world at a difficult time. The front line of our engagement with that world will always be diplomacy, through which we will seek to create pathways for peace. But it is so essential that we underpin this by getting the hard power equation right. Our future nuclear-powered submarines will give Australia the power to project, which will help enable us to play our part in providing for the collective security of the region in which we live, the Indo-Pacific, and the maintenance of the rules based order within that region. These are huge undertakings. They are very serious decisions and we do not take them lightly. But, ultimately, our government's first responsibility is to our national interest, and to ensuring that each and every day we keep Australians safe. The SPEAKER 53517 On indulgence, the member for Canning. Mr Hastie 260805 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to affirm the opposition's commitment to delivering AUKUS, along with the government. We have a number of gates that we need to hit over the coming decade before we become sovereign-ready and receive our first Virginia class submarine—the first gate of course being the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force-West in 2027. It's a huge task. AUKUS is a political project, it's a technological project and it's an industrial project. Everyone in this House has a role to play in making sure that we deliver on it and that we keep our country safe. Thank you. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bruce is warned. Housing 56 14:54 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. During the pandemic national cabinet discussed rents and rents were frozen in parts of the country. Research today shows almost two-thirds of renters, about two million households, are in financial stress and that financial pressures are greater today than during COVID or the GFC. You've said that national cabinet will be discussing renters' rights, so will Labor at the same time organise a national rent freeze and caps on increases, or does Labor think there should be no limit on high rents can go? 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the leader of the Greens for his question. What I think is that we shouldn't pretend that things can happen in order for the convenience of negotiations to say, 'Yeah, we'll go away and we'll disagree that I speak on behalf of eight state and territory governments who all have advice, because we have discussed this, that a freeze on rents would make housing supply worse and that housing supply is the major issue that we have to deal with.' So what I'm concerned about doing is making sure that we do what we can in a practical way to make a difference to renters' rights. I've put that on the agenda at the national cabinet. That will remain on the agenda because I understand that people in my electorate and in other electorates are struggling. I understand those issues very well, and that's why it's on the agenda for the national cabinet. The party that the member leads nationally is a part of government here in the ACT, in coalition, that has ministers. I haven't seen any of those ministers out there who actually hold a position to support a rent freeze—none, none. Your question went to a rent freeze. A rent freeze is what you've argued for. And you've argued that somehow the Commonwealth can speak on behalf of eight sovereign governments when that simply is just not the case. At the same time as the member for Melbourne is putting forward things that can't be delivered, something that can be delivered is the Housing Australia Future Fund. It's stuck over there because your party is voting with this party, the Liberals and the Nationals, to block 30,000 additional social and affordable housing units. It can be voted on this afternoon. All it requires is for you to have the same goodwill that, frankly, Senator Pocock, Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrrell have in examining what is required in recognising that this is an important way through. There are other things we can do in housing without this parliament, and we are working on doing those things. The member for Melbourne wants to exclude himself and empower the coalition to block social housing, the party that's never really supported public housing in this country, then that's fine. But when you associate with them— (Time expired) Defence Industry 56 14:58 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in Australia's defence industry? Why is it important to implement better policies for the future of this critical industry sector? 14:58 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member from the great defence state of South Australia. The truth is that the Albanese government is reshaping the Australian Defence Force to meet the challenges Australia faces. The government is supporting the Australian defence industry as a critical partner in delivering the capabilities the ADF need. The government will invest record amounts into the Australian defence industry. We're lifting defence spending by 0.2 per cent of GDP above the current trajectory by the end of the decade. We're investing in nation-building projects to construct nuclear powered conventionally armed submarines in Australia. This will not only give the ADF the capability it needs; it will support Australian industry, jobs and the economy. It will create 20,000 high-skilled secure jobs. It stands in stark contrast to the Liberal Party that wanted them built in Japan and then were on and off again with the Attack class. And, as recently as March this year, the opposition leader— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause a moment. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, I'm not sure if this minister wasn't listening when the earlier point of order was taken, which you upheld. Once again, we've got a commendably drafted question, but this minister is now ranging freely across matters which are not within the scope of the question, and he should be brought back to the question. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Paterson is warned. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW On the point of order, I draw your attention to the second half of the question which asked, 'Why is it important to implement better policies for the future?', which goes directly to 'better than what'. You can't describe something as being better without providing the comparison. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to listen carefully to the minister to make sure he is being relevant to that part of the question. Mr CONROY 249127 As recently as March this year, the opposition leader was arguing that all the new submarines should be built in the United States, surrendering 20,000 Aussie jobs. We're not just increasing defence funding and capability investment but we're also spending that money wisely, guided by the priorities of the Defence Strategic Review, including on guided weapons. For the last two years, those on the opposite side talked about guided weapons, but what did they produce when they were in power? It was one thing—a single media release. By contrast, we've moved $1.5 billion into the forward estimates, and we'll be making missiles in this country in 2025. Australia will have a missile manufacturing industry in two years time, increasing our self-reliance and sovereignty. Industry also needs clarity. We've done that through the Defence Strategic Review, and we'll build on this work in the upcoming Defence Industry Development Strategy. I'm also asked, 'Why it is important to have better defence industry policies?' The truth is that it's because we've inherited 10 years of neglect and mismanagement. When the opposition leader was defence minister, he left 28 major defence projects running a combined 97 years late and $6½ billion over project. He had a naval shipbuilding college that spent $114 million and trained zero Australians. By contrast, the Albanese government is taking defence and the defence industry seriously. We won't have a revolving door of ministers. Unlike those opposite, we've shown that we care more about capabilities for the ADF than photo-ops and empty promises. Members of Parliament: Staff 57 15:02 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Section 5.1 of the Prime Minister's code of conduct requires ministers: … to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office … in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament … The opposition has asked more than 30 questions about Senator Gallagher and allegations of sexual assault. When will Senator Gallagher provide an honest and comprehensive account of her conduct, given her many contradictory statements to date? 15:03 Mr ALBANE R36 Grayndler SE (—) (): I'm asked about questions to answer about these issues. The fact is that, dating back to 22 March 2021, there are 57 questions on notice in the Senate not answered whatsoever. They include, 'Is it still the Prime Minister's contention that the first time his office knew about the rape alleged to have occurred in Parliament House on 23 March 2019 is 12 February 2021?' and 'Is it still the Prime Minister's contention that the first time he knew about the rape alleged to have occurred at Parliament House on 23 March 2019 is 15 February 2021?' There are questions about the Gaetjens review—which, of course, we have not seen—and questions including, 'Did the Prime Minister's office tell Mr Dutton's office about media enquiries about the alleged rape before Mr Dutton's chief of staff contacted the Prime Minister's chief of staff on 12 February 2021?' and 'What information did the Prime Minister's chief of staff receive from Mr Dutton's chief of staff?' The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN Yes, Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The Prime Minister reaches for a piece of paper and rattles off a karaoke list of incidental facts. This is not relevant to the ministerial code of conduct that is your code of conduct. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. I want the House to come to order so I can hear from the Prime Minister. I can't hear what he's saying at the moment, because there is far too much noise. I will listen carefully to make sure he's being relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about questions and whether there have been answers given to them. They went on to also ask: Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff pass this information to anyone else? On how many other occasions in 2021 has the chief of staff to the Home Affairs Minister passed on information about sensitive Australian Federal Police investigations to the Prime Minister's chief of staff? The SPEAKER 53517 The deputy leader has already taken a point of order on relevance. I'm going to ask her to resume her seat unless it's on a different point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN Is it your view that the Prime Minister is being relevant to the question with this answer? The SPEAKER 53517 I haven't made a ruling. It's not the time to ask me those questions. Question time is for ministers. The question was about the statements and the issues surrounding Senator Gallagher and questions that have been asked. The Prime Minister is being relevant. I'm just listening to what— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! If you're asking questions about what has occurred and statements that have been made, and about the questions, I don't know exactly what questions Senator Gallagher has been asked in the other place. I am listening to the Prime Minister carefully to make sure he is being relevant. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on your point, it can't seriously be the contention that, if the Prime Minister or a minister is asked a question about questions that have been put to the government, the Prime Minister can somehow make relevant questions that were asked by the then opposition to the then government back in 2021. That can't be a serious interpretation of the standing orders in this parliament, I would respectfully put to you, Mr Speaker. It cannot be ruled in order, surely, for the Prime Minister to somehow, in this tricky and slippery way that he's been conducting himself— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. Members on my right will resume their seats. The minister for health? Mr Butler HWK A few points in response to that, Mr Speaker. Firstly, there is only one point of order on relevance allowed. It's quite clear the Leader of the Opposition was trying to have a second point of order on relevance. The second point I'd make is it was a very wide-ranging question, and the third point is he should withdraw what he said at the end of that point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 If the member finds the term unparliamentary, I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. To assist the House, if the member feels he's been reflected upon, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment. Mr Dutton 00AKI Noting the precedent, I withdraw. The SP 53517 I thank the Leader of the Opposition. In terms of this question, the Prime Minister needs to remain relevant regarding the questions that were asked in the Senate. I'm going to give him the call but I'm asking him to be relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 News flash! I'm not in the Senate. And—news flash—I'm not aware of all the questions that have been asked in the Senate, including today, because I've been here. But I do know that yesterday they got onto the big picture, because they asked whether an invite had been given to a wedding, some time, when Senator Gallagher was the Chief Minister of the ACT, a wedding that she didn't go to, a wedding that, like many of us—I get invited to weddings of people I don't know in my electorate. I'm sure that some of those opposite do too, if only for entertainment value! The fact is that 57 questions remain— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW He just referred specifically to one of the questions! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister is talking about the questions that were asked, which was in your question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I don't know every question that was asked in the Senate, so I've got to listen to what the Prime Minister is saying to make sure his answer is relevant. I'll hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN Is the Prime Minister flouting your ruling, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. No. I was trying to listen to the Prime Minister as he was referring to questions that were asked, which was part of your question. The Prime Minister has 14 seconds left. Mr ALBANESE R36 Believe it or not, that is a real question that was asked by those opposite. The Morrison government failed to answer 57 questions. We still haven't seen the Gaetjens inquiry, but it is up to this parliament that does have the power— (Time expired) Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The Prime Minister has concluded his answer, but I'll hear from the member for Petrie. Mr Howarth 247742 Mr Speaker, the point of order is on reflecting on members. The member for Isaacs made an unparliamentary comment to the deputy leader, Sussan Ley, at the beginning of the question. I ask that he withdraw. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I haven't said anything yet. If you let me finish and stop interrupting., I'll ask the Attorney-General to come to the dispatch box to withdraw an unparliamentary term that was used. Mr Dreyfus HWG I withdraw. Local Government 59 15:11 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. After 10 years of local government not having a voice to government, how is the Albanese Labor government ensuring that they can have their voices heard? The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B That question began with 'after 10 years of'. Practice is very clear. Speakers have ruled out of order questions or parts of questions about the policies of previous governments. I submit you should rule that part of the question out of order. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about a time period. She didn't mention the previous government. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I want to deal with this matter. If the question had said 'about the previous government'—I'm going to listen carefully to the minister to make sure her answer isn't all about the previous government, because that would not be in order. I'm going to listen to her policy announcement or policy topic. I call the minister. 15:12 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and the way she works with her local councils across her electorate. I give a big hello and say thank you for coming to the mayors, councils and CEOs in the room, many of whom know their code of meeting practice better than those opposite. I'm very proud that the Albanese Labor government is bringing back the Australian Council of Local Government after 10 years—an election commitment that we are delivering on. It's a big week for local government across the country. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker! Ms McBAIN 281988 On this side of the House, we trust local government, as they are our local infrastructure and service delivery partners. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. Ms McBAIN 281988 They know the communities they represent, and they know how to serve them best. That is why we've brought local government back to the table of National Cabinet. ALGA President Linda Scott attended National Cabinet in February of this year. I've also reinstated local government ministers meetings. We've held two in the last year, with a third one scheduled for August. The National General Assembly of the ACLG started on Tuesday with the Regional and Rural Forum and continues until this afternoon. It's the largest ever turnout with 1,100 representatives from across the country. With the theme 'Our Communities, Our Future', the assembly will see local government representatives come together to build policies that will help them build stronger communities across the country. The reinstatement of the ACLG will be our opportunity to hear from local government representatives what they need from our policies—policies that support local councils to build the communities into the strong and resilient places they need to live and work. We are committed to providing funding to all councils in need because on this side of the House we value fair and equal treatment of our councils, not those based on colour-coded spreadsheets. In the May budget this year our government committed $3.1 billion through the Financial Assistance Grant program, $500 million to Roads to Recovery and $85 million to the Bridges Renewal Program. Our budget also delivers $22.3 million to councils to undertake engineering assessments of local roads because we know the pressures councils are under. The Financial Assistance Grant program—which was enshrined in legislation, thanks to the Whitlam government—provides local governments with long-term certainty, transparency and the flexibility to focus on their priority areas. Shamefully, those opposite froze indexation on the important funding stream. This act has had an adverse impact on every town and village across the country—an impact that is still being felt today. On this side of the House, we take seriously the role that local government provides to our communities across the country. We'll continue to ensure that they have a voice at the table, and we will not forget them as a trusted delivery partner of the federal government. Australian Defence Force 60 15:15 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is for the Minister for Defence. In recent weeks there has been increased scrutiny about alleged war crimes perpetrated by the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan. In November David McBride will face trial for blowing the whistle about those war crimes. He is a courageous Australian who spoke up about wrongdoing that has horrified our country. Do you agree it is just not right that the first person to face trial for Australia's war crimes in Afghanistan is a whistleblower and not an alleged war criminal? 15:16 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question and appreciate the sincerity with which this is being asked and the seriousness of the matters which she has referred to in her question, about which I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place. The matter that you've referred to, as is apparent in your question, is listed in the courts right now. I'm advised that it is set down for trial, as you've described in your question, for later in the year. So I think in those circumstances it really would be inappropriate for me to make any further comments in this place. Government: Conduct 60 15:17 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to our Attorney-General. What action has the Attorney-General taken to improve integrity— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for McEwen will begin his question again. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Thank you. My question is to our Attorney-General. What action has the Attorney-General taken to improve integrity in government after a decade of denial and delay? 15:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I do thank the member for McEwen for his question, and I have to say there is a long list. Since coming to office just over a year ago, I've been astounded at the amount of work that was ignored or deliberately not progressed by the former government. I'll start with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. On 1 July 2023 Australians will finally have a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission as they were promised over four years ago by the former government. It'll be one with power to prevent, detect and investigate corruption across the entire federal public sector. We're going to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a review body which serves the interests of the Australian community, not the interests of the Liberal Party. We've restored integrity to the process for appointments to the position of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner and we're restoring the transparent and accountable appointments process for judicial appointments—again, something that's lost on those opposite. We've passed the Respect@Work legislation—another job left half done by the former government—which now requires businesses across the country to take proactive steps to create workplaces that are safe from the risk of sexual harassment. It's a major step forward for our nation. We're reinstating the Standing Council of Attorneys-General which has, under this government, agreed on collective action to address family, domestic and sexual violence. We're investing $14.7 million towards reforming Australia's sexual assault and consent laws as well as developing better prevention services. We're investing $8.2 million in trials aimed at early intervention and the prevention of sexual harm and violence. On this side of the House, we believe in treating alleged victims of sexual assault with respect. When someone is brave enough to come forward with a claim of sexual assault and other workplace mistreatment, their life and private details must not be open for public examination. As the Minister for the Environment and Water has told the House this week, rates of reporting of sexual assault crimes are low and conviction rates are even lower. When a woman who is considering reporting a sexual assault sees a confidential document from another alleged victim published on the front page of a national newspaper, they must ponder whether the report is worth it and whether those in power are going to come after them, too. This is unacceptable. Three people had access to the confidential document, and they are directly named in today's report: the member for Cook, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, and Senator Reynolds. The confidential document that's on the front page of a national newspaper was published without regard for the interests of an alleged victim of sexual assault. Her rights have not been respected. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 60 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 60 15:20 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BANDT M3C Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr BANDT M3C During question time, the Prime Minister misrepresented a number of statements that I made, including by misrepresenting statements made by members of the ACT parliament. I refer the Prime Minister to an article published on ABC— The SPEAKER 53517 Just pause a moment. The indulgence is granted to show to the House where you have been misrepresented, not anyone else. Mr BANDT M3C During the Prime Minister's answer to my question, the Prime Minister made a number of statements about my statements—and statements of my party—including with respect to misstatements about what members of the ACT parliament have said. The SPEAKER 53517 The form of the House is about where you personally have been misrepresented, so that you can explain to the House where you—not anyone else connected to it—have been misrepresented. It has to be you. Mr M3C Thanks, Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank you. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 61 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 38 of 2022-23 61 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 38 of 2022-23 entitled Probity management in financial regulators—Australian Competition and Consumer Commission: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Document made a parliamentary paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy Prices 61 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's policies which continue to drive up the price Australian families and businesses pay for energy. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members r equired by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:22 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax It's been a long and tiring week for the chamber, and so I thought we might start this MPI with a bit of a game of truth and dare, if those opposite are up for that. So where would we like to start? Would we like truth or dare? It's up to Labor. A government member interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Truth it is! The answer to this one is yes or no. Will the Labor Party break its promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills? Yes? No? True? False? Oh, they're silent. Nobody has actually accused the Labor Party of being very truthful, so let's go to the dare. Let's dare any member of the Labor Party to raise their hand if they will guarantee the Australian people that they will deliver on their promise of a $275 reduction in power bills. Any takers? For the Hansard, let it be known that not one Labor MP is prepared to stand by—oh, we have one! We do have one; I apologise. Let the record show that. If I look at the numbers, probably less than 10 per cent of the Labor Party in this House believe that they're going to deliver on their $275 promise. We heard in question time a lot of questions about the decade that was. We saw the Labor government inheriting government after a decade of delivery on the part of the coalition. We also saw Labor come to office after a decade of dithering in trying to formulate an energy policy. We know that because we just have to look at the results—look at the scoreboard. Our plan to deliver cheaper power prices for households: done, tick, delivered. Our plan to deliver lower power prices for businesses: done, tick, delivered. Our plan to deliver lower prices for industry: done, tick, delivered. For those who don't know the stats on that, power prices in fact came down by eight per cent for households in the last term of the coalition government alone, and it was 10 per cent for businesses and 12 per cent for industry. What we saw from those opposite—what we've seen from Labor—in coming to office was their promise for lower power bills for households. They promised it, they tried and they failed. Lower power bills for businesses: they promised, they tried, they failed. Lower power prices for industry—yes, that's right!—they promised, they tried and they failed. A part of the reason for this is that they had almost a decade to formulate an energy policy. But as soon as they entered office, they lost control. Within a month, Labor lost control of the energy market. Nobody is suggesting here whatsoever that energy is easy; energy is highly complicated. The war in Ukraine was raging long before last year's election. It is up to the government of the day to manage the situation domestically. The coalition understands that. Labor, though, came to office with a lot of promises. As soon as they were passed the ball they were found flatfooted. They had no idea of what to do. We almost begged them, as the new opposition, by saying, 'Please engage with industry.' But the Minister for Climate Change and Energy refused to engage with industry, believing—as Labor always does—that government knows best, that they know best and that he knows best. Instead of meeting with business, he met with climate activists. He put out media releases and propagated but he did not look for a solution. Meanwhile, the situation got worse and worse. As a result, the Australian people kept paying the price. Industry, the market operator and the ACCC have all been saying from day one of this new Labor government that the solution is supply—supply, supply, supply. It's a pretty simple formula. For those on the government benches: price is a function of demand and supply. If you restrict supply then it drives prices up. Everybody has been saying this to the Labor government, but they are refusing to listen. We can see that their entire suite of policies are actually aimed at restricting and suffocating supply. Let's look at the three areas of energy generation in Australia at the moment which are the most prominent. Let's look at coal; let's look at our baseload power stations. Since Labor has come to office, we have seen an acceleration in announcements of closures by baseload power station owners. Why? This is directly related to Labor's policy, the 82 per cent renewable target by 2030, signalling to the market that there's no role for baseload power and that within this very decade they're going to have 82 per cent renewables. As a result, we will see 80 per cent of baseload power come out of the grid by 2035. This is a policy decision that Labor made to actually remove coal from the capacity mechanism—in other words, ensuring there's no financial incentive to keep these power stations open and, again, driving an earlier closure of coal and of coal-fired power stations. And they're doing this, with 80 per cent leaving the grid by 2035, without any guarantee whatsoever that there's going to be a system in place. You don't turn one system off without having another system ready to go, but that is the consequence of their policies. That's coal. Let's now look at gas. All of Australia knows—unfortunately, all of our trading partners know—that this government is trying to suffocate the supply of gas. We know, and we saw it last year, that once you have insufficient reserve margin within the system the market operator will ensure that the lights don't go out. What we saw last year was gas being used but gas being called on. When there's unprecedented market intervention, as happened last year once Labor lost control of the market, we see prices go up. And who pays for that? Consumers—it comes through retail energy bills. What have they done to try to get more supply of gas into the market? They took that also from the capacity mechanism. They decided that the Kurri Kurri gas plant shouldn't be gas at all, that it must start with at least 30 per cent hydrogen. So Kurri Kurri has now been postponed by at least 12 months. They cut $100 million from the budget for gas exploration and gas pipelines. They cut another $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects. They provided $10 million for green lawfare so that we could have green legal activists go to court to take on gas development projects. They had unprecedented intervention in the market through price caps. They introduced a mandatory code of conduct, which of course sees them steering the direction of the market. They heightened uncertainty in the market through changes to the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. They introduced a punitive carbon tax, a methane pledge, without doing any modelling and are now looking at increasing the petroleum resource rent tax. In all of this, name me one measure of the Labor government that has led to an increase in the supply of gas? All of these things are direct Labor policies, and the consequence is a restriction of supply and an increase in price. Let's finish with renewables. Coming after the coalition delivered record investment in renewables and all the talk of those opposite, here is what we have learnt since they have come to office. The Clean Energy Council in a publication, RenewEconomy—hardly a right-wing publication—has revealed that construction of renewables is going well, $1.3 billion, based on the coalition's record of closing deals. But the first quarter of 2023 did not see one new renewable energy generation project closed. Not one reached final closure. This is because of the sovereign risk that Labor has introduced. They're failing even on renewables. So the next time you open your bill, Albo owes it. 15:33 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper This MPI is extraordinary. They're raising questions about policies and energy prices. It's extraordinary because (1) they had no energy policies—it was energy policy chaos—and (2) we heard from all the experts and all the economic commentators that our policies—and, yes, Deputy Speaker, we do have policies in this area—actually have been far from inflationary. In fact, they have been helping to manage inflation. Specifically, they do not drive up energy prices. In fact, they have had the opposite impact. It's quite an interesting take from the opposition when even their Treasurer went on national television and couldn't remember which energy policies they had actually supported and opposed. But I'd be happier to discuss our policies which might give them a bit of help when they're going on telly again. We intervened in the market to ensure that Australians were shielded from the worst of the power price shocks we've seen internationally. We're seeing the benefits of that policy, with power prices being significantly lower than they would have been expected to be without our intervention. Those opposite scoffed; we got on with the job. Let me tell you about another policy, the Energy Price Relief Plan. This is providing targeted energy bill relief and investing in cleaner, cheaper energy for the future. Unlike those opposite, we know that action is needed right now to keep our prices down and deliver the energy system we need for the future. That's why we've partnered with states and territories to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst impacts of the energy price spikes, driven by global events that those opposite simply choose to ignore. Part of this plan is the $1.5 billion Energy Bill Relief Fund, another policy they might have forgotten about. This targeted and temporary support will provide hundreds of dollars of additional bill relief to eligible Australian families and small businesses. I'm personally delighted that eligible households in my home state will receive an additional $250 off their power bills as a direct result of this policy, making a huge difference to household bottom lines. As a result of the interventions we've made and the subsidies that we are providing, it's projected that families in my home state of Victoria will have an annual power bill that is $555 cheaper than it would have been. That's a real difference to the budget bottom line for households in Victoria, and we know that those savings are replicated right across the country. Maybe the opposition posed this MPI because they weren't listening when we reinforced our commitment to implement the long overdue Capacity Investment Scheme, a policy that will unlock around $10 billion of private and public sector investment in clean dispatchable storage and generation to ensure reliable and affordable electricity supply and to reduce our exposure to high-cost coal and gas prices over the medium and long term. The opposition might be wondering about our Powering Australia policy. Our government is refusing to be asleep at the wheel, like they were when they were in government. They can deny it all they like, but we know that renewable energy is cheaper energy. They denied and decried it for decades. Opposition members interjecting— Ms KEARNEY LTU In fact, I hear a few of them still denying it right now over there, true to style. But we won't put our heads in the sand like them. We wouldn't do that to the families and businesses in Australia, who deserve cleaner, cheaper energy. Our Powering Australia policy will be key in ensuring we have an energy system that will serve us well into the future. It's about backing Australian workers and creating jobs, cutting power bills and reducing emissions by boosting renewable energy. These are all policies that have a direct impact on the hip pocket of families and businesses. As part of this vision, the opposition might need to be reminded of our Rewiring the Nation plan, a policy that invests $20 billion to modernise transmission in our power grid, to unlock greater investment in renewables and to enable greater uptake in the National Energy Market. While those opposite were in government we were left with an aging power grid which was acting as a barrier, a literal, physical barrier, to the uptake of renewables. Our government is making sure there's nothing holding us back in going full speed towards our renewable, cheaper, cleaner energy future. We've invested more than $200 million in establishing 400 community batteries across the country, with one in Alphington in my electorate. Again, this policy will unlock households' access to cheaper, cleaner energy. I would be remiss not to ask if maybe they were thinking of another incredible policy announcement we made this week, the appointment of a chair and advisory board of the Net Zero Economy Agency. What those opposite failed time and time again to recognise is that workers deserve a government that will proactively support them through a transition to a clean energy economy. That's why we established the Net Zero Economy Agency. When I was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it was my privilege to speak with workers right across the country. I heard exactly what it was like on the ground. Our government understands that we absolutely cannot talk about easing the cost of living and transitioning to a clean energy future without thinking of the impact on those workers. We will absolutely not leave them behind. If the opposition want to sit there and make ridiculous claims that we don't understand the financial pressure that workers and their families face, I'll simply point them to this policy. We've done all of this, and there is policy after policy making sure that Australians are coping with the rising cost of living right now. We've unlocked billions of dollars of investment in new energy generation despite the blocking tactics of those opposite. You've heard the moniker of the 'no-alition', Madam Deputy Speaker, and what an accurate descriptor that is. This is an opposition that actually voted against making prices hundreds of dollars lower. It absolutely beggars belief. All those opposite do is say no. We put forward plans to get more energy into the system; they say no. We bring in legislation to cut wholesale power bills; they say no. We intervene in the market to stymie increases to power bills; they say no. In fact, after we intervened in the market to ensure households were protected from the worst of the power price hikes, they didn't just say no; the Leader of the Opposition went much further, saying, 'Just like Reagan, we will wind back government intervention.' Amazing! What an inspirational leader—just what the people of Australia have been crying out for. This is the Leader of the Opposition who seriously suggested, in his budget reply speech no less, that the solution to power price hikes is nuclear energy. Here we go again—the old nuclear power solution. It's an oldie but a goodie. It's been discredited as too slow, too expensive, potentially dangerous, a white elephant—the list goes on. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 It's not working, Ged. Why are you against AUKUS? Ms KEARNEY LTU I guess they needed something to say that would make us, rather than them, say no for a change. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Fairfax, I believe you were heard in silence. Ms KEARNEY LTU I mean, really! While those opposite sit on their hands, we are getting on with the job of delivering energy price relief to Australian households. They can snipe from the sidelines, continue their blocking tactics, continue to say no, but we're not wasting time. We're delivering relief to households who need it. They left a mess for families and businesses to bear through extraordinary times. They failed to invest in renewables. They failed to invest in power generation. Actually, they failed to invest in power transmission, losing us precious time. And they refused to accept not only the science of climate change but also the economic reality of the benefits of renewable energy. Put simply, they failed Australia. We understand that families are doing it tough. Inflation is the defining economic challenge of 2023, as it was in 2022, and we know Australians are feeling it and seeing it. We are currently dealing with the most significant shock to energy markets in 50 years due to Russia's prolonged attack on Ukraine. Energy prices are forecast to stay high for longer because global energy market disruptions have become more pronounced and are persisting longer. But we are acting. We have a huge suite of policies. After a decade of underinvestment, policy division, grandstanding about the virtue of fossil fuels and the demonising of renewables—after all of that—they dare to come into this place and say our policies are driving up energy prices. It's absolutely absurd. They are the masters of nothing other than a policy vacuum. Unlike those opposite, we have policies. We know that we need to act right now, and we have policies that are keeping prices down and delivering the energy system we need for our future. 15:43 Dr W 281688 Mallee EBSTER () (): Today's matter of public importance is about the Albanese Labor government's policies which continue to drive up the price Australian families and businesses pay for energy. That's a fact. Earlier this week, in response to my question about a transmission line proposed for my electorate of Mallee, which I will talk about further in a moment, Minister Bowen would not even look at the 60 farmers who were up in the gallery. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Cowards. Dr WEBSTER 281688 It was atrocious. Minister Bowen wanted to talk about fact. The Labor government promised to reduce energy bills by $275—fact. They promised $275 97 times—fact. Within a year, Labor has delivered the highest energy prices on record—fact. Electricity prices will rise by a further 25 per cent for many Australians from 1 July—fact. The increase in the default market offer and the Victorian default offer, which will take effect from 1 July 2023 will ensure over 1½ million households across Australia will be worse off by up to $352 a year in Victoria—fact. Over 400,000 small businesses will see their electricity bills increase to $1,310 a year or more, depending on the business—fact. The minister, the Prime Minister and those opposite will spin, twist and twirl around everyday Australians and their power bills, saying: 'No, that bill isn't higher. Energy is cheaper. The green dream means cheaper electricity. More is less. Up is down. Bad is good.' The VNI West transmission proposal is an example from my own electorate. I am so proud of the farmers in Mallee who came across to Canberra this week, a 1,500km journey, to make the point. Disgracefully, Minister Bowen wouldn't even look them in the eye; he pretended they weren't in the chamber at all. Just like in Labor's Rewiring the Nation plan, Labor ignores that regional Australia exists. Labor considers those who live in regional Australia merely ants to be squashed under foot in order to railroad pylons and transmission lines through their farms, their remnant vegetation, the land significant to Indigenous people. Remember the climate change debate—trust the science, listen to the experts? Remember that? The experts have spoken in the form of professors Bruce Mountain and Simon Bartlett, who summed up the VNI West in two words—a monumental mistake. But federal and state Labor in Victoria will plough on, ignore the experts and the value of lives in regional communities to achieve political aspirations. What will that monumental mistake actually mean? It will mean higher power prices and higher food prices at the checkout. When you build on a monumental mistake, when you build something expensive and inefficient, guess who pays for it? Australian families and Australian small businesses. Instead of focusing on the needs of Australian families and businesses doing it tough, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy have introduced another carbon tax by changes to the safeguard mechanism, which will make the cost-of-living crisis even worse. All the while, Australia is looking down the barrel of an energy supply crunch over coming years which could see rolling brownouts and blackouts, which will only see energy prices continue to climb—that old maths, supply and demand. It could have been avoided if the ideological farce of a ban on nuclear energy had not been put in place decades ago. We would be like almost every other OECD and developed economy in the world with our abundant uranium supply. We could have kept power supply open with nuclear. Our carbon emissions profile would have been much lower. But, no, Labor's green dream sees us running head long into a supply crunch and, as I mentioned at the beginning, higher power prices. That's why the motion being considered in the Senate for an inquiry into the transmission grid and our real energy capacity is actually an urgent priority—it failed again today. Those opposite like to talk about heads in the sand. When you pursue blind ideology without social licence, without regard to the consequences, without the facts, your head is buried somewhere in a pretty dark place. 15:48 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga What a note to begin speaking on. I note the opposition come into this place suggesting that this government hasn't done anything on energy, and they have some quite unique and novel solutions for us. I did know that the member for Fairfax was a big proponent for nuclear energy. I had not realised the member for Mallee was a fellow traveller and also a proponent for nuclear energy. Having listened to the member for Mallee explain some concerns in her electorate around renewable energy and the potential for renewable energy, I do wonder if the member for Mallee has consulted with her electorate about how they might feel about a nuclear reactor in the member for Mallee's electorate. I wonder whether she has asked that question and whether the member for Fairfax has thought about where his dream of nuclear energy might be rolled out across Australia? While the member for Fairfax has been travelling the world, posting videos from Hiroshima about nuclear energy, our government has been getting on with the work of securing our country's energy supply. Our country has been getting on with doing the work that those opposite failed to do for nearly a decade. We have been investing in the supply our country needs for our future. And we know that there are very real cost-of-living pressures on Australians at the moment. Inflation is a global problem. The war in Ukraine has disrupted energy and energy supply across the world. These are real problems that our government has taken seriously and dealt with seriously, as grown-up governments do. We have not been flitting around the world filming videos at Hiroshima. We have not been pretending that our country should have a nuclear industry, an industry that all the experts tell us would be more expensive. In fact, nuclear modular reactors aren't even commercially viable yet. Building this industry in our country just makes absolutely no sense. But do you know what does make sense in our country? Renewables. And do you know what people in this country want our government to deliver? Renewables. Opposition members interjecting— Ms THWAITES 282212 Again, I note that those opposite have been scoffing at our renewable targets and at the fact that our government is trying to do the work to transform our country into a renewable energy superpower, to realise the potential of the future that is there and to make sure that our country benefits from the transformation that is going to happen around the world and that we do not get left behind. Those opposite would have us left behind. I was in my electorate on the weekend, and I was having a conversation with someone about what's going on about cost-of-living pressures, and do you know what they said to me? They said to me, 'I'm concerned that we're not going fast enough in terms of making sure that we're getting renewables into our grid.' I do understand that concern. We are coming off a very low base, because we had a decade when nothing was done. We had a decade where climate change being a real thing was something you couldn't mention in this place. We had a government that was full of deniers, and it seems the coalition are still full of deniers. Despite the message that the Australian people sent them just over a year ago, they haven't woken up. They still come in here and they still deny that the future of this country is renewable, that renewables will be part of turning this country into a clean energy superpower and that all Australians will benefit from that. Our government is getting on with that work. We are getting on with the work of making sure that we are doing all we can to provide relief on energy costs, and of course that's work that we did in this parliament late last year. It's work that, again I note, those opposite voted against. They come in here and they grandstand, but when it came to actually acting, when it came to being the adults in the room and dealing with the crises that our country faces, those people opposite failed to do it. They could not vote to provide that relief on energy prices. We have matter of public importance after matter of public importance on a similar topic from those opposite. I would just ask them to stop and reflect and to think about their actions, about the decade of denial and drift that they left us, about the mess that we are trying to clean up and about how they could work constructively with us to do this work in the best interests of all Australians. 15:53 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Two hundred and seventy-five dollars could help with the groceries for a family, but filling up that trolley costs so much more since Labor's been in. Two hundred and seventy-five dollars could help pay the kids' sports fees. Two hundred and seventy-five dollars is the broken promise of this Labor government to every single Australian. You can't delete that broken promise, because the Prime Minister said it 97 times before the election. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy talk about Russia's disgusting invasion of Ukraine as a excuse for power bill rises, but they forget to mention that they kept committing to a reduction in household energy bills by $275 after the invasion began. It's not only households which are suffering right now with cost-of-living pressures and energy prices skyrocketing because of this Labor government's failed policies. It's businesses, including small businesses. I asked the Prime Minister a question recently in question time. I said to the Prime Minister: Zokoko, a local chocolate manufacturer in my Western Sydney electorate of Lindsay, has seen their energy bill rise by $4,000 per quarter. The owner, Dean, says that this budget won't make much of a difference because he's still going to see his energy costs continue to rise. They're not going to stop at $4,000 more; they're going to continue to rise. And, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister came back and said: 'There is support for small and family businesses to tackle immediate pressures. We have an instant asset write-off'—an instant asset write-off that we set in place at $150,000, which this government has cut to $20,000! How is that helping small businesses? He also went on to say, 'This budget has provided welcome breathing space for households and small businesses in the form of energy relief.' What a joke! Even the Australian Energy Regulator recently said that energy prices will skyrocket. There is no relief when something is skyrocketing—by around 25 per cent for many Australians from 1 July. This is a kick in the guts for every single family in my community in the electorate of Lindsay in Western Sydney, and, indeed, for the entire country. Households are seeing their earnings evaporate so quickly now, with ever-rising interest rates on their mortgages, food prices rising and fuel costs. The impact of rising energy prices, too, will be further economic hardship, in my community and right across this country. I've had constituents come into my office in tears because they are struggling to pay their bills. Having $275 in their pocket would really make a difference. And they're very aware that this Prime Minister has broken his promise to them. They will not forget. The people of Lindsay do not forget. This contrasts to what we did when we were in government and power prices reached their lowest level in eight years. In just two years under our government, power prices fell by eight per cent for households, 10 per cent for small businesses and 12 per cent for larger businesses. The previous government did this by putting the interests of energy consumers first and focusing on the delivery of affordable and reliable power. Instead of focusing on the needs of Australian families and businesses doing it tough, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy have introduced yet another carbon tax with their changes to the safeguard mechanism, which will make the cost-of-living crisis even worse. These increases that we are facing will see households pay increases of between 20.5 per cent and 28.7 per cent, with New South Wales, my home state, increasing by 24.9 per cent. Where are Australians going to find the money to cover these costs? I have people, as I said, crying in my office. They can't afford the prices now. It would be a great question for the Prime Minister to answer: how are they going to get that extra money? I visit my local manufacturers all the time, and they tell me that they're at threat of closing. One manufacturer told me that their energy bills are up 200 per cent. This means hundreds of local jobs will be lost. When we were in government, we worked so hard to build our local jobs. Having a job close to home and not having to travel out of area is something so important to people in Western Sydney. We will see prices continue to rise under this Albanese Labor government, to the detriment of households and small businesses right across Australia. 15:58 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen It's always great to come in and do an MPI, particularly on something as important as household energy prices. The one consistent thing we have from those opposite is that the truth is never coming from their lips. We hear it all the time. We've heard the '$2 ScoMo' and we've heard all the nuclear stuff from Smithers over there about what's going to happen. Never ever do we hear where they want to put nuclear. They just say, 'Oh, we want to do it, but we don't know where.' They'll never name a site. The last time they were in government, you know where they named a site for nuclear power? Puckapunyal Army base—imagine that! It's the only live firing range in Australia, and those opposite wanted to put a nuclear power plant there. Absolute Einsteins! It's so bad that they could never get through a single sentence. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Why are you against AUKUS? Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E AUKUS is not nuclear powering your home. Are you that far out of your depth, mate? Seriously. What we do know is that we lived through 10 years— Ho nourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for McEwen, there's a lot of cross-chamber chat going on. I can't hear you. I'm giving you the call, and I ask others to give you silence. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E I'll just again remind those opposite that AUKUS nuclear powered submarines don't power your house. If you can't figure that out, you probably should wander back up to the back bench where you belong. You almost make your predecessor look intelligent. But I'll say this: when it comes to talking about the $275, they forget the second part: by 2025. I'll give you a great little reminder of 10 years of neglect, delay and dithering. They had 22 energy policies and couldn't deliver one. This was a government that was in power for 10 years and couldn't deliver a pizza, let alone a simple energy policy. I'll go back to their first Prime Minister in the first part of the mess—a bloke by the name of Tony Abbott. You remember Tony Abbott; you voted for him. He was a champion. He stood up and said in 2013 that they were going to deliver a $550 cut to power prices. That was Tony Abbott. We all remember him—speedos and eating onions. But what did they deliver? He also said in 2014, when he was the minister for women—because they couldn't find a woman to be a minister for women, so they got him to do it, because old Tones is the most sensitive new-age guy you could think of—that cutting household power prices under their failed policy—No. 6, I think it was, on 22 December, so here's a Christmas present for all the women in Australia—would benefit women. He said women would benefit from their $550 power price decrease. But guess what? Like everything else, it was never delivered. Then on 17 August 2015—those over there like to talk about fact checks, so please go and check the date—there's sloppy Joe Hockey standing there with a big 'wrong'—no $550. But you never, ever hear them apologise. You never hear them say: 'Oh, we got it wrong. We made a blue—22 policies and we couldn't deliver anything. All we did was drive prices up.' So it was left to us, when we came into government, to address this problem, and that's what we've been doing. Every single indicator has shown our intervention in the market is bringing prices down. Wholesale prices have come down, and retail prices have come down. You can even read people like Clare Savage. I know it's probably hard for you to read a full sentence, but she estimated that an increase between 35 and 50 per cent would be the number announced today if the government had not brought things down. It's all about what we're doing. Repowering the nation is about making sure that when power leaves the power station it gets to your house. Investing in clean, green energy is nothing short of just delivering cheaper power—reliable power that is not going to impact on the economy. We all remember the time when they sat there—the frontbench—all nibbling on a piece of coal because that's all they could think of. They thought it was great fun. They made fun of the workers in the coal industry who are suffering with black lung. They thought it was funny to sit there and say, 'There's nothing wrong with coal.' They forget these things, but memory on our side is very strong. We know what we went through with nine years of mistakes, nine years of failure and nine years of neglect. This government came in with one single thing to do: fix up the mess that was delivered. We know what they did. Angus Taylor, the member for Hume—sorry, the shadowy Treasurer—was the one who deliberately and knowingly hid price rise increases from the Australian public—price rises that were coming, but they hid them until after the election because they didn't want Australians to know how much the price rises were. But we're fixing that mess. We're continuing to fix the mess that they've created, and we're continuing to clean the country. 16:03 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn The No. 1 issue I hear when travelling around the electorate of Flynn is how people are struggling with the cost of living, especially families and businesses dealing with the rising cost of energy. Families and businesses are genuinely hurting. There are people who are now at breaking point. I've had many emails and calls from retirees, families and working people who are hurting every time they go to the supermarket, every time they open their electricity bill, every time they get a letter from the bank announcing another interest rate rise and every time they go to the bowser to fill up the family car with petrol. Under this Labor government, this is set to get even worse, and Labor has no plan to ease this burden of the cost of living and the price of energy. Let's look at the Labor government's truckie tax as an example. In their recent budget they announced a six per cent increase on the heavy vehicle road user charge over a three-year period, which will equate to more than 18 per cent over the three-year period. Everything we have in this country comes on the back of a truck—all of the goods we buy. Everything that travels from a port to a shop, whatever it is, comes on the back of a truck—groceries and wind turbines. Our truckies keep this country going; they get food to our stores and out to our shopping centres. There are more than 197,000 people employed in the industry, and this reckless tax puts drivers' jobs and livelihoods at risk, drives up the cost of living and drives up the cost of energy. The minister for infrastructure argues that this increased tax gives certainty to the transport industry. The only certainty the transport industry will have is that it will have to increase costs and charges and pass those on to the consumer. How can this possibly help with the cost of living that many Australians are experiencing? This is bad government policy and it only adds to inflation. On 97 occasions the Prime Minister promised Australians that their electricity bills would go down by $275. Well, where is it? All we've had is our power costs increase—that's it. Power bills at the Emerald grocery store in my electorate of Flynn have increased by 40.77 per cent over the previous 12 months, from $78,313 to $110,224. That's from June 2022 to May 2023. How can they possibly say that energy is getting cheaper? It is not, it is getting more expensive! What is this going to mean? The grocery store at Emerald will increase and pass on their costs to the consumer. This will make everything more expensive. Add that to a predicted 28 per cent increase rise in energy costs and everything will become more expensive. Let's look at Minister Bowen's energy policy, which is supposed to bring power bills down. The policy involves installing 22,000 solar panels every day between now and 2030, and 40 wind turbines every month between now and 2030, and there is a proposal to build 28,000 kilometres of high-voltage powerlines to connect these renewables to the grid. Mr Bowen says, arrogantly, that renewables are getting cheaper. Well, if renewables get any cheaper nobody is going to be able to afford their electricity bill! I received the following email from a constituent. It says: This current Federal Government had spruced election promises of lower electricity prices and that all these installed renewables provide cheaper supply; however, the real-world evidence does not support their claims. As you are in opposition it is your responsibility to hold the government to account at every opportunity. I would ask you pressure this new federal government and the state government on behalf of those small businesses and families who must financially pay for all of this as we are on an unsustainable track. And that is the truth of the matter. My question to Mr Bowen is: do you really think these policies are making energy cheaper for Australians? They simply are not. And my question to householders across Queensland is: has your power bill gone up or has it gone down under the Labor government? The facts are that it has been reported that power prices in regional Queensland are expected to increase by 28 per cent. That is a further cost impost on everybody. 16:08 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Once again, here we are in this place dealing with basic misinformation. This matter of public importance, so called, is a basic misattribution, a diversion and an attempt to 'look over here' to try to fool the Australian public. I say to those opposite: you deeply underestimate Australians. Just as they saw through your lies, misinformation and rorts at the last election, Australians know why energy prices have risen. They also note that energy prices had risen under the previous government—under those opposite. Make no mistake, this government is aware of the pressure that rising prices has on Australians, on families and on businesses. But when we're looking to allocate blame, or looking for the causes of energy price pressures, let's not insult the intelligence of Australians. They remember that the former energy minister, the member for Hume, deliberately hid rising energy costs so that those were not released until after the election. He actually amended the industry code for electricity retailers on 7 April—a really big coincidence—three days before the election was called, and deliberately hid energy prices from Australian voters until after the election. It's really hard to contemplate how anyone thought that was a justifiable and ethical course of action. But those opposite and the truth are strangers when it comes to energy prices. In May 2019, they promised to deliver an average energy wholesale of $70 per megawatt hour by the end of 2021. Instead, by the time of the election in May 2022, the price was $286.18. They promised a decrease of 25 per cent, but they delivered an increase of 240 per cent over three years—and yet they propose this MPI. Those opposite announced—because they were terribly good at announcements—$1 billion to support 3,800 megawatts of new generation. This was the Underwriting New Generation Investments program, the very attractively named UNGI fund. Of course, they weren't so good at delivery. Not one single dollar was delivered into that. And under their regime, as we've heard, four gigawatts of capacity left the system, but only one gigawatt was put back in—and yet they lecture us on supply. Getting back to the question at hand: what is the actual cause of price rises in the energy sector? Those opposite know full well that the major cause of energy prices is the illegal war in Ukraine. Why would events on the other side of the world impact us here in Australia? A large part is because our energy market is exposed to international prices. After 22 energy plans under those opposite, none of which landed, you would think we would have an energy market that worked for us Australians. This is a government that takes this issue seriously, not as a political pointscoring exercise. So, in December last year, when this government recalled parliament to pass urgent legislation to limit energy price rises, those opposite voted against it. As a result of this intervention, the direct market offer increase is 27 points lower than it would have been in my home state of South Australia. We have energy policies, and we have an energy plan. We know, as do the industry experts, as does the rest of the world, that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, and, yes, it will take time, but we have a plan to get there—not 22 plans. We have one plan and we're acting on it. I'm reminded of the saying: 'When is the best time to start something? Ten years ago. When is the second best time? Now.' After a wasted decade, 10 years lost, when we could have been world leaders in energy transition, instead, we are starting now. But those opposite propose nuclear energy as the solution. The most expensive form of energy but also a form of energy that will take about a decade-and-a-half to establish in the country. If you can find 80 places to put 80 small modular reactors, good on you. Again, they did have a decade to do something about this, to build all of these nuclear reactors. How many to do you think they built? None. How many were started? None. How many have a site? None. How many have planning approval or social licence? Zero. Twenty-two energy plans and zero nuclear reactors built. This government has an energy plan. We are implementing it in a very difficult international environment. 16:13 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I want to thank the member for Fairfax for raising this very important matter of public importance, which is about the government's policies, or lack of policies, on the energy market. Mr WILLCOX 286535 I'll tell you what, I'm pleased you spoke about that. I tell you what, it's not going really well for you, is it? The simple fact of the matter is: power prices are going up. That's exactly what's happening. Power prices are going up. You can talk about it however you want. You can dress it up, you can do whatever you need to do, but power prices are going up. This is on the back of a promise from the Albanese Labor government that they were going to come down by $275. Yes, $275—that's not a slip of the tongue; that's a promise that was mentioned 97 times. We're used to Labor's porky pies. It's nothing new at all. Mortgages are going up; grocery prices are going up. But let me tell everyone in this place that grocery prices will continue to go up, because you've lost control of the energy market. Woolies, Coles—all the major retailers—have to have air conditioning and lights, and that requires energy. That's going to go up. Government members interjecting— Mr WILLCO 286535 I appreciate the interjection of '2025'. That is another fantastic thing about this place. I love being in this place, because everything is recorded. Let's focus in on that—'by 2025'. I'll bet a carton of beer and say there's no way in the world that power prices will be cheaper than they are now. And that's simply because of capex. The trajectory that the current government is on, taking us down this renewable energy path at all costs, simply won't work. You have solar, for example. When a generator develops a solar farm, the first thing they do is wipe out all the vegetation there—and we'll talk about that a bit later. Then you put the solar there and it contributes energy to the grid for about eight hours a day—unless clouds come over, and then it's less than that. It's unreliable and it's intermittent. So then what happens when you can't use that? You need some energy, so you build a big wind tower. How do you do that? You wipe out all the vegetation on top of the hill, and then you put the wind tower up the top. But when the wind doesn't blow there's no energy again, so more capex is sitting there doing nothing. Then you have to firm it in some way. The only way you can firm it is with gas, but no-one over on that side of the chamber wants to talk about gas or coal—certainly not coal. The Treasurer couldn't even mention coal, which contributes over $100 billion to the economy, in the budget speech. It's: 'Oh, no, we can't mention coal.' You aren't even brave enough to have the conversation about nuclear. You need to at least have the conversation about nuclear. We have all this steel and all these mystical and magical things happening out in the environment, but, as we talked about, you got rid of all the vegetation. There's this very valuable thing called photosynthesis. Let me, as a farmer, tell you how that works. You start off with a plan, you have all the vegetation, you add some sunlight and some water, and the plants turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. But you've just wiped out all that vegetation to put the solar farm or the wind farm there. It simply does not make sense. To back it up, we've got the ridiculous Queensland pumped hydro scheme next to Eungella Dam. It is absolutely crazy. To use a pumped hydro system, you need energy to pump the water up. There's no energy there. There's no transmission there. Then you need the transmission lines to go away from that. Again, you will be taking more vegetation out of the system. Here's a spoiler alert for everyone out there: you're going to make power prices much higher if you keep going down this track. That's why I'm so pleased that you keep talking about how in 2025 we will see that reduction. I will wait for that reduction. I really look forward it to. You can't have transition without transmission. What's going to happen, folks, if we have a cold winter or a really hot summer? There are going to be blackouts everywhere, and we will be holding the Albanese Labor government to account for that. 16:18 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Here we are at the tail end of yet another sitting week and at the tail end of yet another matter of public importance. Variety is the spice of life, and we have had a bit of respite from the MPI on energy prices—I think the last one was 1 June. Those opposite want to come into this place to talk about high energy. We see at the helm what they must believe to be an example of high energy: the member for Fairfax. We hear the same tired lines from those opposite and see the same tired faces. But when you look at those opposite who are here just to soak in the atmosphere, you can truly see the ennui setting in. It settles like sediment on the spirits of those occupying the benches on that side of the chamber. Many of those opposite served in a government that hated the idea of having an energy policy so much that they rolled a Prime Minister because of it. Some of the newer faces here, much like myself, who were playing along at home when all that was happening, were at least in this place when they voted against the Albanese Labor government's mandate to fix nine years of policy inaction on energy. Even now, as they lick their wounds after their attempts at blocking legislation in this place—a move by the government that was tailored to provide energy price relief to Australian families—we had the Leader of the Opposition, almost one month ago, pledging to repeal legislation that provides energy price relief. This wasn't a leak from shadow cabinet or a live mic mishap. He fronted up to deliver a keynote speech and was probably very proud of himself. Just like Reagan. He said, 'It is almost refreshing, to a small degree, to see those opposite try to dial back progress in the area of public policy by 40 years, instead of the real good-old days.' I think this really needs to be highlighted. This is the agenda those opposite have prepared for working families, if allowed to form government again. It's an opposition that went out of its way to be a void on energy policy as a government. It is almost as if it's a game to them, a game that brings back some perverse nostalgia to the high school debating days. This is why we have to respond to the arguments of those opposite in debates like this, so they aren't allowed a free pass at ignoring facts, ignoring the details, ignoring the bigger picture and, indeed, ignoring a lot of the nuances in this policy space. We cannot expect much sophistication from photocopy talking points that likely include some parts that are several months old. I keep holding on to the hope that the continuation of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine—an illegal war that has seen the most significant shock to world energy markets in 50 years—isn't something the opposition blames the government for, the fact that it continues to this very day. Yet they do. They actually have the gall to argue that—every time they mention the word '$275 election promise', one which refers to an outcome in 2025, from modelling that was conducted in 2021, prior to the event. This illegal war has been responsible for the biggest shock to global energy markets in 50 years. When those opposite call this a broken promise, frankly, they should look at both a calendar and a mirror. They cannot be that naive to continue to stall basic facts. Those opposite might call it 'lies, damn lies', the statistics or perhaps even the fourth category, which is whatever error of basic maths that caused the member for Hume to come into the chamber and butcher inflation statistics. It sounds bad when you attribute it to the member for Hume but it's even worse when it's attributed to the shadow Treasurer. The member for Hume comes up a lot in this area. His last dying act as minister before the election was to hide default market offer prices from the Australian people before they voted for a change in government. It was an offer that saw prices go up and up and up. This contrasts with the last 2023 default market offer, one that saw prices 27 per cent lower in my home state of South Australia. I know whose side I would rather be on, a side that has an energy policy more sophisticated than just no, one that brings about targeted cost-of-living relief to families, not one that takes great pride in saying they're going to repeal a policy that brings about energy price relief the very moment they can. I guess it is true, what they say about conservatives: very little changes—their ideals, approaches to policy, the topics they bring up at MPI time. Maybe next week. But I won't hold my breath. BILLS 70 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 70

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Report from Federation Chamber 70 16:23 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 22 May 2023, I will put the question immediately. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 70 16:24 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 71

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Report from Federation Chamber 71 16:24 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 22 May 2023, I will put the question immediately. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 71 16:24 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 71

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

Report from Federation Chamber 71 16:25 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 22 May 2023, I will put the question immediately. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 71 16:25 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 71

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 71 Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 71

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 71 16:27 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is another demonstration of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the environment. I've listened to much of the debate from the members who have already spoken. Having heard the criticisms of it from some members of the coalition and some of the Greens gives me the view that we, the Labor side, have got this bill about right. We live in a world of extraordinary natural beauty: breathtaking landscapes combining valleys, mountain ranges, beautiful coastlines, magnificent forests, vast ice lands, deserts, rivers and waterfalls; unique natural iconic places that each year attract tens of millions of visitors from across the world; natural wonders that sustain unique flora and fauna that have adapted to the climatic conditions and topography of the locality and that not only sustain life but often considerably add to the economic viability of the local area. The Great Barrier Reef is a prime example of that, with an estimated 64,000 jobs dependent on it and adding some $6.4 billion annually to the regional economy. Regrettably, too much of our natural world has been destroyed or degraded. The World Wide Fund for Nature's Living planet report 2022 states that wildlife populations have declined by an average of 69 per cent in the past 50 years. Climate change, population growth, rising consumption, greed, incompetence and mismanagement are all contributing to the demise of the earth's natural resources at an alarming rate. Already too much has been lost. According to an article authored by David Dodwell: … 40 per cent of the world's forests have been lost in recent decades, with around 10 million hectares still being lost every year … 37,000 of the 134,000 animal and plant species it assesses face direct extinction threats. About a quarter of the world's 20,000 bee species, essential for pollinating food crops … are feared to have been lost since 2016. That means that, in just 6½ years, we have lost an estimated one-quarter of the world's bee stocks. That figure alone should alarm people. Whilst there are indeed countless examples of wonderful environmental restoration projects—and, I should say, mostly from local community volunteers—the fact remains that every year the environmental losses far outweigh the gains. It is notable that the worldwide Rotary organisation has now added the environment as the seventh pillar of Rotary service around the world. Speaking of Rotary, in my own local area— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Housing Affordability 72 16:30 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth This week, members of the House and Senate crossbenches called for a citizens' assembly into housing affordability, to help deal with this wicked problem. This afternoon, I want to explain what an assembly is, how it would work and why we believe it's a useful tool for improving our democracy. The idea is based in deliberative democracy, where we take a representative group of Australians and immerse them in a challenging policy topic. They invest a huge amount of time in learning about an issue, talking to experts and to people with lived experience, and then they work through the issues and come to a consensus on what we should do. It's a patient, thoughtful alternative to politics as normal, and it has proven to be a valuable way of solving highly politicised issues and coming to consensus views on such topics as abortion and marriage equality in Ireland and climate action in France. Assemblies can be a tool for breaking through political deadlock and finding resolutions to the biggest challenges we face. They're effective partly because the participants are not politicians, so they're not hemmed in by ideology or pressured to act or think in a certain way; partly because participants are open to new ideas and new information, so they can explore options that might otherwise be seen as controversial or risky; and partly because people are, by nature, problem-solving creatures. We want to work together. We want to sort things out, especially when they're challenges that our family or friends have to face. Of course, assemblies need to be done well to be effective. For that, the group needs to be representative. They need to have access to experts, information and a range of perspectives, and they need to have the time to properly work through the issues. It can be done. It's an idea that is well suited to a challenge like housing affordability. Our housing markets are among the least affordable in the world. Too many of our young people have been priced out of communities where they grew up, and too many have been priced out of the market altogether. We can do better, but getting there requires a change, and it doesn't seem like any of our politicians are making enough of an effort to advocate for policies that will make enough of a difference. Maybe it's expensive. Maybe it's hard. Maybe it takes courage. Maybe there are complicated trade-offs across our community that we have to deal with. Whatever the reason, a citizens' assembly is a way that everyday Australians can come together, understand the issues and come up with a consensus for change. That's what we need right now. The case for change is incredibly strong. That's why the proposal is supported by so many parliamentarians from right across our country: Dai Le, Andrew Gee, Andrew Wilkie, Kate Chaney, Helen Haines, Zali Steggall, Dr Monique Ryan, Kylea Tink, Dr Sophie Scamps and Zoe Daniel, as well as Senator Jacqui Lambie and Senator Thorpe. I thank them all for coming to yesterday's announcement and for backing this idea. The other piece of support we need for this to work is that of the government. Three weeks ago, the House crossbench shared our proposal with the government. Our main ask was that the government commit to listening to the findings of the assembly and providing a formal response to their findings. We'd like to know what parts of the consensus the government supports, what it will consider adopting and what parts it won't support. This isn't a big ask, and we weren't pushing for a quick response. After all, the point of this process is to be deliberative. But the government has already ruled it out. They have refused to provide us with a formal response and said they'd only consider the proposals in the same way they'd consider other proposals. I have to say it is incredibly disappointing that a community could come together to try and find a resolution to one of the biggest challenges facing our country, and their own government rules out even the possibility of responding to their ideas in a formal, constructive way. It's disappointing and it's arrogant. It's arrogant to think that the only policy ideas worth pursuing are those which originate in the ministerial wing of Parliament House. The Prime Minister said today that he thought this was the citizens' assembly. I say to this citizens' assembly that it has been singularly useless at trying to find a solution to housing affordability over the many decades that we have all been in this House. I think this House, this citizens' assembly, has let the community down, and I think it's time to change that. The community voted for change at the last election, and this is not the spirit of change the community voted for. The case for a citizens' assembly into housing affordability is a strong one. We won't be deterred by the Prime Minister's opposition, but we'll work with our communities and do what we need to to make it happen. Housing affordability is too important an issue to be put off, and the community's views are too important to ignore. Child Care 73 16:35 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I am so excited about the positive changes this government is introducing from 1 July this year. Among the most impactful of them for my electorate of Holt is the Albanese Labor government's signature cheaper childcare reforms. My electorate is one of the youngest federal electorates in Victoria, and I have met with countless parents and discussed the changes. Most parents in my electorate do not have the luxury of only having one income earner so the other can focus solely on their children. This is why childcare reform in this country is so overdue. The Australian Labor Party knows this, and that's why we made it one of our key election commitments. We will not let parents down. We will not let children down. I am proud that this government has invested $4.7 billion over four years to deliver cheaper child care to Australians. In Victoria alone, this means over 302,000 families will be better off. This change helps to empower all parents, particularly women, to re-enter the workforce, knowing they can afford child care. Under Labor's changes, 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 change. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph; the government's cheaper child care plan will help everyday people, including my brother, Hamish, and his amazing wife, Christine. Some of you in the chamber may know that Christine gave birth to a beautiful baby boy named Xander just last week. As a proud aunty, my heart is filled with joy and love for them as they start their journey of parenthood. While there's quite some time until Xander will be in child care, I am relieved to know that Hamish and Christine won't have to worry about ridiculous out-of-pocket costs. It means more money in their pockets to spend on Xander and their family, more money to save for a rainy day or more money for the family to take a holiday, because these are the things that matter in life. Our families, our communities—they bring us joy and happiness. There is always more to do in this space, but I am proud of this significant step to reform child care in our first 12 months of government. Another crucial change for current and future parents is our reforms to paid parental leave. From 1 July, paid parental leave will combine into a joint 20 weeks of paid leave for couples and single parents. This empowers couples to decide how to best divide the leave between them. This is opposed to the previous primary and secondary payments, which often did not reflect the reality of parenting life. We haven't stopped there, however. The government will increase paid parental leave progressively to 26 weeks by 2026. We know when parents have more time with their babies, it increases their bond and creates priceless memories. From 1 July this year, wages across the board are increasing too. We will see an increase of 15 per cent for aged-care workers, 8.6 per cent for those on minimum wage, and 5.75 per cent for those on the award wages. Make no mistake, it's no coincidence that wages are going up again since Labor won office. Unlike the Liberals, who proudly stated that it was a deliberate design feature to keep wages low, Labor knows that when workers are looked after so is this whole country. These positive changes and so many more have been desperately needed after nine years of neglect by those opposite. Only Labor governments can get this done. We will never stop fighting to ensure no-one is left behind in this country. I thank the House. Flinders Electorate 74 16:40 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders When I ask my constituents, the beautiful residents of the most beautiful part of Australia on the Mornington Peninsula, what concerns them most I get varied answers, but there are some common themes. They want better infrastructure, of course, better roads, some public transport and fixed roads. They want far less red tape in their lives, from permits to employment, immigration and navigating aged care and support services like the NDIS. They want easy access to skilled workers and affordable accommodation for them to live in. They want to keep more of what they earn and not be punished for making sacrifices to provide for their family. In Victoria, it seems there are new taxes every day—more payroll tax, more land tax, more COVID tax, more tax. They want a sensible and realistic transition away from a heavy reliance on fossil fuels but ensuring that we still have reliable, constant and affordable energy. They want local businesses to flourish, businesses that can grow and provide employment for the next generation of local families. Above all, they want the spiralling cost-of-living crisis to stop. There is an interesting connection between most of these concerns and the Albanese government. They're all related to Labor's promises to the Australian people in the lead-up to last May's election. And yet, not one of them has been delivered, not in any meaningful way which actually improves local lives and livelihoods. Australians, on average, now have less money in their pockets. There is a fantastic plan to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy—and when I say 'fantastic', I mean fantastic in its original sense of derivative of fantasy—the implementation of which will require 22,000 solar panels a day, the erection of 40 wind turbines a month and roughly 28,000 kilometres of power lines. Their energy bills are simultaneously skyrocketing. Australians are paying higher mortgages and higher rents now than before. The average mortgage holder must now find 20,000 additional dollars every year to cover repayments. There businesses are struggling with the weight of seven per cent inflation and the poor economic management of this government. And yet every day the cost-of-living crisis worsens. On every measure, my residents are financially worse off under this government. Let me provide some examples of my constituents doing it tough. Max from Point Leo, who runs his own manufacturing business, pays land tax of $14,800 on his business premises, plus rates on top, increased energy costs, various levies and more and more taxes. They all have to be passed onto consumers one way or the other for the business to survive. Joe and Julie from Mornington wrote to me about their soaring energy bills. They calculated that, based on their past usage, their gas bill will increase by almost $700 this year, which is a 50 per cent increase. Terri, a pensioner in Balnarring, told my office that her electricity bill had increased by more than 40 per cent in just the last 12 months. Eddie from Hastings calculated that his energy bill will increase by 39 per cent this year alone, and that was before the recent increase in there default price in Victoria. Gail, another pensioner, in Safety Beach, explained that her electricity bill would increase to $1,029 this year and that, due to her husband's ill health, she can't go out to get a job to help support them. Gail's email to me painted a very sombre picture of the difficulties many pensioners in my electorate are facing, having to dig further into their modest retirement savings to pay the bills. Gail closed her email succinctly: 'The Labor government is clueless when it comes to people's problems.' Tom and Sophia said that their mortgage payments have gone up by $7,000 a year in just over 12 months. A gentleman from Flinders who rang my office yesterday explained that things are getting so bad that, in his network of family and friends, people are getting scared and frightened. He explained that one of his friends confided in him that he felt like he was being punished and that the government was not listening. He raised concerns about people not being able to afford their rising rent costs and their medication. Heartbreakingly, he shared his own story. He can no longer afford to drive to the hospital to get his own medication. David from Safety Beach reported how much he was looking forward to the power bill reduction of $275, even though he spends almost that amount on medical bills every month. Other businesses I spoke about earlier this week in this chamber, such as Sealite in Somerville or Bass and Flinders Distillery in Dromana—proud local businesses—all feel the stress of rising interest rates, rising energy bills and rising inflation that they have to pass onto their customers. But they realise that shortly customers won't be able to pay any more. Wallets are shutting and demand is dropping—even for beer, a local brewer told me last week. This government is punishing enterprise and punishing hard work. Frankly, it's just not good enough. Robert, Hon. Stuart Rowland 75 16:45 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce There can be no doubt about this government's commitment to integrity after a decade of decay, dodgy deals, rorts, slush funds, waste and the appointment of mates to everything they could see from those opposite. In this budget alone, we've allocated $262 million for the National Anti-Corruption Commission to establish its ongoing operations, staff, capability and capacity. That mob refused to even allow a vote. Not only did they fail to introduce it, they were too scared to even allow a vote, because they knew that so many of their own members would have crossed the floor and voted with Labor against the then Prime Minister. We allocated in this budget $14.4 million over four years to boost the resources of the Auditor-General to hold government to account. Contrast that with the former government's failure and that for years they cut the Auditor-General's funding in real terms—a cut of over 25 per cent in real terms over six or seven years. Integrity agencies do incredibly important work. It drove home to me, Mr Speaker—you were there in the chair at question time—just how much of a mess the former government has left, with the growing scandal around outgoing Liberal MP Stuart Robert. I can say his name now. It's a very peculiar response you get. They've got one of two responses. The first is that they play statues. It's a rare response. When the opposition know they're really in trouble, that they're really on the hook, they play statues. Remember that primary school game—who can't move? We just look straight ahead. We don't look at our phones. We don't blink. We don't even interject. There's no reaction. We play statues. That's one reaction. The other one is that they all look at our mobile phones obsessively: 'Nothing to see here. What's going on? There's no noise.' That's what happens when you raise the issue of Stuart Robert. There's no outrage. There's no pushback. There's nothing. They refuse to answer questions. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't said anything. Does he condone what's been revealed? I'll summarise the facts. It is a tangled web we weave over there. That said, I won't prejudge the facts, as I'm chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which is currently examining procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA. But what's emerging is serious. There's a new inquiry into procurements at the NDIA and Services Australia linked to Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360, which has been revealed to have had deep and cosy relations with Stuart Robert. A couple of weeks ago, emails were published by the committee, with the support of the full committee, that outlined the key facts. It was actually at the request of the deputy chair in a public hearing that these documents be released. They're the things that drove media reports over recent months and that led to the Watt report by Dr Ian Watt, a former head of the Department of Finance and a former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He is one of Australia's most eminent and respected public servants. He found a litany of inappropriate and unacceptable procurement behaviour at those two agencies. He found 19 contracts of particular concern to do with Synergy 360, five of which required serious further investigation; insufficient value for money; conflicts of interests; failure to keep records; and inappropriately close relationships between Australian Public Servants and suppliers. However, it was a limited inquiry. As Dr Watt told the committee and the Minister for Government Services told the House, he wasn't able to examine the conduct of members of parliament, ministers, ministers' offices or lobbyists. What did the emails reveal? They revealed years of secret activity by Stuart Robert from a six-digit Gmail account. It wasn't brotherstuey@gmail.com or sturobert@gmail.com. It was a six-digit Gmail account that he was using for years to communicate with Synergy 360—advising, helping and pimping out corporate entities for government work. The former member for Fadden said that he had zero involvement in procurements. That's difficult to reconcile with the emails: Centrelink's procurement of an entitlement calculation engine technology from Infosys; a failed bid by Unisys to supply border security software; and a failed bid by Oracle to supply technology to operate the National Criminal Intelligence System for procurement. And it wasn't just in Australia: he was having a go for the Singaporean government, to hook them up with deals for health services. He was even scouring the tenders for the Gold Coast City Council website for new lights. And there was a failed bid by Navy Health. These are serious matters; it looks like there's more than just questions—there's a case to answer. Three respected senior counsel, retired judges and integrity experts said that the conduct revealed already warrants investigation by a competent body with power to compel evidence. We'll complete our inquiry and get to the bottom of things as best we can. Fairfax Electorate 76 16:50 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I rise today to say a very big thank you to 1,788 constituents of the federal seat of Fairfax for filling out my Ted's Biggest Survey. The Sunshine Coast is truly unique. It's a place where the values of the past and the opportunities of the future coexist. But you can't do your job as their representative unless you very genuinely listen. Every time you listen, at least in my case, you learn. Let me just touch on three key themes that came out of my biggest survey, with my assurance to constituents in the seat of Fairfax that we will be doing a very thorough and comprehensive analysis to identify not just the key issues but what actions are required. There were three key themes. The first was in the area where we asked, 'What's your biggest concern?' There was a broad concern—and this won't surprise anybody—around the cost of living. Despite us living in a piece of paradise on the Sunshine Coast, people are still doing it tough. I think everybody in this chamber understands that. But when you head down to the beach or you're in the hinterland, and especially when you see families together and the smiling faces, it's easy to forget that people are doing it as tough on the Sunshine Coast as they are across so many regions in the country. So that was indeed the No. 1 concern. More locally, the concern was about infrastructure—especially infrastructure that can bust congestion. Two main projects were nominated based on the feedback. One was that the heavy passenger rail line should go all the way through to the Maroochydore CBD. I want to make mention, too, that we have well over 5,000 people on a petition just for that project. But the people have spoken again, that it is absolutely key. So too did people want to see more lanes on the Sunshine Coast Motorway. That would be of no surprise to locals on the coast, but now that we have that coming through in the basic data it also allows us to speak with a degree of evidence on behalf of the local constituency. The second area that I thought I would mention is the area of energy. This actually surprised me because I would have thought that the increase in electricity prices would have been the No. 1 issue nominated. In fact, it was No. 2. Still, it was nominated as having an enormous impact. But No. 1 here was actually the fear of losing reliability: more than double the people who expressed concern about price are concerned about the lights going out in the future. Given the time parameters of this speech, I certainly won't express my views on that topic. I think my constituents know it's a topic on which I speak very frequently. But I found it interesting that, like me, one of the things that keeps Fairfax constituents up at night—to use that expression—is the fear that our grid is becoming more and more unreliable, and we do see threats of the lights going out. And that's about more than interrupting the footy! This is about a genuine threat to the Australian economy, and that includes our area on the Sunshine Coast. The third area was taxation. If there were a higher percentage response in terms of concerns around taxation, it was around superannuation more than anything. People fear that they will be taxed in their retirement. Of course, the Sunshine Coast is disproportionately represented by older Australians. People over the age of 65 represent about 16 per cent of Australia but over 20 per cent on the Sunshine Coast. So that was of no surprise, either. I only touch on those key themes to give an assurance to those at home on the Sunshine Coast that we hear you, we are analysing those results and we're very grateful. There are few privileges in life one has greater than representing your home, your friends and your neighbours. Everybody in this place has that honour. It's a vocation, not a career. It's one I take very seriously. I genuinely thank every constituent who took the time to fill out that survey. British Nuclear Tests in Australia: 70th Anniversary 76 16:55 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle On 15 October this year we will mark the 70th anniversary of the first onshore detonation of a nuclear weapon in Australia. That test, called Totem 1, at Emu Field in South Australia was a 10-kilotonne bomb. In the following years there were seven further nuclear detonations at Maralinga and two at the Montebello Islands, off the coast of Western Australia. Several of the atomic bombs that were effectively self-inflicted on Australian soil were more powerful than the weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. On 27 September 1956 a 15-kilotonne bomb of the type called Red Beard was exploded from the tower at Maralinga. The mushroom cloud rose 11,400 metres, and radiation was detected in the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland. Those tests occurred without proper parliamentary consideration or approval. They occurred with callous disregard for the rights and wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the APY Lands. The truth about the damage and contamination they wreaked upon community and country was hidden from the Australian public. At the time, Prime Minister Robert Menzies told parliament: … that no conceivable injury to life, limb or property could emerge from the test … What a ridiculous and baseless thing to have said. The truth is that today Maralinga is one of the most toxic places on planet Earth. In 2021 a Monash University study found that, despite numerous multimillion dollar clean-ups, the presence of residual hot particles dispersed in the soil mean that in 24,000 years time there will still be almost two Nagasaki bombs worth of plutonium spread around the test site. A study in 1999 for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association found that 30 per cent of those involved in the British nuclear tests died of cancer, most in their 50s. The outcome for Australian veterans and affected civilians has been the same: high rates of cancer, bowel disease, hip and spine deformities, miscarriages, PTSD, crippling anxiety and depression. Karina Lester's father, Yumi Lester, a Yankunytjatjara man, was blinded. He was 10 years old at the time of the Totem 1 test. Maxine Goodwin's father, a Royal Australian Air Force servicemen tasked with flying through one of the mushroom clouds, died of cancer at the age of 49. Douglas Brooks, who was made to stand in the blinding flash and blast wave of one of the Montebello tests as an 18-year-old on HMS Alert, has an untreatable bone disease and PTSD to this day. June Lennon was just four months old when her sister hid her from the aftermath of a nuclear explosion under a tarpaulin as the black mist rolled through. Karina, Maxine, Douglas and June, who are here, have been in the parliament these last couple of days as ICAN ambassadors and atomic survivors. Their message is a clear one: 'Never again. Nuclear weapons are wrong and unacceptable. They shouldn't exist. They shouldn't be tested. They can never be used.' But we can't just say these words. We must keep finding ways to change the status quo, because the status quo is a drift towards the increasing likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used again. The sharp lesson of the British nuclear tests is that we should never accept the bland assurances that nuclear technology is safe. As the convener of the Parliamentary Friends of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, it was a privilege that we could host and hear from Karina, Maxine, Douglas and June this week. It takes incredible courage and fortitude to tell their stories, which are understandably drenched in pain. But they're determined that Australians should understand the truth. We've already experienced the self-inflicted harm of nuclear weapons in this country, and of course we exist in a region that was wrongly and immorally used as a testing ground for other countries' worst and darkest weapons. There is strong support in the Australian community for signing and ratifying the nuclear weapons ban treaty, and there is strong support in this parliament. Indeed, 108 parliamentarians have signed the ICAN pledge. It was a remarkable achievement—against the grain, against the cynical status quo—to see the treaty come into force, and that occurred in no small part thanks to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, which began life here in Australia. Australia should sign and ratify the TPNW and join the 68 nations that are already state parties to the treaty. Once upon a time, people doubted it would be possible to ban mining in Antarctica, but Australia believed it could be done, and that's what happened. People questioned whether Australia could be part of a convention that bans cluster munitions, because of our alliance relationships, but we were one of the first countries to sign that treaty in 2008. If we can't find the resolve to be part of new and even radical global cooperation to shift the dial on nuclear weapons, we can only expect that nothing will change. We simply cannot allow that to be the case. House adjourned at 17:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 09:31.

Thursday, 15 June 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 09:31.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 78 09:31 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Across the road from my electorate office in Goldstein is St Finbar's Primary School, founded 175 years ago on Boonwurrung country. St Finbar's school values channel an ethos that is thoughtful, compassionate, kind and respectful. When I visited St Finbar's back in March this is exactly what I was met with. In that vein, a group of St Finbar's students recently penned some powerful letters to the editor of Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper advocating for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Evie, Nicholas, Rose and Walter each shared their letters with me, and in turn I would like to share them with this house. Walter Skehill rightly argues: Norway, the US, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Japan, Greenland and Sweden have all already recognised their first nations people in their constitutions. Walter asks: 'Why shouldn't we?' Rose is in grade five at St Finbar's and she shares this outlook. Rose asks why we in Australia do not protect our Indigenous populations, their land and their sacred places, like other countries do. Rose sums up the need for the Voice. She sees the immense value that has come from having First Nations people serve as members of parliament and wants to see more. I agree, and as a member of parliament I want my work to be informed by the oldest continuing living culture in the world. Rose asks: We had our first Indigenous MP in 1971, why didn't we get a voice then? This is an important viewpoint. There is a difference between having representation and being fully represented. Evie, aged 11, argues: We should be welcoming the smart and strong voice of the young and old Indigenous people into parliament … to make their home and our home in Australia a better place. Evie and Walter both write that the Voice is important to allow a body of Indigenous leaders to give suggestions to parliament, for our parliament to have far-reaching influence and impact. Nicholas agrees. He questions why it's taken this long for Australia's Indigenous voices to be fully recognised. To Nicholas, I say that it may have taken us a long while to get here, but we are here now and this is the opportunity before us, because if not now, when? Walter said it best when he wrote: I strongly urge everyone to vote YES in the referendum to allow an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, to include Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution, to right the wrongs of the past, and to give these deserving people a much brighter and fairer future. Canberra Electorate: Canberra Institute of Technology, Vocational Education and Training 78 09:34 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Last week I was really pleased to attend the 95th birthday of the Canberra Institute of Technology, CIT. CIT is such an important part of our community in Canberra. Canberra couldn't operate without the tens of thousands of essential graduates that have come from CIT, who've been educated and trained there over the years and are contributing really important roles to our economy. CIT was founded in 1928 as the Telopea Park Technical Trade School and was officially opened by the then prime minister Stanley Bruce. Since 1928 there have been several name changes, and it has grown to get to where it is today, which includes five campuses. It is the peak public vocational education and training provider in the ACT, training around 20,000 students every year. This training is so crucial in tackling the current skills shortages in Australia, developing the pipeline of skilled workers our economy needs and maintaining and building trust in the VET sector. It is a really exciting time to be involved in the vocational education and training sector, and I am proud to be part of a government that is working with the ACT government and industry to ensure that the VET sector is equipping Australians with the skills they need for well-paid, secure work and getting us ready for the opportunities of the future. That is why Labor, when forming government, took action to implement the landmark 12-month skills agreement for 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places. The ACT government signed on to the agreement, which is injecting more than $15.5 million into the ACT skills and training sector and supporting more than 2½ thousand fee-free TAFE and vocational education and training places in the ACT this year. These students are immediately thousands of dollars better off from enjoying a fee-free education. I want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training, Brendan O'Connor, for his work on getting this landmark agreement off the ground. The agreement also includes $50 million to modernise campuses and training facilities nationally. Nationally, almost 150,000 Australians have already enrolled in free-free TAFE this year, and the Albanese Labor government recently announced in the budget a further skills investment, including over $400 million for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places in high skills need areas from 2024. I again want to congratulate CIT on all they have achieved in the past 95 years and wish them the best for the next 95 years. You don't get such a standing in the community and such a proud history without years of dedication from teachers, students and industry partners. At the celebration last week it was great to hear some of the stories of people's personal achievements through CIT and what it has meant to their lives and to the broader community here in Canberra. Hughes Electorate: The Fathering Project 79 09:37 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise today to speak to this House about an important organisation and to speak generally about the role that dads and father-like figures play within our community. I recently met with an organisation called the Fathering Project, and, while we are still some months away from Father's Day, I thought it was an opportune time for me to speak about this organisation and particularly to give a shout-out to all of the fantastic fathers, stepdads, grandfathers, uncles and the men within my electorate of Hughes who play such an important role within their own families and within the community. On that note I give a shout-out to my father, Rob, for the role he has played in my life and to my husband, Michael, for being a fantastic father to our boys, James and Nicholas. The Fathering Project has pulled together evidence that demonstrates fathers' potential to positively influence their children's health and mental health, social success and academic achievements. This evidence is now robust, indisputable and compelling. I'm delighted to say that the Fathering Project is already in place in many of the schools within my electorate of Hughes. It aims to bring fathers into the classroom and into the schoolyard. Mothers and grandmothers have played a very big role traditionally within the school system to support the teaching and education within schools, and the Fathering Project has seen that there is a need also to encourage fathers, dads, stepdads, grandfathers, uncles and father figures—so not just biological fathers—into the classroom as well to positively promote education for their children. We are living through a time of rapid social change, and community views of fatherhood are actively changing. Dads are now encouraged to play a much more active role in the lives of their children than was the case in the past, and in my electorate of Hughes, for example, dads have a very big role. They do the traditional things such as coaching the soccer teams and running the Bunnings barbecue of a weekend, but I have found many fathers are now much more involved in school communities, including in PM&C organisations and going to schools to do reading and things like that. That is something that needs to be celebrated, and I thank all of those fathers. On my website I encourage anyone, all schools and preschools within my electorate, to go to my website because I am providing money to promote the fathering project into schools this year, so please—jennyware.com.au. Moreton Electorate: LUMINOUS Lantern Parade 79 09:40 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Last Friday evening I joined Moreton residents and others in Multicultural Australia's LUMINOUS Lantern Parade at Southbank. I was joined by my colleague the member for Blair as well as the state member for Cooper, Jonty Bush, who was representing the Queensland Premier and other politicians, and community leaders. A big congratulations to Multicultural Australia on the 16th successful year of Luminous. It is one of this nation's most significant welcome events. This parade uses light to symbolise hope and create a welcoming atmosphere for new Queenslanders. The LUMINOUS Lantern Parade has become an iconic annual event in our local calendar. It is a wonderful example of the aspects that make our multicultural community and multicultural nation unique in including the diversity of culture, heritage, people, places and industries. The parade showcases a magnificent display of lanterns creatively designed and illuminated to create a spectacular visual experience. The use of light as a symbol of hope reflects the spirit of inclusiveness and extends a warm welcome to those who are new to Queensland. The lantern parade also provides an opportunity for the entire community to come together and celebrate the rich cultural diversity within our state while embracing those who are joining the community fresh. Originally the parade was made up of a small group of refugee advocates and Friends of Multicultural Australia, then known as the Multicultural Development Association. All up, there were probably only 30 or so people at that very first gathering, each holding a burning candle in a cup. But, on the Friday evening just gone, there were more than 100 groups walking in the parade, about 2,000 people marching and nearly 10,000 people watching. People were carrying elaborate lanterns of all shapes and sizes but with a unified message of welcome to newly arrived Queenslanders. Morton-connected organisations such as the Muslim Charitable Foundation; Milpera State High School, which does great job of welcoming new students before they are mainstreamed; Yeronga State High School, the Federation of Indian Communities Queensland and the Queensland African Communities Council are long-term participants, and that is just naming a few. It was also inspiring to meet Rachel Perkins from the Yes campaign and to hear local multicultural groups loudly pledging their support for the Voice to Parliament—the newest joining with the oldest. They join a growing nationwide alliance of multicultural groups who have stepped up for a yes vote. Multicultural communities feel strongly about reconciliation. Many come from countries where they have experienced exclusion and disadvantage. Australia offers migrants a great opportunity and they see the referendum as an opportunity to give back to First Nations people, to thank them for their generous offer to walk alongside. The LUMINOUS Lantern Parade is only possible because of the support of dedicated staff of Multicultural Australia. Bass Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 80 09:43 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I take the opportunity to congratulate local recipients of King's Birthday Honours. Former secondary school teacher and assistant principal, Christopher Binks received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to secondary education and to literature as the author of Explorers of Western Tasmania, Pioneers of the West Coast and Hills of the West Wind and other books on history of Bass Strait fishing and the City of Devonport. I was also pleased to see the former independent member for Rosevears, Kerry Finch, recognised for his service to parliament and his community. Having held the upper house seat for 18 years before retiring in 2020, I have long admired Kerry's commitment to his community and his approach to his work as a member of parliament, and an OAM is a well-deserved honour. Jeffrey Hockley was recognised with an OAM for his tireless service to community theatre. Jeffrey has had a long involvement in the Launceston Players Society, directing more than 17 productions since the 1970s and holding a number of position within the society, including president, and has served as a board member of the Theatre Council of Tasmania. A special shout out to OAM recipients Sharon Leonard and Jennifer Logie, who were recognised for their service to the communities of Ravenswood and Bicheno respectively. Jennifer has played an integral role in progressing tourism events on the East Coast, and Sharon has dedicated almost four decades to her northern suburbs community in a number of volunteer roles. Mrs Leonard says that she understands life can be very lonely for some people, and is motivated by the knowledge that we all have hard times. 'All I ever wanted was to help people,' she said. An innovator and a leader in the Australian honey bee industry, Lindsay Burke has served on industry bodies as well as building his own company's hives in Tasmania. While serving as a chairman on the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, working to improve biosecurity measures to protect the beekeeping industry, Lindsay has been a passionate advocate, supporting future generations of beekeepers, playing an active role in developing and embracing training programs. Lindsay is a worthy recipient of the Member of the Order of Australia. 'When life handed me a lemon I made lemonade,' said medical practitioner and associate professor Gary Kilov, who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as an adolescent. Professor Kilov was awarded an AM for his significant service to medicine, particularly in diabetes research and advisory roles, describing the AM as one of the proudest moments of his career. Congratulations on your much-deserved award, Professor Kilov. Lastly, I congratulate Joe Chromy for being awarded an Officer in the Order of Australia. I have spoken previously in this place about Mr Chromy, and this award is just recognition for his achievement in our community. Congratulations to all recipients. Gilmore Electorate: Community Events 80 09:46 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore On the June long weekend I was thrilled to join in the festivities of the Viking Festival at Sussex Inlet. It was a huge event, with thousands of people turning out to enjoy all the fun activities that the Viking Festival brings. The festival is run by the Sussex Inlet and Districts Chamber of Commerce, their dedicated organising committee and their team of volunteers. It's supported by local organisations, businesses and sponsors. The Viking Festival celebrates the Scandinavian heritage of Sussex Inlet and the settlement of the area by Jacob Elmoos and his family from Denmark. Set on the banks of the waterways of Sussex Inlet, we were part of a boat flotilla with the Sussex Inlet River Dragons and the Sussex Inlet Marine Rescue, alighting at the new jetty, where we were met by the Steampunk Vagabonds. An opening ceremony, which included an acknowledgement of country by Aunty Denise Bradshaw, and an inspiring dance performance by Vincentia High School's Dhawaari Dancers. Then there are the participants: the stallholders, like Sussex Inlet Public School, community groups, food stalls, entertainers and the Vikings themselves. There was a Viking village where Vikings taught us about Viking life. There were so many people getting in the Viking groove, even Havoc the Irish wolfhound and the other doggos were getting into the Viking spirit. There were music and Viking festivities into the night. The Sussex Inlet Vikings Festival helps bring people to Sussex Inlet. It's great for community and business, and for more people finding out about this great village. On 27 May, I was thrilled to join in the festivities of the most excellent Berry Celtic Festival. I'm pleased to say that thousands of people turned out to enjoy this important day on the Berry calendar. The Berry Celtic Festival is run by the amazing Rotary Club of Berry and their dedicated members and volunteers, but it is supported by so many in the community, including sponsors, community organisations, local businesses and the stallholders that came from near and far. There was truly something for everyone—the street parade pipers, the mass band, Celtic storytellers and music jousters, Celtic food and more. A special shoutout to the Berry CWA, the Berry Spinners and Weavers, the Shoalhaven Education Fund, the Lions Club of Bomaderry Nowra, Shoalhaven Can Assist and the many local organisations supporting. If we were defining fun, just think of the Berry Celtic Festival. At the opening, I spoke on heritage and a sense of belonging, and I truly believe that the Berry Celtic Festival allows people to discover a bit more about their past while appreciating that we truly live in an area with a richness of culture—our First Nations people and all those that came afterwards and continue to come. The Berry Celtic Festival is an opportunity to appreciate that everyone belongs in our community, and we should celebrate that. I congratulate Berry Rotary and everyone involved with the Berry Celtic Festival, and I cannot wait until next year's festival. Cost of Living 81 09:49 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The one issue that Australians raise with me more than anything is the cost of living, and families are genuinely hurting at the moment. This Albanese government is doing nothing to ease that pressure. Between out-of-control inflation, interest rate rises, mortgages that are skyrocketing, soaring electricity bills and housing uncertainty, Australians feel simply forgotten by this government. In my electorate of Moncrieff, we're very fortunate to have an army of community organisations who dig in their heels and support those doing it tough, cleaning up the train wreck that this government is creating. Thanks to the Albanese government, many families and individuals who used to donate to charities are now unable to. I'd like to highlight a few of those outstanding organisations and express my deepest admiration and gratitude for the important work that they do in our community. St John's Crisis Centre in Surfers Paradise is headed up by Di Eadeh and Di Kozik, offering those doing it tough a hand up with food, clothing and wraparound services. Thanks to the team at St John's, and those who support them in our community, for always going above and beyond. Show the Way, who I recently visited in Southport, strive to make a difference for those experiencing homelessness and food insecurity and those escaping from domestic violence. They provide large and nutritious food boxes for $25 for people who can no longer afford groceries. Thank you to the passionate CEO and founder, Amber Ford, for being a community champion in Southport. Amber told me how Show the Way has seen a really big increase in the number of people seeking its services, including pensioners and single parents. Havafeed, which is run by Lindsay and Robyn Burch—wonderful people—in Mermaid Beach, has been operating since 1994, providing hot meals, food hampers and support to our local community. Lindsay and Robyn received a 2021 Moncrieff Volunteer Award from my office, to show our appreciation for all they do. They were also named the 2023 Gold Coast Senior Australians of the Year recently. Congratulations to Lindsay and Robyn for that accolade. Serving Our People, also based in Mermaid Beach, headed up by CEO Yas Matbouly, has been supporting our community since SOP was established in 2020, during the pandemic. The incredible work that the team at SOP have done includes opening the first free supermarket in Queensland, to help feed struggling households, and now those with much higher mortgage payments are reaching out. There are many organisations doing amazing work on the Gold Coast. Sadly I can't name all of them, but Set Free Care in Southport, the Silver Bridle Action Group at the Lynne Richardson Community Centre in Molendinar, and Rosies—Friends on the Streets are always working so hard to support our community. Thank you to all the volunteers. Thank you to all the organisations who are helping those in need. Our community is a much better place because of you. Polson, Mr David, AM 81 09:52 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to acknowledge a member of my electorate, David Polson AM, who recently received an Order of Australia Medal. David Polson was recognised for his valuable contributions in HIV education and for his ongoing advocacy for LGBTI communities throughout his life. David is a remarkable survivor. He was one of the first 400 Australian men diagnosed with HIV, in 1984, when so little was known about the virus and about treatment options. In fact, there were very few treatment options in those days. If you were around or you remember that terrible time, you would remember the fear, the marginalisation and the oppression experienced by members of our gay community back in the day. David Polson was treated at St Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghurst, by Professor David Cooper. Professor Cooper treated him with kindness, humanity and compassion as he underwent more than 28 drug trials over 20 years. David endured those trials to further research into drugs that are now available to prevent and treat HIV, like antivirals and PrEP. Professor David Cooper passed away in 2018, and he passed away with an unfulfilled dream of one day opening an HIV-AIDS museum in Sydney. David Polson turned his grief for the loss of his friend into something positive, bringing his vision to life, creating the Qtopia museum in Darlinghurst. I'm very excited to say that Qtopia has now found a permanent home in in Sydney, at the old Darlinghurst police station. Those who understand the history of Darlinghurst and Oxford Street would understand how significant it is that the Darlinghurst police station has been turned to good purpose in this way. The site now educates people about the history of HIV-AIDS and the struggles of the LGBTI community in Australia, many of which are still ongoing. David Polson is the chair of the Qtopia board. It is a fantastic, impressive board that includes my friend Ian Roberts, who, as well as being one of the nation's best footballers ever, has been an incredible advocate for LGBTIQ communities. It's an inspiring board overall. David Polson deserves to be recognised and acknowledged for his incredible work over so many decades, and the honour of an Order of Australia medal is a fit and appropriate acknowledgement for his work. Well done, David. Our Sydney electorate is very lucky to have you. Migration 82 09:55 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls From 1 July the temporary skilled migration income threshold will rise from $53,900 to $70,000 per year. The Albanese government announced this increase as a down payment on the type of migration system it wants to build, and the change was supposed to provide employers and migrants with more certainty, but this is the government of unintended consequences. We've seen that with IR laws, aged care and energy policy and we're now seeing it with skilled overseas workers. Where the government wants certainty there is now a lot of uncertainty. I have businesses in my electorate contacting me about workers currently being recruited and whether these businesses should pull the plug on it. I have businesses—particularly mechanical businesses in the motor trade— in my electorate with workers already filling skills gaps that can't be filled by Australian workers, and they are considering whether to enter their employment. These businesses face significant challenges because of Labor's snap decision to increase that threshold up to $70,000 in one hit. These businesses already have a pay scale in their workshops, and that is based on experience and skill. This decision puts the overseas workers at the top of that pay scale, earning more than the most experienced Australian technicians with the leadership and management responsibilities. The cost of recruiting workers from overseas is not a material cost to their bottom line; it corrupts the current employee pay scale in the business and will undoubtedly lead to higher wage claims from current employees. That's not getting wages moving; it's setting of a wage spiral. The advice that I've been given is that, had the government consulted and phased in the increase, businesses could have planned and absorbed it over a number of years, but now they have limited choices thrust upon them. Do they not employ the overseas workers they desperately need, putting downward pressure on the businesses' growth and upward pressure on the level of frustration their clients experience as they wait longer to get the services they need? Do they employ the workers and absorb the cost, including the inevitable lift in the wages of the existing workers, which puts their profitability at risk? Do they pass on the cost to consumers, thus adding to already crippling cost-of-living pressures? It's antibusiness and it's inflationary, and it's seemingly based on the premise that, if we force employers to pay more, we will get more-qualified overseas workers, but it ignores the fact that many businesses need less-qualified workers who they can always pay appropriately. These businesses support these workers, they develop their skills and they continue to pay them according to their experience and skill level. Once again we're seeing this government using policy to make a statement, forgetting that there are businesses—small businesses, particularly in regional areas—who end up dealing with these consequences, and it's unsustainable for them. Victorian State Emergency Service Melton Unit, Le Guier, Ms Charlotte, 1st Ballan Scouts Hall 82 09:58 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Since 1973 the SES Melton unit has diligently served our community through some of our toughest times. They're on the front line when we need it, whether it's floods, storms, road rescues or, as we saw recently, tragic scenes like the Exford Primary School bus crash. The team at the Melton SES have consistently answered the call, and it was great to celebrate 50 years of the Melton SES recently and to be there when Controller Wayne Stylianou was awarded his SES life membership. Impressively, a combined total of 130 years of long service awards were presented on the night. Congratulations to all recipients, including Robert Trott for 25 years of service; Claudelle Dalgleish for 20 years of service; Nic Garalakos and Deborah Warren for 15 years; Raymond Chapman, Paul Chapman, Daniel Chapman, Rodney Fraser and Paul Granvillani for 10 years of service; and Steve Mora for five years of service. Your efforts have made Melton a better place to live, and so, on behalf of our community, I extend a big thank you. Melton SES also launched their book Hurry Up and Wait: The Story of the Victorian State Emergency Service Melton Unit, covering the history of the unit. It's worth getting your hands on a copy when you can. In Sunbury we have too many local legends to count, like Charlotte Le Guier, who was recently awarded the highest award in Girl Guides: the Queen's Guide. I first met Charlotte when I visited Sunbury Downs College and the captains, including Charlotte, took me on a tour of the school. It's been amazing to see her commitment to our community through her work as a Girl Guide. The dedication, service and hard work that she's demonstrated is something we can all be very proud of. It was great to be there when she was awarded this honour to say thank you for your effort. Keep up the great work, Charlotte. The 1st Ballan Scouts now have a brand-new facility to call home. Scouts Victoria is one of the state's largest youth organisations with more than 20,000 members and 5,000 adult volunteers, and plenty of them help in our towns around Hawke. As a candidate for Hawke one of the first places I visited during the election campaign was the original Guides hall with the member for Ballarat to announce that we would contribute $550,000 to this amazing project. The modern and accessible bathrooms, improved parking, kitchen facilities and multi-purpose rooms in this new building will give the 1st Ballan Scouts the facilities they deserve. It was fantastic to be shown around by the senior scouts in the group and to understand their level of appreciation of and their pride in the facilities that had been completed for them. To open the new hall along with them was such a treat, and I thank my dear friend, Minister Natalie Suleyman, from the Victorian government, for joining us to do that. It has been a journey to secure the funds for this facility, and I know it will continue to be a well-loved community asset for generations to come. Big thanks to Wombat, who does amazing work, and the whole team for putting on really fantastic day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 83 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 83

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Consideration in Detail 83 10:01 Ms MI 296272 Boothby LLER-FROST () (): I am delighted to rise today to speak about what the Albanese Labor government is doing in this latest budget with regard to the environment, water and tackling climate change. As I said last night in speaking in support of the government's nature repair market bill, my electorate of Boothby is one of the most environmentally diverse in the state. It spans the southern suburbs of Adelaide, and, while it is in an urban environment, it includes everything from coastal and marine ecosystems through to urban wetlands and rivers right through to the Adelaide Hills with the beautiful Belair National Park. One thing I heard loud and clear when running for the seat last year was that the previous government had failed to properly value and protect our environment, and that is why I am so pleased that the Albanese Labor government is bringing to life its ambitious Nature Positive Plan. This budget builds on the government's first budget, which funded our election commitments, and, crucially when it comes to the environment, we are investing in improving our environment across Boothby. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, for her dedication to making this happen and, of course, to Minister Bowen, who is here in the chamber today. We are investing over $700,000 in our Sturt River project through the government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Program, and through the Warriapependi biodiversity project, the Riverside Drive Creek stabilisation and improvement project and the restoring the Oxbow project we are bringing new life to the Sturt River, which runs through much of Boothby. We are delivering $5 million as part of the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project. This project is aimed at mitigating significant flood risk. It's the sixth most likely flood risk in the country, and it is supported by more than $6 million in funding from the government's Disaster Ready Fund to help protect Adelaide from potentially disastrous flooding. This 2023-24 budget will help us protect more of what is precious, repair more of what is damaged and manage nature better in the future. The Albanese Labor government is rewriting Australia's old, broken environment laws to better protect our environment and make clearer, faster decisions. At the heart of this plan is $121 million to establish Environment Protection Australia, to restore trust in the system that badly needs it. As someone in this place representing an electorate in South Australia, I know just how important a healthy Murray-Darling Basin is to our way of life, and I am thrilled that we are investing in water infrastructure, fixing the broken water market and protecting the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We're doing this by investing $103.7 million to deliver on our commitment to undertake the first review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; investing $197.1 million in projects that provide safe, reliable and secure water for regional and remote communities; helping First Nations people participate in water planning and decision-making by investing $3.5 million in a First Nations environment and water partnerships program; and investing $32.7 million to deliver on our election commitment to restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets, including a new water market hub, a digital platform for national water data management, a new water market website allowing farmers to access live water market updates for the first time, and a new water market data standard guaranteeing transparency and enforceability on the data being provided to the Bureau of Meteorology. When it comes to addressing climate change, this government is committed to lowering our emissions and to doing so in a way that empowers Australian households and businesses. The Albanese government is taking action to drive down household energy costs and ensure Australia's position to take advantage of jobs of the future. The 2023-24 budget funds critical investments to save Australians money on their energy bills and invest in nation-building new industries. For too long, Australians were left behind as the rest of the world moved to take advantage of the economic opportunities that come with action on cleaner, cheaper energy. This was a frustration that was palpable across Boothby and was a key reason I was motivated to represent our community here in the first place. The government's energy-saving plan will make homes, businesses and social housing more energy efficient and drive down energy costs. It includes $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. This includes turbocharging finance options for household energy upgrades for more than 110,000 households, via $1 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as well as $300 million to partner with states and territories to support energy upgrades for around 60,000 social housing properties. 10:07 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax We've seen in this budget the typical form of the Albanese government—big on propaganda but very light on policy and light on detail. We very much look forward to seeing over time the detail that lies behind a lot of the policy announcements in the budget. Meanwhile, I do have a series of questions that I'm sure the minister would like to answer in detail. Firstly, investment in Australian resources, especially gas, has stalled following the government's continued interventions into the market, and the same has occurred with renewables now. How will Australia attract the capital needed to power Australia into the future while the government's policies are impeding foreign direct investment? AEMO's Gas statement of opportunities has forecast potential shortfalls every winter for the next three years out to 2026. Repeated ACCC reports have revealed that shortfalls are a real possibility. Based on industry advice, we are now seeing problems also in Western Australia that previously were far more prominent on the eastern coast. When will the government take the looming gas shortages forecast by the experts on both the east and west coasts seriously and reverse its anti-gas policy suite? The government continues to tell Australians that renewables are the cheapest form of energy but fails to acknowledge the total system costs, which are what people ultimately pay for through their energy bills. When will the government come clean about the total system costs associated with its energy plan and tell the truth about its related policies, its impact on the cost for consumers and how those costs continue to skyrocket? With Liddell shutting down, Kurri Kurri being delayed, Snowy 2.0 pushed back and investment in renewable generation stalling, what is the government's plan to keep the lights on? What steps has the government taken to ensure sufficient, fit-for-purpose energy generation will be online in time for when the Eraring power station permanently closes in 2025? Will the government continue to steamroll regional communities to meet its arbitrary political target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030? And will it guarantee that it will properly engage and consult with impacted households before rolling out its plan for 22,000 solar panels a day, 40 wind turbines a month and up to 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines? How do the new-found powers of government to declare transmission lines of national significance reconcile with increasing concerns on the part of regional communities that they are being steamrolled over in the government's rush to carpet Australia with transmission lines? Given investment in renewables is not keeping pace with the targets, with the commitments of the government, as evidenced in the first quarter of 2023, what is the government doing to ensure existing energy generation stays open until like-for-like replacement is ready, to avoid an energy shortfall? The government has put itself at the centre of the gas market and can now dictate how much gas can be sold, to who and at what price. On top of this, the government has hit the sector with one of the world's most punitive carbon taxes. It plans to increase the PRRT and introduce a mandatory code. It's funded green activists to wage green warfare on gas companies and ripped out funding from the budget for gas exploration and pipelines, and around $250 million for CCS. If the government claims to support gas as a transition fuel, which one of these policies has resulted in more gas supply coming to market? What substantive policy measures has the government taken to reassure our trading partners that Australia continues to be a safe place to invest in light of the damage that the government's energy policies have done to Australia's reputation, evidenced by public statements made by senior government officials and industry leaders from countries including Japan? Investment in Australia's resources, especially gas, has stalled following the government's continued interventions into the market, and the same has occurred with renewables. How will Australia attract the capital needed to power Australia into the future while government policies are impeding foreign direct investment? Why is it that government policies in this area continue to be driven by the government's ideological proclivity? 10:12 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Australia's environment is under significant pressure. It's experienced significant harm and has been badly damaged in lots of areas. The trajectory is not a good one; the trajectory is for further decline. To the traditional causes of that harm—loss of habitat and the introduction of invasive species—we add some new risks. Climate change is now presenting a really significant risk to our environment and to biodiversity, and we have new biosecurity concerns. As a result of climate change, we have greater frequency and intensity of natural disasters. We saw the catastrophic bushfires on the east coast of Australia where some three billion animals were lost, in addition to an enormous amount of forest habitat. The Albanese Labor government isn't going to sit by and watch that downward trajectory continue. We're not going to allow the pattern of neglect, denial, wilful blindness and maladministration of the previous government to continue, and the May budget shows that. There are a whole series of investments that start to turn around what was, frankly, one of the most appalling areas of underperformance of the previous government. The previous government knew quite well what was happening to the Australian environment. They had lots of evidence before them. They commissioned the Samuel review into the EPBC Act, Australia's protection framework, and the Samuel review said: Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. They are not sufficiently resilient to withstand current, emerging or future threats, including climate change. The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively fulfil its environmental management responsibilities to protect nationally important matters. That's the report that the previous government commissioned, and that's the very clear evidence that was provided to them. And what did they do? They didn't do anything. They did literally nothing. There was no EPBC reform whatsoever. Graeme Samuel gave them a pretty straightforward and sensible recipe for remedial action, improved national standards and the creation of a national environmental protection agency. And they did nothing—zero. So we're left, as in so many areas, to start to clean up the mess. In this budget, $120 billion will go to the creation of that independent environmental protection agency. But it wasn't just the Samuel review. They had the Australia state of the environment 2021 report. We didn't see it in 2021, because it was one of those reports they preferred to keep to themselves, partly because they knew the story it told. The story it told was of environmental harm and decline, and, on their part, inaction. We know that over the past two centuries Australia has lost more mammal species than any other continent. We have one of the highest rates of species decline and extinction risk in the OECD. There are more than 1,900 Australian species and ecological communities that are threatened or at risk of extinction. If you want to look at the Murray-Darling Basin, by itself it's home to 16 internationally significant Ramsar wetlands, 35 endangered species and 98 species of waterbirds alone. Rivers and catchments are in poor condition across the Murray-Darling. Native fish populations have declined by more than 90 per cent in the last 150 years. A member of parliament government yesterday was talking about the nature repair market bills before the House, saying that they were a part of a piecemeal approach to a perceived ill. When you've seen a 90 per cent decline in the fish population in something as magnificent as the Murray-Darling Basin, can it possibly be said that that's a perceived ill? It's just ridiculous. This government won't have that. This government is taking action on a number of fronts, led by the Minister for the Environment and Water: an extra $260 million to support Commonwealth national parks; $163 million to the fantastic people and institutional architecture that underlie the Australian Institute of Marine Science, so they can continue their fantastic work; and nearly $120 million for community groups, councils, NGOs and First Nations people to take on projects to clean up and restore urban rivers and waterways because at least half of threatened species are present in urban areas. The nature repair market, the EPBC reforms, the national environment protection agency—we've done all these things in a little bit more than 12 months because we can't let Australia's environment and biodiversity fall off a cliff, and that's exactly what those opposite did for 10 years. 10:17 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I come from the Goulburn Valley, an incredibly productive valley that is built on agriculture and irrigated agriculture. People have come from all over the world to make businesses, lives and families, and employ people, create wealth, create food for Australia and create food and food products that are exported around the world. We should be really proud of that, but that's seriously under threat with the way that this government is approaching the final stages of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has had an impact on my electorate already, economically and financially, but we've accepted it because we accepted that there was a need for the Commonwealth to return water, via the Commonwealth water holder, to the environment. Over 2,000 gigalitres per year have been taken out of the Murray-Darling Basin, and that has led to a significant reduction in irrigated agriculture and significant risk for businesses, but we've worn it. The add-on to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism—in my area it's called the SDLAM—to deliver 605 gigalitres worth of projects. The states have been working on those projects, but they haven't been given the chance to be developed and finished. They've been disrupted by COVID, disrupted by floods and disrupted by wet years. But they can make some really good environmental steps forward in a sustainable way. The other part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is frightening—it's not too strong a word—everyone in my region is the 450 gigalitre per year extra amount that was mooted to be returned and given to environmental outcomes down in South Australia. That was only if it could be proven that there was no socioeconomic impact on the basin communities. That was the deal: 'You can have the 450 gigalitres if you can prove there's no negative socioeconomic impact.' In 2018, the basin states agreed that any additional water recovered under the plan—the 450 gigalitres—would be subject to a socioeconomic neutrality test. Successive Victorian Labor water ministers have stood firm for basin communities, and rightly so. Recovering water for the environment must be balanced against the impact on basin communities, who face a loss of productivity, jobs and economic activity if there is overreach. I just can't emphasise enough how fearful, frightened and devastated people in my community—not just the farmers but the people who work in factories, making products from milk and fruit—are about the economic destruction that this will yield if it happens. So my questions to the minister are these. Why won't you extend the June 2024 deadline and pursue those sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects? It would achieve better outcomes for the environment in a sustainable way. Why won't you extend the deadline and give the states the chance to continue developing those projects? I also ask the minister: Is there research showing that recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres would not have a negative social or economic impact for basin communities? If so, will you release it? If not, when will that work be done and released publicly before any water buybacks occur? The deal was for the 450 if there was no negative socioeconomic impact, and I encourage the minister to think about that term 'socioeconomic'—society and economy. Is the impact going to be negative? And if it is then I think the minister needs to stand by the deal that was done when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was first put together: that that was the only circumstance under which those extra 450 gigalitres—extra, on top of what we've already given—can be taken away. 10:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I'll take the opportunity to briefly respond to the member for Fairfax and questions he raised earlier. He asked me a series of questions—I think 10 or 15, or something like that, which is a whole lot more questions than he has asked me in the main chamber this year, which is two so far. The shadow minister asked me about a number of matters. He asked me about, in effect, investment and capacity in the system. It is rather extraordinary and ironic that the shadow minister would ask me what we're doing to encourage investment, when he and the opposition have opposed every single measure we have embarked upon to encourage investment—most particularly, the Climate Change Act, which renewable energy investors around the world have told me is absolutely vital to their investment decisions. I had the chief executive of a very large, international, renewable investor—in fact, arguably the largest in the world—tell me recently that Australia is now, in his mind, the key market in the world for investment. I asked him what had changed to bring that about, and he said that it was our Climate Change Act. Honourable members opposite opposed that. It is the single biggest thing we have done to send the message to investors in the world that Australia has changed, the government has changed, the parliament has changed and the country has changed. The opposition hasn't changed, but we can't help that. But the transition is occurring without them. Also, there's our capacity investment mechanism, which the previous government talked about for years and could never deliver. We delivered that last year, in a unanimous agreement with the states and territories. I'm looking forward to making further announcements about that in coming weeks, in terms of the rollout of the capacity investment mechanism in New South Wales, followed by South Australia and Victoria. It's absolutely vital for encouraging investment in dispatchable renewable energy in Australia. Luckily, the shadow minister and the opposition don't have the opportunity to oppose that, because it doesn't require legislation. I'm sure they would if they could, but we're getting on with it and we don't need legislation. Similarly, there's Rewiring the Nation, which the opposition opposes. When you look at every single chief executive— An opposition member interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS You interject enough for the entire parliament, so don't you worry about that. I appreciate the support of the honourable members on this side; they're very supportive. The opposition opposed Rewiring the Nation, which every single energy chief executive, including Frank Calabria as late as today, has pointed out is absolutely vital for encouraging new investment. In relation to capacity, the honourable member asked me what we are doing about Liddell and about capacity generally—interesting given the closure of Liddell was announced— An honourable member interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS You did mention Liddell. An honourable member: In light of Liddell, what are you— Mr BOWEN DZS You mentioned Liddell. An honourable member: It is not a conversation. Mr BOWEN DZS He specifically asked me about Liddell and then it went on several questions later. It is fair to ask about it. We will deal with both. Relax. It is okay. I will get to it all. In relation to Liddell, the closure was announced in 2015 and confirmed in 2017, and the shadow minister is very concerned about it in 2023. They did not have much to say in 2015 and 2017, apart from the member for New England, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time, who said they were going to nationalise it but that did not happen. In relation to coal-fired power stations generally, I am very pleased to advise the member opposite that this winter there are 2.3 gigawatts more dispensable energy available than there were last winter. You, Madam Deputy Speaker Payne, and the House will recall the crisis last winter which this government inherited. Literally the day we were sworn in, I was getting advice that the energy system was in crisis. That is what the previous government left. We avoided blackouts. We avoided load shedding. It was a whole-of-government effort. We had to work very closely with state and territory colleagues. AEMO did an excellent job. Because the previous government presided over a situation where we had four gigawatts of dispatchable power leave the grid over the decade and one gigawatt came on, we were faced with a crisis. I am very pleased to update the member. I am sure he was not aware of the 2.3 gigawatts. If he chooses to look at AEMO's recent statements about winter readiness, I am sure he would find them elucidating. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS I can confirm: no nuclear reactors. 10:26 Mr 300147 Casey VIOLI () (): The shadow minister covered a lot except price, and price is really important. The shadow minister and I visited a business called Aussie Growers Fruits in Silvan in my electorate with an owner called Laurie. The reason price is so important is because it impacts households when they get their bills. But it impacts businesses, which then impacts households through inflation, and we all know that we're going through one of the greatest inflation crises this country has seen. I will use Laurie's business as an example, and this can be any business across the country. They do food manufacturing. Their energy prices in the last 12 months have gone up $200,000. Laurie is actually lucky. He is on a good fixed contract with his gas at the moment but that is coming off this year, and they are anticipating that their energy prices are going to go up another $200,000 in the next financial year. But it is not just the price that goes up for Laurie; it is the supply chain. He gets glass in for his products. The price of that is going up. He gets product in from farmers. The price of that is going up because the cost of energy for farmers is going up. And the ultimate result is that the prices of product that he sells to Woolworths and Coles and Aldi and Costco and others have to go up, then they pass that onto the Australian people. When we talk about energy prices needing to come down, it is not just the bills that Australians receive every day; it is every time they go to the supermarket they pay that bill. This government know that this is a complicated issue but they were very happy during the campaign to simplify it down to one number—$275. They were going to reduce power bills. They used modelling that they received in December of 2021 to continue to make that claim 97 times and, disappointingly, they chose to continue to use that modelling to make that claim at least 30 times after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which significantly altered the energy market. So there is no doubt, especially after taking the opportunity to use modelling, that they would have known it was not relative. So the question to the minister is the government promised a $275 reduction in household energy bills, yet prices are set to go up again by nearly a third come 1 July. Will you admit you have broken your promise to the Australian people? Because people voted in good faith and they are now paying the price every day. But it's not just the prices that we're receiving now. Prices are forecast to continue to go up. The government will talk about their short-term plan, but it's not working, and Australians know that. They know it's not working every time they go to the grocery store and have to pay. I saw two for $11 as the price of Kettle chips, on special, in the supermarket. It was two for $11, for 165 grams. Dr Haines 282335 Chips are bad for you. Mr VIOLI 300147 Chips are bad for you, Member for Indi, but some people do like them, and they deserve a treat, and two for $11 seems remarkably expensive. That's the other question for the minister: what are the long-term plans to bring energy prices down? Energy prices, in the government's own budget, are forecast to continue to rise over coming years. But the Australian Labor Party continue to tell people that they've never had it better and they're going to get $500 back, in a temporary, one-off sugar hit. Are the budget papers correct? Will prices continue to rise into the long term or is the government misleading the Australian people? Are they going to bring prices down in the long term or are prices going to continue to go up? This is a serious question. We all know that it is challenging as we transition to net zero, but we've got an obligation to provide cheap, reliable power to all Australians, including those on fixed incomes, those doing it tough. I grew up raised by a single mum with five kids. I don't know how we would have survived today if we were copping the increases in our power bills that many Australians are copping at the moment. That's the reality. We can continue to talk theatre and all these other things that we talk about, but that's the reality. Australian families, Australian people, Australian businesses are suffering. The government needs to bring these prices down. They don't have a long-term plan. 10:31 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I'd like to correct the record for the member for Casey. We've come out of nine years of coalition mismanagement on climate change action. In case you didn't get the memo, the last election was the election where the Australian public voted for climate action. There were nine failed energy policies. I think it's useful to have a look at what's happening in Australia nationally. In Western Australia we haven't had the same rises in electricity prices, but another place where we haven't had those increases is the ACT. I think it's really interesting that, when I'm talking about these facts, the coalition is not listening. I don't know if they really want to hear the truth. At the last election we saw across Australia that people wanted action on climate change. We saw that in independent areas, in different parts of the country, but we also definitely saw that in Western Australia. Before I had children, I would regularly speak to school students about climate change, through the scientists in schools program. One of the exercises that I used to do with students, which everyone is welcome to do right now if they'd like, is ask them to close their eyes and imagine a fantastic experience that happened in the last 12 months. I'd get people to do this for 30 seconds, and then the students would share their thoughts about those experiences. Often those experiences could be something like a bushwalk or going to the beach with friends or camping in a special part of Australia. This is where I could say that we could pretend that humans can only survive in an urban and industrialised world, but that's not the reality. Humans fundamentally need the earth. It nurtures us, and we must nurture it. I realise I probably sound like a tree-hugging hippy, but the truth is that I'm born and bred in the Goldfields, I'm an engineer that's worked on the mines, I grew up in a nickel-mining town and I'm really proud of the contribution of the resource sector, particularly from WA. Also, critical minerals will play an important role in the decarbonisation of not just Australia but the world. After having a look at the mismanagement of the coalition in both climate change and energy, the thing that I was really proud about when we first had the announcement of our cabinet was the talented ministers that had been assigned to climate change and environment. These ministers are people that get work done. An honourable member interjecting— Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 We phrase it differently from Kalgoorlie. The thing that I'd say is that these are tricky areas. These are wicked problems. There's a reason why these ministers were elected: it's because of the woeful benchmark that was set by the coalition. The truth is that we need to get work done, and we're getting on with the job. One of the first things that we did in our first two weeks of parliament was to legislate a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Yesterday, I was so proud to hear our environment minister talking in question time about how we've tripled the size of Macquarie Island Marine Park. Our government has set a target to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. This commitment reflects the pressing need to preserve and safeguard the nation's natural ecosystems before they're irreparably damaged. By aiming to conserve such significant portions of Australia's territories, the government is showing its dedication to ensuring the long-term health and resilience of our unique natural ecosystem. Last month, I was thrilled to take the Minister for the Environment and Water through one of the ecological jewels in my electorate of Swan, the Jirdarup Bushland in Victoria Park. It's home to some of our iconic Western Australian species, like the forest red-tailed black cockatoo, the western banjo frog and the white spider orchid. An honourable member: Bull ants! Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Yes, and some bull ants as well! It's no secret that our minister for the environment loves and respects the environment, and I think that the Swan environment knew this, and that's why the red-tailed cockatoos, which are endangered, popped out and why we had an eagle grace us. I think it was a way of the earth talking back to us. Some of the stuff that we've done in the last budget cycle is including $260 million for Commonwealth national parks and a further $275 million to upgrade the Kakadu National Park, which is already being rolled out. It's an exciting time for the environment. Minister, can you keep on doing great work in WA? 10:37 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My constituents want to see meaningful and practical action on climate change. We have the most community renewable energy projects of any electorate in Australia, with dozens of volunteer-led community energy groups supporting their towns to be powered by 100 per cent renewables—communities like Yackandandah, like Beechworth, like Euroa, like Wodonga. Our community energy groups want to improve energy reliability in emergencies, especially bushfires; they want to build the local economy; and they want to contribute to reducing emissions. With these groups, I co-designed the Local Power Plan, a blueprint for regional community energy policy. I then introduced my Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021, which would scale up community energy across our nation, and I very much look forward to speaking with ARENA in upcoming weeks about implementing important elements of my Local Power Plan, including creating clear pathways to fund community energy projects. Investing in renewable energy will ultimately reduce the cost of living in households. Electricity and gas prices have soared in the past 12 months, as we, importantly, hear about constantly, and our overreliance on fossil fuels instead of renewables has contributed to this, according to the Climate Council. The rising cost of electricity and gas is one of the biggest contributors to the rising cost of living in my electorate of Indi, and it can really mean that people are choosing whether to pay their power bills or whether to put food on the table. Energy reliability is also a big challenge in my electorate, especially in rural areas at the edge of the grid. In places like Corryong, Euroa and Mansfield, brownouts and blackouts are regular. These are things that you don't necessarily ever have to encounter in a major city. My constituents' calls for meaningful and practical action on climate change and reforming our energy sector are loud and clear. In response, I've also introduced the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2022 and advocated for government to provide low-interest loans for home electrification. My cheaper home batteries bill offers a simple solution to help everyday people in their homes to purchase a home battery. Right now, a home battery might set you back about $14,500 all in. By including home batteries under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which already includes solar, my bill would drive that price down by $3,000. I've had this costed. This is something that government could get on to. To unlock massive savings for Australian households, to bring power security to regional households and to accelerate our transition to renewable energy, we need to make home batteries cheaper. I'm pleased the government recognise the urgent need for home electrification in the budget by committing $1 billion towards the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. This fund allows the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to partner with lenders to provide households and low-cost loans to upgrade homes through solar panels, modern appliances and improvements such as double-glazing. Funding to support electrification and energy efficiency for social housing is another really welcome initial investment. But, since the Household Energy Upgrades Fund was announced, we have seen scant detail on eligibility for these low-interest loans and how they will be accessed. My constituents are asking me—there is no detail. Incentives to help homes electrify, like the Household Energy Upgrades Fund, must be prioritised for low-income households so that our transition to renewable energy doesn't leave the most vulnerable behind. We know the people experiencing financial disadvantage are also those who are most likely to live in dangerously hot or cold homes. They are most likely to be the people requiring urgent medical care due to heat stress, and they desperately need energy efficient homes. The government really need to move faster on this. I am deeply disappointed the government have failed to introduce incentives for home batteries under the budget. Current market and government expectations and aspirations are that the renewable energy share of our national electricity grid will reach 82 per cent by 2030. But, according to the green energy markets, this figure assumes that the cost of household batteries will be subsidised this decade, and we're not seeing the government act on this. They are falling well short on this right now, with no direct incentives offered under the budget. This budget was an opportunity for them to endorse my Cheaper Home Batteries Bill—it's there; use it. My questions to the government are, first: who will be eligible for a low-interest loan, how will it work and when will it start? Second, if the government are serious about supporting homes to be more sustainable and reduce their carbon emissions, why won't they support my Cheaper Home Batteries Bill? 10:42 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of driving down energy prices after a wasted decade which saw the Liberals trot out 22 separate energy policies and absolutely nothing to show for it. For nine long years, other countries around the world seized the economic opportunities that come from investment in cleaner and cheaper energy. In the global race for new energy jobs and investment, we were falling behind the pack thanks to the Liberals opposite. The Albanese Labor government's energy plan is not just about investment in new, cleaner energy technology; it's also about taking action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of global energy price spikes. Our Energy Price Relief Plan—which Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party voted against—has decreased wholesale electricity prices by around 40 per cent. For example, a household in my electorate of Hawke could have expected to pay over $2,000 in energy bills next financial year. After the Albanese Labor government's intervention, that same household can expect to save $300 across that same period. And if that household is eligible for further rebates, they can save a further $250. Despite these savings for everyday household budgets, the Liberals have vowed to repeal this relief. They want to push prices up by 50 per cent because of their refusal to accept that an intervention can deliver better outcomes for the Australian people. While keeping prices down, the Albanese Labor government is also helping businesses and households to access energy savings and upgrades through the 'save energy, save on bills' package. Too many people continue to pay for energy that is leaking out of buildings in inefficient appliances. That's why we're investing $1.6 billion in making homes, businesses and social housing more energy efficient, and driving down energy costs. This includes $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund and $310 million for the Small Business Energy Incentive. The Albanese government wants to give families the tools, the information and the access to cheap financing that they need to take control of their own energy bills and choose effective upgrades for their homes and businesses, all while lowering emissions. The Albanese Labor government is also focused on environmental repair as we rewrite Australia's outdated environment laws to better protect our environment and to make clearer, faster decisions. The measures in the 2023-24 budget will help us protect more of what's precious, repair more of what's damaged and manage nature better for future generations. I know that many communities in my electorate such as Blackwood, Coimadai, Bacchus Marsh and my home town of Ballan treasure the extraordinary natural environment around us, so I'm very proud to see our government and our minister doing so much more to ensure responsible protection of our environment. We will invest $121 million to establish Environment Protection Australia to restore trust to a system that needs it and transform our system of approvals. It will be a transparent and independent body that will make environmental assessments as well as decide project approvals and the conditions attached to them. Importantly, it will also make sure that those conditions are being followed on the ground. We're investing $236 million to establish a reliable national flood warning infrastructure network. The funding will be used to purchase and upgrade gauges, ensuring communities in flood-prone areas can be better prepared and supported when these disasters strike. This will build upon what the Albanese Labor government is doing to ensure that Australia is better prepared for future disasters after years of Liberal neglect in this space. The Albanese Labor government's budget is delivering the financial and environmental outcomes that Australians want and need. We are putting downward pressure on energy prices, we are investing in future technology and we're protecting our environment. This is work that should not have been stalled, that should not have languished for the last decade under the Liberal Party, but we know that the Liberal Party never invest in these matters that are important to the Australian people. Our government will get on and do it. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 90 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio 90 10:47 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors are vital for the Tasmanian economy, no more so than in my sprawling electorate of Lyons. Agriculture production contributes more than $2.1 billion annually to the Tasmanian economy, and we well and truly punch above our weight, with more than 2,200 farms, many of them small, family farms that have worked the land for generations. Our highest-value industries are dairy, at $490 million; cattle, at $416 million; and vegetables, at $330 million. Almost 9,000 Tasmanians are directly employed in agriculture. Now, while I've spoken about it many times, I am extremely proud of the forestry industry in my electorate. Across the state we have 76 sawmills, which means jobs for almost 2½ thousand Tasmanians, and many of those are in my electorate. Minister Watt has visited Lyons many times in the year since the last election. Together we've been to dairy farms, sawmills and the Sea Forest seaweed farm at Triabunna. Most recently, the minister joined me at a very wet Agfest, a three-day festival and the most important event on the agriculture sector's calendar in Tasmania. I know you, Deputy Speaker Archer, will know how wet it was on one of those days as well. At Agfest the minister and I covered the field, talking to foresters, honey producers, dairy farmers and the peak farm group, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, about the issues that concern them. Like the rest of the nation, strong biosecurity is critical for Tasmania, and I am proud that a Labor government is delivering the long-term, sustainable funding that we need for this. I'm also proud to have been with Minister Watt at the Western Junction Sawmill near Launceston when he announced $108 million for timber manufacturing companies across the country to encourage more value-adding and innovation in the industry. It was a real privilege to be standing there with the workers at the Western Junction Sawmill as we announced this funding. All those guys, and women, in their high-vis are doing really important work for the timber-processing sector in our state. More than $15 million of the $108 million is going to businesses across Tasmania, including almost $2 million to Western Junction Sawmill. We know that the future of the timber industry in Australia is in the value-adding sector—in cross-laminates and getting the most value that we can out of the trees that we cut down. Timber is a renewable resource. You cut down a tree, you replant it and you harvest it in the years ahead. It's renewable. It's great for the environment and it's certainly great for the regions. The Albanese Labor government acts to protect and grow the agricultural sector across all its many facets, and that's critical for trade, economic resilience and jobs in my home state of Tasmania. So my question to the minister is: can the minister outline how new investments in the budget demonstrate the government's commitment to a strong and resilient agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector? 10:51 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Economic and demographic specialists REMPLAN say the Wimmera region, in my electorate of Mallee, has a gross regional product of $3.9 billion, almost a quarter of which comes from agriculture, forestry and fishing. In REMPLAN's Mildura region, covering the Sunraysia part of my Mallee electorate, $3.8 billion is the contribution to the GRP and 13 per cent of output is from agriculture. The Loddon region of Mallee has $464 million in GRP and 44 per cent of the total output comes from agriculture. In the Swan Hill region $1.6 billion is contributed to GRP and 21 per cent of their output is from agriculture. I could go on. Agriculture is in the top three in all of those regions of Mallee and underpins many other regions in my electorate, so you can see why, as the member for Mallee, I have many questions about agriculture in this budget, and I have to start with the blindside attack on our farmers—namely, the new food tax, the biosecurity protection levy. The coalition government never considered taxing farmers to build a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. Our approach was to target those who created the biosecurity risk: the importers. The independent Craik biosecurity review recommended an importer container levy, and that's what we were working towards, so why has this government ignored the independent advice and whacked our farmers with a $153 million price tag instead? I would like an answer to that. That $153 million is equivalent to 10 per cent of what is raised from agricultural levies at present. The minister told Senate estimates he felt 10 per cent was 'a fair contribution to make'. Did the minister pluck that figure out of thin air? Were other levels modelled? Does the minister think it fair that farmers who already contribute to bodies like Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia for biosecurity will have to pay twice for biosecurity through this new levy? And, let's remember, it's from imports, not from their own products. Is it fair that livestock producers, such as cattle producers, who already contribute to be National Livestock Identification System—sheep and goat producers soon will too—will also have to contribute to this new tax? If an outbreak such as, God forbid, foot-and-mouth disease gets in from a country like Indonesia, will farmers be exempt from contributing to the response action in recognition of their contribution under the levy? These are all questions the minister should answer. Has the government modelled whether voluntary levy support in farming commodity groups would collapse due to the mandatory biosecurity levy? Can the government guarantee that not one cent will end up in general revenue to pay for pet projects to help them win seats in the cities? Can they guarantee every cent will be applied for biosecurity purposes? What legislative or transparency mechanism, which we know this government loves, will be used to ensure that the hypothecation—let's just say the hypothetical—actually occurs. I want to turn to something close to home for me as the member for Mallee because I know first-hand how beneficial the Pacific labour mobility scheme has been for our horticultural industry. The Labor government asked, 'How high?' when their union masters said, 'Jump,' and imposed a 30-hour-per-week requirement on every week of the year. It is seasonal work, for goodness sake. Oranges don't pace themselves to suit the workforce. The rain does not fall at a rate of two millimetres a day. I mean, really! Has the government modelled the impact of the 30-hour-a-week change on the agricultural workforce? I project that a great many farmers who would have hired workers simply won't hire them in weeks when the crops aren't ready, or they might have to force them to work outdoors in a heatwave week when a cooler week is forecast the following week. Work health and safety? The National Food Supply Chain Alliance said in October that Australia at that stage was 172,000 workers short from paddock to plate. Can Labor say honestly that this 30-hours-a-week policy for PALM workers will help to reduce the worker shortage? As at 30 April there were 38,180 PALM workers in Australia, less than a fifth of what was actually needed to fill that paddock-to-plate shortage. What has the government modelled that will actually increase PALM participation rates when the policy comes into effect? The National Farmers Federation's Horticulture Council says the PALM— (Time expired) 10:56 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Our magnificent island continent is both a blessing and a challenge when it comes to biosecurity, and biosecurity is pivotal. Our flora and fauna are often decimated, and our agricultural and farming industries must be free from exotic pests, weeds and diseases. Our communities must be kept safe, and, all importantly, our economy relies on it. In my electorate of Paterson more than 3½ thousand workers have direct employment through agriculture. There are over 1,000 farms in the Hunter that depend on strong biosecurity to survive and prosper. We take it very seriously because $400 million worth of agricultural production every year is attributed to the Hunter region through cattle, poultry, dairy and, of course, our magnificent wine industry. It is so important, and that is why I am indeed very privileged and honoured to be the chair of the agriculture committee in this place. I am also involved with Parliamentary Friends of Primary Producers as the co-chair and am co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Soil and the Parliamentary Friends of Viticulture. I also meet regularly with a range of organisations to make sure that I am right across the brief when it comes to agriculture and biosecurity. I focus on these industries to ensure that my electorate has someone who is able to represent the community's interests effectively, and that is why I really sincerely welcome the $1 billion—with a B—investment in biosecurity that my friend and colleague Minister Murray Watt delivered in the May budget. It is absolutely essential that we stay on top of biosecurity, and for the first time an Australian government has actually locked in permanent, secure and sustainable funding for our critical biosecurity infrastructure. I hear from my colleagues across the aisle that in previous years the coalition was 'gonna, shoulda and woulda' in doing all these things, but the reality is that they didn't do anything. Not once did the Nationals or the member for New England or Senator Bridget McKenzie secure such important funding and such a large pool of funding as the funding that Minister Watt has been able to secure. In fact, they watched as their Liberal colleagues cut biosecurity funding by more than $100 million a year, but they have the temerity to come into this place and say, 'Oh, what are you doing having a levy on biosecurity?' Farmers in Australia I have spoken to have welcomed the levy because they know it is so important to their businesses and our economy. I am proud to be a member of the Albanese government, which is delivering on its election commitments to provide long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity. And, while we are talking about biosecurity, it is so important to actually deliver that—not just talk about it, but make sure it happens on the ground, as we demonstrated as soon as we took government. We did have that threat of risk coming in from abroad, with things like lumpy skin disease. We got the mats rolled out at the airport. We did the job. We delivered biosecurity that kept this nation safe and kept our farms functioning as they should. I am very proud to be part of a government that also delivers for my community things like an MRI licence at the new, local Maitland Hospital. We're fast-tracking the works on the M1, and I thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who joins us today in the chamber, for that. This is a government that delivers. We don't just promise; we get things done, and that's where the rubber hits the road for our Australian agricultural industry. I want to make Australia better for the people of my electorate. Biosecurity might not sound very sexy, but it's very much on the minds of people in my community. Every single person in my electorate—in fact, in the country—can suffer grave consequences, both financially and through food security, if our import biosecurity measures fail us. Minister Watt has found a long-term solution to ensure that significant biosecurity risks are kept to a minimum. I welcome an update from the minister on how the budget delivers on Labor's election commitment to deliver long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity to keep all Australians safe and, most importantly and pivotally, to keep our agricultural industry not only growing but also thriving. 11:01 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Minister King here today, obviously representing Minister Watt who, as a senator, doesn't get to sit here. But I assume that Minister Watt has staff here to listen and take note of some of the questions that I'm about to put to the government. Firstly, farmers and people in the agriculture sector don't expect a lot from Labor governments, I've got to say, but the 2023 budget was a shocker by the standards that we've come to expect. At the national level, the $153 million import levy is a major hit to farming and agricultural communities across the board. The member for Mallee has already addressed and discussed that; hopefully, we'll get a response from the government to her comments. My focus today is on my state of Western Australia and the agriculture sector which contributes, across Western Australia, some $15 billion of the $83 billion agricultural output across the country, which is significant. We're punching well above our weight. With 10 per cent of the population, we have close to 25 per cent of the agricultural output of this nation. But it's in serious trouble, and that trouble is about to get significantly worse for the agricultural producers across my electorate. One of the headline figures that I picked up in the budget on budget night was $5.6 million committed over two years for the government's independent panel to undertake an assessment and consultation process for the phase-out of live sheep exports. Call it a phase-out if you like, but this is the destruction of a very significant industry across my electorate and across Western Australia more broadly. My question is: with the government committing millions of dollars in the budget to push ahead with the destruction of live sheep export through our entire agriculture sector, is the government aware of the impact that this is going to have on our producers, and what modelling has the government done to assess that impact? I would appreciate the minister writing down that question. Hopefully, she'll come back to me with an answer at the end of this presentation. If the decision proceeds, the exodus of sheep producers from farming businesses in WA will lead to lower employment, lower economic growth in rural communities and a collapse of confidence. An article from the National Tribune said: Data released today from Rabobank shows that while confidence edged higher nationally— In the agriculture sector— WA bucked the trend recording a further dip into negative territory. The same survey showed overall confidence in the sheep industry is down from last quarter, and there was an 8% jump in the number of producers nervous about government policies and intervention. Just last week, data from Australian Wool Innovation and Meat & Livestock Australia showed a staggering 90 point drop in sentiment among WA sheep producers—making that the only state to have a negative outlook for the coming 12 months. NFF President Fiona Simson said the results should be a wake-up call to the Government and prompt a rethink of its activist-led live sheep export ban. "Confidence among WA sheep producers is through the floor. It's no surprise given the cloud of uncertainty Canberra has blown their way." What is the government going to implement and put in place to support Western Australian producers? This consultation panel has been travelling around Australia. They were met with outrage when they tried to sneak into WA and hold meetings with hand picked groups that I think they felt would give them support. The independent panel chairman, Phillip Glyde, has publicly admitted that they got it wrong. He conceded that the phaseout consultation meetings in regional WA had been rushed. On top of that, he also confirmed that shutting down the live sheep trade export industry will hurt farmers. Does the government agree with Mr Glyde's assessment and, if not, why not? Finally, given the magnitude of this decision, will the government confirm if the minister for agriculture, Senator Watt, will attend, or commit to attend, at least one consultation meeting to speak directly with impacted farmers, community members and stakeholders? I make the offer here today to facilitate that meeting for Mr Watt to come to Western Australia— (Time expired) 11:06 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Growing up on a dairy farm, and through the decades, it's fair to say that I've seen a lot of change and I've seen local farmers adapt to much change over this time. There have been huge hurdles over recent years on the New South Wales South Coast: disaster after disaster, drought, the Black Summer bushfires, and multiple floods and storms. Every natural disaster hurdle has been thrown at our farmers, but one of the things that has really struck me is how much farmers have modernised and adapted to the times. In my conversations with farmers it's been clear how far ahead of government they are in recognising the impact of our changing climate and the need to adapt for the future. Take dairy farmer Rob from Narrawilly Farm and Croobyar Farm at Milton, which has been a dairy farm for more than 160 years. Over the past 30 years, farmer Rob has been busy regenerating the land by planting more than 1,000 trees each year, rehabilitating rainforest and creating wetland areas. Farmer Rob says: We are custodians for a short period of time and I want to leave the farm in a better condition than how I received it. Farmer Rob is not alone. We know that 94 per cent of farmers are actively undertaking natural resource management, including tree planting, protecting waterways and destocking during dry periods to maintain ground cover. Further north in Kiama, one cannot help but be struck by the story of the Pines, established as a dairy farm in 1854. The Pines is a family-run microdairy run by Kel and Mahlah Grey. They manage all factors of farming themselves using organic, biodynamic, holistic and regenerative farming methods. Using minimal processing with their small and lovingly cared for herd, the Pines make a range of regenerative dairy products, including award-winning cheeses named after each cow, yoghurt, milk and a range of artisan gelato. The Pines places huge emphasis on sustainability and enhancing the precious ecosystem. The wellbeing of animals and land is at the forefront of everything, and regenerative farming practices ensure nothing from the farm goes to waste. Yes, farming has changed, but so too have the opportunities from adapting to climate change. These farmers and many like them are ahead of the game because of the decade where we had a government that did not care about climate change, did nothing to support farmers to adapt and stuck their heads in the sand about what this means for the future. Agriculture is hugely important in Gilmore. Well over $140 million worth of agricultural production occurs across the Gilmore region each year, mainly from our renowned dairy and cattle industries. More than 1,200 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector, and they depend on a secure and prosperous sector for their livelihoods. I welcome the $302 million investment in sustainable agriculture that the Albanese Labor government is delivering through the May budget. It's great to see that the government is also rebuilding the climate capability of ABARES, which was neglected by the former government for 10 years. Our farmers increasingly depend on their sustainability credentials to be able to access valuable overseas markets, including through free trade agreements. Sustainability credentials demonstrate trust in them as providers of high-quality, safe and sustainable food and fibre products. My questions to the minister are: Can the minister explain why it is important for the government to work with industry to manage these challenges by delivering more sustainable and climate-smart agriculture and to support the transition to net zero emissions? Can the minister also provide an update on the announcement in the budget to provide $302 million through the Natural Heritage Trust for new sustainable agriculture programs? 11:10 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I'm happy to participate in this very important consideration in detail debate for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. I'll be focusing specifically on fisheries and forestry in the questions that I pose here for the government. Firstly, in relation to the biosecurity tax: As far as the new biosecurity tax announced in the budget applies to the forestry industry, will it remain at a fixed rate from year to year, or will it change based on the level of production? If it does remain fixed, is there any room for variations to that in exceptional circumstances—say, in the case of someone who is affected by an unforeseen development, like a natural disaster, for example, that lowers the level of their production in a year through no fault at all of their own? With respect to the use of gillnets: How has the government calculated that there will be a $160 million cost to the budget as a result of the minister's recent decision to outlaw the use of gillnets in parts of Queensland? What specific consultations did the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or her staff undertake with fishers prior to this decision, and with what individuals and organisations, and on what dates in each case? What has the government calculated will be the extent of the financial impacts as a result of the environment minister's gillnets decision, not only to the fishing industry itself but also more widely, and, in particular, across the state of Queensland? And, as a part of that, what is the government's response, specifically, to the comments made by Andrew Tobin last week? As I hope the minister might know, Andrew Tobin is a senior research fellow at the Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, as well as a director at Tobin Fish. He told the ABC on 9 June that the price of fish will, in his words, go 'through the roof' as a consequence of the minister's gillnets decision. Specifically, Mr Tobin said that the decision is: … going to have a huge impact and not just on fish and chip shops; it's all the businesses including restaurants up and down the east coast. And he said that: It will end up being a handful of fishermen selling product to a very high-end market and the price— of fish, that is— will go through the roof. On page 100 of Portfolio Budget Statements paper No.1.1, it says that in 2023-24 the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, or AFMA for short, using its acronym, will be 'gaining efficiencies' in 'business processes'. At whose instigation are those efficiencies being pursued? And what will these efficiencies be, specifically? Also, on page 100 of the PBS, it says that in 2023-24 AFMA will be 'investing in different science to meet the demands of climate change'. On or around what date was this priority identified as something that needed to be pursued? Who made the decision to invest in this different science? What is this different science exactly, and what will be the full cost that will be accrued because of the pursuit of such different work? I very much look forward to hearing the minister's response to these very important questions—and it's not only the opposition that is interested in hearing these answered but also, indeed, the industry and the economy at large—especially with respect to some of those questions relating to Queensland and the Queensland economy. 11:15 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Labor has always recognised the important contribution from our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors, particularly in regional Australia. Total production this year is forecast to be more than $90 billion. We are well on the way to meeting the industry's target of $100 billion of annual production by 2030. Trade in agriculture, fisheries and forestry products is critical for our continued economic development as a nation. This year alone, Australia is expected to earn $82 billion in export income from trade in food and fibre. This underpins almost 240,000 direct jobs in agriculture Australia-wide, most of which are in our regional, rural and remote areas, including in my electorate of Hawke. This May budget invests a record $1.5 billion to protect and grow our booming agricultural industries. Unlike the former Liberal government, we aren't just talking about the importance of the regions; we are backing them in—putting our money where our mouth is, so to speak. Investments in this budget will protect and grow the agriculture sector, as it is critical for trade, economic resilience and, importantly, jobs in regional Australia. Critically, Labor is delivering on its election commitment to provide long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity. I support the comments from the member for Paterson that this investment is long overdue. We have drawn a line under the years of stopgap, temporary budget booby traps and biosecurity funding cuts from the National Party that put the regions at risk. We've reversed the $100 million annual funding cut that was locked in by the former Liberal-National government. It's astounding to think that National Party ministers—I'm talking about the member for New England and Senator McKenzie—allowed this to happen while they sat in the Morrison cabinet and on the Expenditure Review Committee of that former government. Biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it. The Albanese Labor government's $1 billion sustainable funding model is the start of a new era for biosecurity in Australia. The Albanese government is providing $845 million for biosecurity operations, including support for frontline workers at seaports and airports around the nation; $145 million for digital systems to streamline process and make it easier for industry; and $40 million for Indigenous rangers in northern Australia to support First Nations to work on country protecting our coastline. Our investments will protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. I'd also like to support comments from the member for Lyons about the importance of our forestry industry. The Albanese Labor government supports sustainable forestry and continues to invest in forestry industry innovation, manufacturing and skills development. The October budget included $300 million in new measures to support the forestry sector. We are expanding the plantation estate. We are modernising our manufacturing processes and giving workers the skills they need in a modern, sustainable industry. Our forestry industry generates more than 15,000 jobs in my state of Victoria. Almost half of these are in wood product manufacturing. Forestry also makes an important contribution to the fight against climate change. Native forest production contributed a net carbon sink of 39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020. That is through sequestration from regrowth, which exceeded emissions from harvesting. Sustainable forestry, the sector itself and the workers within it contribute to achieving our carbon targets, capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere into our trees and the products that are made from them. I am incredibly proud to be part of a Labor government that is continuing to protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors so that we can support regional Australia in the generations to come by providing clean, green, sustainable and renewable jobs. 11:21 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I would like to start by expressing my absolute dismay at the manner in which we have moved through the consideration in detail stage of these bills. Normal practice is that members have an opportunity to talk to the budget. We did not have that opportunity—well, 50 of us did not have that opportunity. There were 50 of us on the sheet—that is one-third of the parliament—who were cut, with no notice given. All that we have is five minutes to speak to a specific issue, a specific area of the budget—in this particular case, agriculture. This is not the first time that this has happened. This happened in December last year, and I thought, 'Well, okay, fair enough. It is coming towards the end of the year. Time is quite tight; we all know that.' However, for the government to do this twice in a row to members—and many of those members are crossbench members—who will not have an opportunity to speak, I think, is abysmal. In the last parliament, the then shadow minister Manager of Opposition Business in the House argued that similar actions to what we are experiencing now—with regularity—was to trash the norms of the parliament. He said, 'This is not normal. Governments of both persuasions have used their numbers to silence the other side from time to time, but not like this.' He further said, 'This denies members an extension for people who voted for them to talk about important issues and it shows contempt for the parliament and the public.' They were the words of the now Leader of the House. Yet here we are with a different government employing the same tactics. I have to say, I have been here now for seven years. I was never stopped from speaking on the appropriations bills, and to cut 50 of us, I think, is really quite appalling, and it is hypocritical. Now, onto agriculture. I am pleased to see what the government is doing here with an additional $1 billion over four years, strengthening Australia's biosecurity system, protecting agriculture, fisheries and forestry, but I am concerned this expenditure is offset by a biosecurity protection levy on Australian producers. Quite frankly, they have gone through enough. This levy is set at 10 per cent of the existing industry led agriculture levies. This is an enormous impost on our regions and on the rural sector, which are already struggling with high energy and fuel costs. The sector will have no choice but to pass this on to consumers. So my question to the minister is will this add to further inflationary pressures? And I ask the government: How will inflation be brought under control given these inflationary measures that are contained within? I would also like to talk about rural roads with my left over time. I have to say, the rural roads network walks hand-in-hand with agriculture. We all know that. If you don't have good roads in the regions you cannot get your product to market. To quote the National Farmers' Federation, 'Repairing our roads means strengthening our connection to markets, making food more available and affordable to Australians. I think it's a missed opportunity to bring down costs in the food supply chain, so my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is: do you see that there is an intrinsic link between the production of agriculture and ensuring that our rural roads are safe, well-maintained and well-funded? The $250 million of new funding for repair and improvements is so far short of what is required. We know that road accidents, particularly fatalities, are more likely on regional roads than they are on metropolitan roads. That's the way it is. We also know that our rural road network carries on it all the heavy vehicles. That, combined with vulnerable road users, particularly those who are caravaners not used to driving on rural roads, and the fact that we have so many roads that are in such a state of disrepair, will, I think, have a negative impact on agriculture in particular, so I ask the minister: is this an issue that the minister is concerned about? To me, the two are intrinsically linked. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 I remind honourable members to keep their remarks relevant to the portfolio, because time is short. I give the call to the minister. 11:26 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat It is, of course, just over a month since the Treasurer delivered the Albanese government's second budget. It is a budget that has a very strong focus on the regions and a strong focus to protect and grow the agricultural sector. It's a budget with a focus on jobs and on filling critical gaps that, frankly, the National Party failed to fix in nearly a decade. This budget does include over $1.5 billion of additional investment in agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, and we do this because we absolutely recognise the importance of food and fibre security to our nation and to the world. We understand the economic importance of keeping our regional, rural and remote communities strong, resilient and productive, and productive they are. In the face of global trade pressures, labour shortages and the challenges of floods, fires and national disasters, agriculture is at record highs. The value of Australian agriculture is forecast to be $90 billion this year, while our agricultural exports will be $75 billion. But we can't be complacent about that. The arrival of new pests and disease into Australia can have devastating and very long-lasting impacts. With the ever-increasing volume of travellers and trade across our borders, we do need sophisticated and well-functioning biosecurity systems to protect our plant, animal and environmental health. A strong biosecurity system is absolutely vital for exports. It's vital for jobs and vital for our way of life. It is amazing to think that, until this budget, biosecurity funding was never stable, never secure and never predictable. Our budget changes that, just as we promised to do at the election. It invests more than a billion dollars in our biosecurity to protect and to grow our $90 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. This investment is permanent and it is locked in for every year in the future. We have drawn a line under what, frankly, were stopgap measures, temporary budget booby traps of underfunding and biosecurity funding cuts from the National Party that put the regions at risk. We've reversed the $100 million annual funding cut that was locked in by the former government—something that the National Party ministers allowed to happen while they were at ERC. Biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it. The Albanese Labor government's $1 billion sustainable funding model is the start of a new era of biosecurity funding. Our investment will protect and grow agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. We are committing to permanently deduct more dedicated taxpayer funding than ever. Taxpayers will be contributing 44 per cent of costs in 2024-25. We're recovering more than ever before from those who create the risk, the importers, who'll contribute 48 per cent of costs for biosecurity in 2024-25. We will also introduce, as members have asked me questions about, the modest new biosecurity protection levy on beneficiaries of the strong biosecurity system, our agriculture, fisheries and forestry producers, and that levy is six per cent. They are the beneficiaries of this system and it is important that they contribute as well. Farmers have so much at stake, and it is fair to ask them to pay a little bit more for this incredibly important system, just as we are asking other working Australians to contribute through the taxes that they pay. We will work very closely with industry, in answer to what the member for Fairfax was asking, on levy design and implementation, as well as how we use the funds to protect the agricultural sector. We continue to explore ways to reform cost-recovery arrangements, including the option of a broader biosecurity import levy that is consistent with our international trade law obligations, and our sustainable funding model locks in higher and permanent biosecurity funding along with a fair system to pay for it. Given the very short time I have left to speak in this debate and that we are already past the time for the debate on the Treasury to start, I want to thank members for their contributions to this debate. To the member for Mayo in particular I say that road funding is a shared responsibility between local, state and federal governments, and the way in which we fund from the federal government is of course the increase of $250 million, bringing it to $750 million for local roads through the Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program, but there is also the $500 million for Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program and the blackspots program that we have locked in to this budget, as well as the financial assistance grants funding that has a roads component— (Time expired) Proposed expenditure agreed to. Treasury Portfolio Proposed expenditure $5,979,008,000 11:31 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'm pleased to be speaking on this important area of portfolio expenditure, which is part of our budget, as we have emphasised many times, that is about cleaning up the mess that we inherited. To put that in context, the $4.2 billion surplus that we are projecting for this budget is a significant turnaround. This time last year the former government was projecting an $80 billion deficit, so we have gone from an $80 billion deficit to a $4.2 billion surplus because we have taken the tough decisions that our predecessors were unwilling or unable to take. It's because, for example, we're banking 87 per cent of the new revenue. It is important to pay down the debt immediately because it frees up cash in the out years to ensure that that money can then be invested in new priorities. We'll have $80 billion in interest payment savings. To put that in context, that is close to twice what we're spending on an annual basis on the Defence budget, so it is real money that makes a big difference to what the government's capacity will be in out years if we take these tough decisions now. Within the Treasury portfolio there are a few items that I want to bring to the attention of members. Members will know that the government is particularly passionate about fighting scams and consumer fraud. About $3 billion a year is being lost to scams, and Australian households and small businesses are being ripped off by criminals and fraudsters who are stealing their hard-earned cash. Until now they have been left to fight this on their own. Our predecessors had no regard and certainly no strategy or policy to deal with the scourge of scams. We are turning that around— Mr JONES A9B through this $86 million package investing in a new antiscam centre through the ACCC. The very noisy member for Bradfield has more members working in his electorate office than the funds and staff that they provided on their watch to the ACCC to fight scams. I will say that again: he had more members working in his electorate office than he provided to the ACCC to fight scams, and that is an indication of his priorities. Mr JONES A9B It is the empty drum that makes the most noise, and there are no emptier drums on the government's front bench. The $86 million investment will enable us to establish a national antiscam centre to ensure that consumers and small businesses will no longer be left to fight on their own as they were under the former government because it wasn't a priority for them. We will also be putting in place new codes of practice to ensure that banks, telecommunications companies and social media platforms will have a high bar to ensure that they are providing— Mr JONES A9B I understand the member for Bradfield has got time allocated too. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Order! I'd like to hear the assistant minister, please. Mr JONES A9B He's got an embarrassing record to defend. Anybody who could spend $30 million on a $3 million block of land has got a lot of embarrassing history to cover up. We're dedicated to fighting scams; they were dedicated to covering them up. I will speak in relation to payday super. Every year, $3.4 billion worth of superannuation owed to employees goes unpaid. We think that money belongs in the accounts of everyday Australians. It wasn't a priority for the former government. It is a priority for us, which is why in this budget we're dedicating the funds and the policy priority to ensure that everyday Australians are getting superannuation that they're entitled to. Now, there are a lot of employers that are already doing the right thing; in fact, the vast majority of them are already doing the right thing and paying every cent of the super that is owed to their employees. But those who aren't are getting an unfair advantage over those employers who are doing the right thing—a $3.6 billion advantage over those employers who are doing the right thing. It wasn't a priority for the former government. It is a priority for us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Can I remind honourable members to keep the cross-talk to a minimum. It erodes your speaking time, which is already short. 11:37 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I want to speak particularly about the digital economy and this government's complete neglect of the digital economy. The sad fact is that this government does not have a minister for the digital economy. The digital economy was a clear priority for the previous government. We had a minister for the digital economy. We had a clear goal for Australia to be a leading digital economy by 2030. We had clear policy initiatives such as the Consumer Data Right, which allows consumers to have access to their own data and for that data to then be made available to providers, who could say, for example, 'We have analysed the history of your bank account and the history of your lending practices, and we can do a better deal for you.' The Consumer Data Right is all about leveraging the power of the digital economy to deliver greater benefits for consumers, and that was a clear priority for the previous government. My questions for the minister are: when will this government appoint a minister for the digital economy? When will this government commit to a national digital economy strategy, something that the previous government had? When will this government recognise that one of the ways of addressing the clear productivity problem which Australia faces—and we've seen some very sobering statistics on productivity just in the last few days—is to have a clear focus on the digital economy and the productivity benefits that it can bring? One very good example of the benefits that the digital economy can bring is digital platforms. This was addressed by the Productivity Commission in its recent five-year productivity review highlighting the importance of digital platforms in stimulating productivity and innovation. We have seen, of course, millions of Australians embrace this over the last decade. Many millions of us regularly get around with ride-sharing services like Uber, Ola and ingogo. We order meals through platforms like DoorDash, Menulog and Uber Eats. We find someone to help with a job around the home using services like Airtasker. You would think a government that says it's committed to innovation and says it's committed to improving productivity would be determined to bolster this sector. Instead, they are virulently opposed to it. Indeed, the minister for industrial relations has described the gig economy as a cancer. Why has he done that? Why is this government hostile to the digital economy and hostile to the gig economy? The reason is that the union bosses don't like it. What the union bosses want to do is go back to the 1970s, when most people were employed full time, when we had an overwhelmingly male workforce. That's the change that the union bosses want to achieve, and that's the change that this government is being responsive to. But, as the Productivity Commission has rightly highlighted, the gig economy offers significant potential productivity benefits, and at a time when we face, as a nation, a significant productivity problem it is important that we should be encouraging developments in this area. As the Productivity Commission pointed out in its recent five-year productivity inquiry, the gig economy is bringing economywide benefits by boosting productivity through 'matching efficiency in service markets and spurring technological innovation by platforms and their competitors'. It's no surprise that Australians are responding to this innovation in very large numbers—both the millions of Australians who use this service and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have responded to the opportunity to provide their services in a flexible way at a time that suits them, often doing work that they fit into a life with their other responsibilities—which might be study or family responsibilities. Those are choices that Australians have made, and the digital economy has facilitated them making those choices but, regrettably, this government is hostile to those choices and hostile to the gig economy. That is why we have seen the workplace relations minister describing the gig economy as 'a cancer'. My question for ministers here with economic responsibilities—I note with some disappointment that again this government is showing its contempt for parliamentary scrutiny by the Treasurer not being bothered to turn up. Instead, we have an outer minister here. The question I ask of the minister is: why is the government so determined to impose policies that would adversely impact the digital economy? What is this government doing to be serious about growing the digital economy so that Australia doesn't lag behind the rest of the world, something we are at serious risk of under the mess of policies this government currently has? 11:42 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Like many of us in this room I'm approached continuously by members of my constituency who raise the issue of superannuation and unpaid super. I was very pleased to see the announcements by the government about payday super because it's very important to ensure that people receive their super when it's due to them. What we've seen in the past is that it could be paid every quarter. Sometimes employers fell behind and it was never paid, and that was the most common thing that I heard in electorate when people came to see about super. They'd go back and the company would be defunct, bankrupt, insolvent, and they would never get their money. You have to remember that super is not a gift from the employer to the worker; it's paid to them for their remuneration of labour that they give. The reality is that, when super first came in back in the eighties, workers gave a part of their pay to get that original three per cent. That's what happens—it's part of your pay. So I was very pleased to see that the government has brought in payday super, and that will start on 1 July 2026. It will require employers to pay their employees super at the same time as their salary when they're being paid. As I said, it's not a gift—it's part of your salary. It's part of your package and part of the labour that you have given. I'm not saying that it's all employers—most employers do the right thing, from what we hear. The Australian tax office estimates that there's over $3.4 billion worth of super that goes unpaid. That was in 2019-20, and I reckon it has gone up since then. This will ensure that people get there super on time and not every three months, which allows the employer to fall behind and occasionally never pays it to the worker. It'll also assist the person receiving the super because of compound interest et cetera. The longer it's in that account, the better off it is for that particular person. I think it's estimated that a medium income worker at 25 years of age and currently receiving their super quarterly—compared to wages fortnightly—could be around $6,000 better off because of that compound interest and because of the money being in that account. By switching to payday super, you will be able to earn more. It keeps the employer's books and records up to date. As I said, most employers do the right thing, but, still, when you estimate $3.4 billion of unpaid super for people that have contributed their labour, it's no different from wage theft. It is exactly the same. It's no different. It's been a long time coming. These laws should have been brought in years ago by the opposition when they were in government, but, obviously, all we saw then was that the former treasurer, Mr Hockey, would not increase the super payments back in 2014 even though they'd made a pledge to do so. I recall very well him saying, 'Well, it's better off in their pockets than in super.' At the time, I was out of this place and I was negotiating EBAs. I tried it at every EBA. How many workplaces do you think said, 'Yes, we'll give you that in increased wages'? Zero—not one of them. Those workers missed out on a pledge that was made by the government back then, and they've missed out on thousands of dollars for their retirement. You have to remember: super is for people's retirement. The more that they accumulate in super, the better off governments are, regardless of what persuasion, because those people will have more money to live on and need less of a handout from the government. So it's very important that we strengthen these laws. It is important that everyone does the right thing and pays their super, because, as I said, if you're not paying super, it's no different from wage theft. I was very pleased to see the government and the minister implement these measures, which will mean that people will do the right thing and ensure that billions of dollars will get paid to workers, as they deserve for giving their labour. As I said, it's no different from your wages—super is part of that remuneration package that you get. I believe it will start on 1 July, and I'm sure we'll hear more about it from the minister and more on how it's going to strengthen Australia's superannuation system and help deliver a more dignified time with their salary and wages. As I said, it's an important measure. It will secure people's super and ensure that wage theft won't take place, because it's exactly the same. 11:47 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom The opening question, of course, is: where is the Treasurer? It's a fair question. The previous minister, I'll acknowledge, is the first Labor minister to sit the whole way through on this. I've sat in on a number of these consideration in detail processes. It's become the norm for Labor not to send their ministers in and for the junior ministers and the MPs to not even acknowledge the questions that are being asked of them, let alone attempt to answer them, but simply read pre-prepared statements. I want to go to a couple of statements from the Prime Minister here. This is from Anthony Albanese, our Prime Minister: … we do need to restore faith in our political system. We need to make sure that there is transparency, accountability and integrity. That is our Prime Minister. The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. That is our Prime Minister. Further, and very appropriately to this process, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that a government he led would expose itself to 'those checks and balances that are so important'. Deputy Speaker, I would put it to you that consideration in detail is one of the most important checks and balances we have in the parliamentary process. The hypocrisy could not be more on display when they hide behind this process. Second question: does the Treasurer accept this low standard, and should the Australian people expect it to continue? I think, by his absence, we have ourselves an answer. This could not stand in starker contrast to the previous government. In the midst of the pandemic, the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, sat there, took questions and answered them. Going back to that time, the most recent Roy Morgan business confidence report shows that business confidence hasn't been this low for this long since the dark days of that pandemic. Business confidence is now 21.9 points below the long-term average of 112.2, and 62 per cent of respondents expect bad times for the economy over the next year. Does the Treasurer accept responsibility for these low levels of business confidence? Does he accept that this budget has failed to inspire confidence in the business community? Having seen this strong rebuke of his budget by the business community, what changes to his budget would he now make if he had his time again? In preparation for the delivery of this budget, the Treasurer pledged to 'remake capitalism'. Is this budget a part of that work, or is the job now done? It's been, apparently, a very good 10 months. Is this as good as it gets? Given the failure of this budget to turn around Australia's inflation crisis and the continued need for the RBA to raise interest rates, does the Treasurer now acknowledge it was a mistake to try and reinvent the wheel before he'd learned how to turn it? Will the Treasurer now turn his focus away from remaking capitalism to fighting inflation, which is the challenge of the day? Prior to the election and in the lead-up to the budget, the Treasurer committed to no tax hikes and stated that he had no plans to increase taxes to Australians. Given the introduction of the farmers tax and the increase to the truckies tax in this budget, was the Treasurer deliberately misleading the Australian people when he made these statements, or was the deception accidental? Prior to the election and in the lead-up to the budget, the Treasurer stated that claims they would increase taxes were just a 'scare campaign'. Does the Treasurer now accept that these were statements of fact and that Labor has indeed increased taxes? The Treasurer's repeatedly spoken of fiscal restraint in this budget and yet it confirms government spending will increase by $185 billion. Relative government spending is now higher than it was pre-pandemic. How does the Treasurer reconcile his use of the word 'restraint' with the cold hard fact of $185 billion of increased spending? Is this not just a typical big-spending, big-taxing Labor budget? Prior to the election, the Treasurer said: There's lots that we can do to ease the cost of living pressures on families to make it easier to afford grocery prices … Can the Treasurer detail how many grocery items on Australian shelves have experienced a reduction in price? What measures in this budget were directly targeted at reducing grocery prices? And why have these measures failed? This budget confirms that around 175,000 Australians are projected to lose their jobs over the course of the next four years. This stands in stark contrast to the performance of the last government, which oversaw the creation of almost two million jobs during its term of office. Is job creation important to the Treasurer? What immediate steps is he taking to rectify the failings in his budget? Can the Treasurer confirm that the unionised workforce can expect more job certainty under this government than the non-unionised workforce? Australia has experienced the steepest 12-month fall in productivity on record. The government has acknowledged this as a key area of concern. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Order! Mr HAMILTON 291387 As reported in the Australian: … Parliamentary Library researchers found budget paper one mentioned productivity 53 times, but did not include a substantive program to boost the economy's productive capacity. This is incredible! The obvious questions to the Treasurer are: Why? Was this a deliberate omission? And when can the Australian people expect to see this omission corrected? Real wages fell 3.1 per cent in the first 12 months of this Labor government's term and are now 5.4 per cent below where they were before the pandemic. Why has this budget failed to get real wages growing again? Can the Treasurer confirm that this is a promise he cannot keep and a promise that he had absolutely no intention of keeping? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Honourable members, I can see you're all highly exercised over this topic. I would suggest that you keep the cross-talk to a minimum. I am struggling to hear. 11:52 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his statements and for the work he's doing to strengthen Australia's financial system to improve our economy, and the budget is a great example of that. We have just listened to the member for Groom ask the hard-hitting question, 'Where is the Treasurer?' That's his opening question in a session designed to be a forum for scrutiny of the budget in detail. He didn't go through any questions about the budget of any substance. He didn't ask us about the budget forecasts. He didn't ask us about the domestic outlook. He didn't question any of the global economic aggregates. He had no questions about the fiscal position. He had no questions about any appropriations or about the long-term fiscal strategy. His concept of using the parliament to provide scrutiny on the budget and deliver questions in detail was to provide a rant at a high level about: 'Where is the Treasurer?' We have an important role as parliamentarians to use the customs and procedures of this parliament to provide input, and, in the case of the opposition, scrutiny on the budget. What we have seen over the course of the last two speakers is people who appear to have not even read the budget—people who don't have any concept of what is in the budget, don't have any analysis of the content of the budget papers and are unable to ask a single question about the contents of those papers. It's as if they haven't read it, showing contempt for an important role of public oversight. One of the reasons why this budget is so unnerving and upsetting for those opposite is that this budget delivers a budget surplus. It sticks in the craw of those opposite, because if there is a raison detre of the Liberal Party, if there is a reason for them to go home and sleep at night, it is because they hold onto the core belief that they deliver budget surpluses. That is the kind of warm, fuzzy feeling—admittedly long in the distant history now—that gives them a sense that all the other detrimental things they do to Australia and to Australians are okay because they deliver budget surpluses. So sitting here and watching the Labor Party in its first year in office delivering the budget surplus that they couldn't, I feel for them. I know how painful that might be. It is like the pea under the mattress, you know? You just can't quite sleep at night because something does not feel quite right. An honourable me mber interjecting— Dr CHARLTON I8M The Princess allusion was intended. They came so close. This is the tragedy. They were within reach of it, they felt. They even printed all the merchandise, the final validation of all the rhetoric about debt and deficits over the course of the Abbott government and the Turnbull government and the Morrison government. They came so close and to be not able to deliver it was a setback. It was a blow. I feel for them. And then to have to watch the Labor government deliver a surplus in its first year of government, that must be tough. So I can see why it is hard for them to read the budget papers. It is hard for them to read about the surplus. It is hard for them to read about the low rate of unemployment. It is hard for them to read about the concrete steps that this government is taking to tackle the real challenges that Australia has. But nonetheless, those opposite have to get over that and they have to read it. They have to overcome the pain of reading about the government's budget surplus, reading about the positive economic initiatives and conditions that the government has put in place, because that is their job. And if they don't read the budget, if they don't read through the pages about that surplus and about those positive economic conditions and those initiatives for the future, they won't be able to come into forums like this and ask substantive questions that provide real scrutiny on the elements of the budget. So I would encourage those opposite to overcome their trepidation, overcome the significant trigger warnings that they will inflict on themselves by reading about this Labor surplus, actually read the budget, go through it and do what my kids do—close their eyes over the bits that are especially painful when they are watching a scary movie. You can skip the bit about the budget surplus forecast this year if you have to. Read it in detail and come into forums like this and ask substantive questions. 11:57 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde What I find interesting is this is consideration in detail. I quite like that the assistant Treasurer. We got elected together in 2010, so we have some bon ami as far as that goes. But two government speakers—this is consideration in detail—have made statements for five minutes and actually not asked a single question about what is in the budget and how it is going to benefit people. That is because there is very little in the budget that benefits Australian people. The previous speaker wants me to quote from the budget papers. I will happily oblige the member. On page 56 of budget statement No. 2, it says, 'Financial markets and market economists now expect the cash rate to remain at 3.85 per cent until early 2024.' Well, that has gone up in dust, hasn't it? We are now 4.1. Does that mean that everything else in the budget is now irrelevant? As we stand here and listen to those opposite, they have a budget built on a foundation set by the work of successive coalition governments. All we have seen in this budget are higher taxes and more expenditure, putting pressure on inflation and making things worse for the Australian people. They have failed to deal with pressures in many areas in the economy—failed outright. Energy prices are now higher than when they came into government. Interest rates are now higher than when they came into government. And we've seen them raise taxes, which they said they wouldn't do. The member for Groom outlined a couple—the truckies tax and the tax on agriculture, through the quarantine levy. But also we've seen changes to franking credits, something else those opposite said, during the election campaign, they wouldn't do. We've seen the average income tax take go up as inflation has borne down on Australians, with bracket creep. This budget and the government's 12 months in office are full of broken promises, and they continue. The Prime Minister said on 4 March 2022, in relation to franking credits, that Labor was 'not touching them'. A week later, on ABC radio, he said, 'We won't have any changes to the franking credits regime.' The Treasurer—who, as has been noted earlier, is not here for consideration in detail—said: … we won't be doing franking credits … I couldn't be clearer than that. However, we've seen changes to franking credits since they came to government, in direct opposition to what they said. Why has the Treasurer attacked Australians with these changes to franking credits, double-dipping and a tax grab on retirees and investors? A second question is: are there any further plans of this government to further tax retirees and their franking credits? But it's not only franking credits; it's also superannuation, where we have seen a change to the tax treatment of super for the higher balances. To paraphrase a comment from the Assistant Treasurer, his view is that superannuation is a honey pot. Well, it's not a honey pot for the government; it's something for Australians to have for their retirement. The government needs to understand that, with this tax hike they have promised—which is not indexed, by the way—if you do some longer-term analysis of what people will accumulate in their superannuation over the years to come, there are going to be a far wider range of people impacted by these changes than currently proposed. But on this side of the chamber we'll continue to back superannuation and a lower tax environment for all Australians. In relation to super more generally, we've seen, as I said, the interest rates go up, so what is the government going to do to reduce interest rates and reduce the pressure on Australian households? (Time expired) 12:02 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Amongst the rest of the ridiculous questions that had nothing to do with anything actually in the budget that the member for Groom raised in his contribution, he said this: 'Is job creation important to the Treasurer?' It's probably a good time to mention, then, that the job figures have come out today, and the unemployment rate has decreased to 3.6 per cent, the participation rate has increased to 66.9 per cent, full-time employment has increased by 61,700 and employment has increased by over 70,000. Jobs have increased. So I think it's palpably clear that not only is job creation important to the Treasurer and this government, but we're getting on with the job of doing it. I also note that a number of members on the opposite side have asked where the Treasurer is. The Assistant Treasurer doesn't need me to defend him because he's a pretty robust fellow in his own right, but I just thought it might be worth pointing out, before the next person asks where the Treasurer is, that the bills that we're currently discussing were introduced by the Assistant Treasurer, and the responsibility for these bills falls with the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer is more than capable of answering the questions—if we are going to be so kind as to call them questions—that have been directed towards the government by members on the other side. So hopefully no-one else is going to ask where the Treasurer is today. We've got the person responsible right here. One of the things that my constituents contact me about—and I know everyone in the parliament gets this sort of contact—is of course the rising cost of living. The budget did not shy away from the fact that there is a significant burden on Australians from the cost of living at the moment. Not only did it not shy away from it but it had a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package in it. One of the things at the heart of that package is to triple the bulk-billing incentive so that more Australians can get to see a doctor for free. Because it is bulk-billed, they do not have to worry about the cost, and just as importantly, if not more importantly, they can get their health needs dealt with when they need them dealt with instead of sitting at home working out how they can save the money just to go and see a GP. Of course, that $14.6 billion cost-of-living package had much more in it. It provided energy relief to over five million households and one million small businesses. We don't hear a great deal from the other side about that energy relief because they voted against energy relief, so they do not like to tell their constituents or anyone about that. The cost-of-living package helps 170,000 households save on energy bills by financing energy-saving home upgrades. That makes a big difference to a lot people. As I said, we are reducing out-of-pocket health cost by tripling bulk-billing incentive and investing in more bulk-billing urgent care clinics. I am really, really pleased that one of those urgent care clinics is in Frankston, in my electorate of Dunkley. It is getting harder and harder for so many of my constituents to get in to see a doctor, and the emergency room at Frankston Hospital is always packed out, which means hours of waiting. The urgent care clinic makes a massive difference because people can go there to get their care instead of having to wait at the hospital. Our cost-of-living relief package is cutting the cost of medicine by up to half for at least six million Australians—up to half—and 60-day dispensing will make a massive difference to a lot of people with chronic health issues. In addition, 57,000 single parents are benefiting from expanding the eligibility for the parenting payment. The base rates for JobSeeker and other payments are increasing for 1.1 million people. Commonwealth rent assistance is also increasing for 1.1 million people. Through these measures and things like tax breaks to ensure more investment in build-to-rent projects, we are looking after Australians and will continue to do so. 12:07 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I would like to start by acknowledging that the budget made some important commitments, which I welcome and they have been welcomed by the Wentworth community. These include more support for Australia's health system, more support for our aged-care system and the foundation investment in household electrification. In those respects and in others the budget was one that listened and responded to concerns of my community. But in other respects, and very important respects, it was not. The missing piece in this year's budget was a reform agenda focussed on dealing with some of the highest-priority long-term issues facing our economy, which will have a particularly detrimental effect on younger and future generations. I believe the Treasurer cares about the future, and I believe that he cares about intergenerational issues. But I think it is pretty clear that the budget failed to give appropriate weight to three of the most important concerns: the affordability of housing, the sustainability of our tax system and the rate of productivity growth in our economy. Each of these has real and negative impacts on Australians today but also much deeper consequences for our youth and future generations. Three statistics outline the challenge. On housing: Australia's housing is some of the most unaffordable on earth. Sydney, where my electorate is, is the second most unaffordable place in world to live from a housing point of view, second only to Hong Kong. On tax: Australia is highly reliant on personal income taxes, but, as our population ages, we will either have to rely more and more on fewer workers to support the population or engage in meaningful tax reform. On productivity: productivity growth is now the slowest it has been for six decades. In fact, last year it went backwards by over four per cent. Low productivity growth is the most important factor in long-term improvements to standards of living. In each area of the budget, there were efforts to address these issues, but they were without the scale of ambition required for these problems. Really addressing these issues—real ambition—is what my community is asking for. While there were welcome pieces in the budget on housing, such as changing the tax treatment of international build-to-rent properties, there was not a significant commitment to driving housing reform at the scale that is needed to rebalance income and housing costs, such as through hard incentives for states and local governments to rezone land. Scale of action is what we need. The government has said they're interested in building one million new homes in the five years up to 2030. If you look at the OECD figures, Australia's need for housing is possibly closer to two million homes, if you're going to truly address housing affordability. So the question to the Treasurer is: why not go further, and why not show further ambition? The second missed opportunity was tax reform. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to not do anything on tax, I wasn't that surprised, but true tax reform only becomes more urgent and more important the longer we leave it. There were small changes in taxes such as PRRT, but the truth is that small fiddles such as those to the PRRT just make it harder to do truly transformational longer term reform, including on resource taxes. The question to the Treasurer is: why not at least kick off a consultation on tax so that you have something substantial to take to the future? A final missed opportunity was productivity reform. I support the government's efforts in productivity reform, such as investment in reforming the migration system and in TAFE. These are critical. But there is no agenda from the government about how to make it easier for businesses to thrive and scale in this economy, nor how to drive productivity in the government sectors. We had three things they could have done. We could have had a comprehensive response to the Productivity Commission's recent report. We pay these people to come up with reports on productivity. Surely, given the productivity crisis we're facing, we could get a government response as to which methods they're taking forward and which ones they're not taking forward and why. Secondly, we need to adopt a cultural shift, as embodied, I think, in Service NSW, and apply that to federal government. Our systems are set up to suit the government rather than the people. This is true of the medical researcher who spends a quarter of their time on government grant writing instead of researching and of the not-for-profit that loses experienced staff because they don't know whether their contracts are ongoing or not in the next few months. Finally, we need to listen to business about what they think is most important to driving productivity. The two biggest issues raised by business with me are around reforming industrial relations awards so they're simpler and right-sizing regulation so that regulations aren't put on top of each other and mixed in with state regulation. The budget ignored both of these pleas from business. Housing, tax and productivity—they are issues today; they're only going to be more important in the future. These were missed opportunities in the budget. 12:12 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I've been asked a range of questions. I think I've got two minutes to reply in the time allotted, though I will, in the course of this matter moving through the parliament, have more to say. The member for Groom asked: what is the government's plan for unemployment? We have a plan. It's about training, it's about supporting industry and it's about supporting business. On current data, it's working. Unemployment figures today dropped, and I can inform the House that for the first time in our nation's history we now have 14 million people in work. That's a significant national achievement, which we're proud of our contribution to. The member for Bradfield asked me a series of questions about the Consumer Data Right. All I can say to the member for Bradfield is that if it was such an important initiative they should have funded it. In fact, they didn't. It would have dropped dead. They had the opportunity to fund it in their last budget, in May last year; they did not. We've put an additional $80 million into it to ensure the Consumer Data Right is deepened and strengthened in the sectors where it's currently operating. I'm asked about our digital agenda. The Minister for Finance is currently leading a project around a digital ID. I'm working cooperatively with her on that and a range of other projects. I've talked about our scams and antifraud agenda. Quite simply, if Australians cannot have faith in online commerce, they will stop using it, so our antiscams agenda is a consumer agenda but also an economic agenda. It will ensure that Australians who are doing their shopping online, doing their business online and transforming their businesses online into the data era can have faith that the people they are talking with or transacting with are legitimate. Our scams and antifraud agenda, together with our cybercrime agenda, is all about bolstering that confidence. Finally, I was asked about business confidence and I was asked about confidence in the Australian people. Whenever I go and talk to business or the Australian people, the first thing they say to me is: 'Thank god we've got a grown-up government in charge. Thank god we've got a government that is focused on the Australian people and their needs, and not on itself.' So when we're talking confidence, let's have confidence, and we can be confident that we now have a government which is focused on the big challenges, whether it's energy, climate change, cybercrime, consumer fraud, inflation, employment, training, skills or immigration. We've got a government which is not fighting against itself but tackling the big challenges that we face, whether they are economic or social, I thank members for their contributions to this debate. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Attorney-General's Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $3,464,557,000 12:16 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I want to start by saying a huge thank you to the tremendous work that not only the Prime Minister but also our Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, are doing to build a stronger future for First Nations communities not just in my electorate of Robertson but right across the country. From our metropolitan city centres to our regional and remote communities, we are truly building a stronger future for First Nations communities, and part of that stronger future is the implementation in full of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, for voice, for treaty and for truth. The Voice, at its core, is about two things: firstly, recognition—recognising our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters as the first peoples of this land; and, secondly consultation—that is, the establishment of an independent Voice to Parliament so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can have a say on the issues that will affect them at the end of the day. I know people in this chamber love it when I get a bit medical, and I'm going to get a bit medical again, because this is about listening. As doctors, nurses and allied health professionals know, one of the most important things that we do at the bedside is taking a patient's history and listening to the patient. More often than not, when you listen and take that history, you will formulate a provisional diagnosis and start a treatment plan that will ultimately save a life—and that's way before a physical examination, any pathology testing or any scans. That's the power of listening, and that's what the Voice is at its core. We will be listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the issues that will affect them and their communities at the end of the day. Something I would also like to bring up in relation to the Voice, particularly about enshrining it in our Constitution, is that in this 47th parliament we have 11 First Nations MPs and senators from right across the political spectrum, which is a fantastic outcome for this country. To have such high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation in this parliament—the federal parliament, our nation's parliament—is excellent. However, in the 48th or 49th parliaments, that may not be the case. What this voice does is permanently enshrine that Voice—the voices of First Nations communities—in the parliament of Australia. I think that's a really important point to make with the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and particularly with the establishment of the establishment of the Voice. I also want to make mention that the 2023-24 budget does also extend existing funding to enable the investment of $20 million to progress regional voice arrangements. On that note, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General for work that they are doing in implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart and for progressing the referendum so that every Australian can have their say. Because it is not about us here; it's about every Australian out there having their say on recognising and listening to First Nations communities. With that, I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question: What is the government doing with regards to First Nations communities to ensure the success of the Voice? 12:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am pleased to rise to speak on this debate in relation to the appropriations bills as they concern the Attorney-General's portfolio. I want to speak firstly about the responsibility of the government and of the Attorney-General and the portfolio for which he has responsibility to keep Australians safe. We live in a dangerous world. There are terrorism and other threats facing Australia, and foreign actors are launching cyberattacks against our country and agencies and businesses within it regularly. Just today, we learned about the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner having had its own data accessed by hackers. This is the agency that monitors privacy breaches caused by cyberattacks. According to media reports, it is under attack itself through a third party, so I ask the Attorney: What actions have the government taken to address these concerning reports? It is noteworthy that this budget reduces funding for frontline agencies in a number of ways, frontline agencies which are charged with keeping Australians safe. This budget cuts almost $26 million from our intelligence agencies, from the funding which is provided for officials for parliamentary departments and new oversight mechanisms. It redirects almost $130 million from the Defence budget, money allocated to pay for ongoing inquiries into Afghanistan. It's curious that this government would take money away from the defence forces at a time when it is widely acknowledged that Australia faces the most complex strategic environment since the Second World War. One of the noteworthy features of this budget is that the measure that commits to protecting Australians from homegrown terrorism lasts for just two years. We have had minister after minister making much of the fact that there were expiring budget measures committed to by the previous government. Apparently it was an outrage that in every area there were budget measures we had not provided funding in perpetuity, so this government will not be required to make any decisions of any kind. But what is remarkable is that, having criticised expiring budget measures up hill and down dale, this government has now produced a budget which contains an expiring measure—just two years of funding—in relation to the threat of homegrown terrorists. Apparently somehow the threat of homegrown terrorists will miraculously cease at the end of two years. I ask how the Attorney-General: How can this possibly be justified in view of the principle which apparently is articulated and committed to by ministers in this government that any expiring budget measure will automatically and inherently be condemned? If you believe what ministers have repeatedly told the House in recent weeks, that is the principle to which they hold firm. So I ask the Attorney-General: How can that principle be reconciled with the fact that this particular measure expires after two years? I want to turn to the Voice. The previous coalition government committed $31.8 million for local and regional voices, for reasons that go to, as our leader and many of us have explained, our belief that giving local communities effective representation, particularly remote communities, is likely to be a way in which there can be greater responsibility achieved by government to the direct frontline concerns of remote communities. That is the reason why we committed $31.8 million in our last budget to local regional voices. But, curiously, this budget commits to spending only $20 million in this area, so I ask the Attorney-General: What's being done with the rest of the funding? Does this indicate, once again, that this government is in fact equivocal at best in its commitment to local and regional voices, about which we have heard surprisingly little over the time since this government has come to power, notwithstanding local and regional voices being an important element of what was recommended in the Calma-Langton report? This budget commits to spending legal fees on 'a number of international legal actions', but won't disclose the amounts. I ask the Attorney-General: why is this? There is an additional $95 million pumped into one department, for public servants—just one department. Meanwhile, funding for programs like the Lighthouse program in the Family Court drops off a cliff. Attorney, will the government commit to further funding the Lighthouse program past 2026-27? 12:25 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to address the Attorney-General about appropriations for his portfolio. Attorney-General, I've always firmly believed that the first concern of this nation's Family Court should be the best interests of the child. I know some men's rights groups think otherwise, but I'll never understand why anybody would want a system that doesn't prioritise the interests of children when it comes to making potentially life-changing decisions about their parenting arrangements. That is why, in opposition, I introduced a private member's bill to remove the misleading and dangerous presumption of equal shared parental responsibility from the Family Law Act. This change to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in the Family Law Act was made in 2006, under the Howard government, by the then attorney-general Philip Ruddock. The push to remove this dangerous amendment was part of Rosie Batty's and Women's Legal Services Australia's Safety First in Family Law campaign. This entailed five steps to create a family law system to keep women and children safe. It was launched in October 2019 and endorsed by more than 90 frontline organisations, including men's support organisations. Since Philip Ruddock's amendment—the equal-shared-parental-responsibility provisions—was first included in the Family Law Act, experts have been raising their concerns. Then shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon, in her speech on the second reading, said: … some victims of family violence may develop the false view that they cannot stop their abuser from having contact with their children. I am advised by some service providers in the sector that this is already happening, mostly involving women who, despite their fears and concerns, feel that new laws mean they will have to accept equal time. Sadly, after Howard's misstep, the family law system was again used as a political football by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Family law has been subject to more than two dozen inquiries over the last two decades. I've been on some of those. Consistent among the reports that arose from those inquiries is the fact that our family law justice system contains way too much overly complex and, at times, confusing legislation. Report after report has raised concerns about the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I'm proud to be part of the Labor Party that has long been committed to improving our family law system, with improvements to make it safer, simpler to use and more accessible, and to a justice system that delivers just and fair outcomes for families. I know that family law is one of the most difficult areas of our justice system. All too often, love turns to hate and logic turns to irrational beliefs that are usually wrong. Most people sort it out themselves, as you know, but there are some occasions when the state must step in to offer guidance. One of the reasons for this problem has been because the presumption has been misunderstood since day one. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General as to how the current changes will clarify the confusing framework in the Family Law Act for making decisions about parenting arrangements. Too often it has led to parents believing they have a right to equal time with their children after separation—fifty-fifty, seven days on and seven days off et cetera. The misleading presumption of equal shared parental responsibility gave rise to many misogynist groups and others using this misunderstanding deliberately, to further advance their misogyny and argue that abusive parents must have access to their children, irrespective of the harm that might flow after. This can allow abusers to continue to harass their former partners through repeated Family Court action. I'm keen to hear the Attorney-General's views on any evidence that the courts were biased against men—and I'm sure that the extremist group that the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, met with, prior to the coalition voting down these family law changes, would be interested in hearing his reply. We're all aware of the monumental change made by the merger of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court—a surprise merger that wasn't recommended. It was a merger that generated a high level of anxiety across the country, especially amongst family law practitioners. I conclude by asking the Attorney-General to provide an update on the work being done by the Albanese government to address the issues presented by the merger of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court. When will Dr Frankenstein's creation be disassembled? 12:30 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn First of all, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the minister here in this consideration of detail debate when it is so disappointing that many of his ministerial colleagues haven't bothered to attend their particular portfolio. Thank you, Minister. A budget needs to prioritise national security, transparency and families over bureaucracy. However, Labor's 2023 budget does the opposite. Labour's budget is very disappointing on many levels. It's especially disappointing in the Attorney-General's portfolio. It is important to protect Australia's security and prosperity a time when nations are facing a growing number of challenges. Australia's security environment is expected to continue to be complex and challenging, with key threats including terrorism, espionage and foreign interference. All too often governments are forced to act in the midst of a crisis or its immediate aftermath. It is clear that the Labor government is not planning to be proactive but, rather, reactive. As a start, this budget takes money away from front line agencies that keep Australians safe. It gives it to lawyers, public servants and oversight bodies in true Labor government fashion. It rips almost $26 million out of our intelligence agencies to fund officials, parliamentary departments and the new oversight mechanisms. It redirects almost $130 million out of our defence budget to pay for ongoing inquiries into Afghanistan. I appreciate that the ongoing inquiries need to take place following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but why does the funding need to be plucked from the defence budget? Furthermore, Senate estimates have only confirmed what the coalition had feared: that there is no new money, only cuts and lack of ambition for our nation's defence. Strangely enough, the Labor budget commits to protecting Australians from homegrown terrorists for just two years. What is the plan to protect Australians from homegrown terrorists after the two years are up? There is no detail on this matter. It is simply clear that this is not a budget of a government that is serious about our national security. Why does this Labor government not prioritise national security? This budget also has trickiness and hidden funds everywhere. This budget takes $31.8 million that the coalition committed to local and regional voices but only spends $20 million. What happened to the rest? Where has the remaining $11.8 million gone? To which department, we wonder. The budget commits to spending legal fees on a number of international legal actions but won't disclose the amounts. Furthermore, given the recent revelations in respect to the Brittany Higgins case, it's becoming more evident that senior Labor politicians and other high-profile people are implicated in this most extraordinary affair; which begs the question: why has the Attorney-General's department not been open and transparent about the compensation payout to Ms Higgins? This is taxpayers' money. Australians want to know the details of why the payment was made and why any counterargument to the contrary was excluded. Why is this, Attorney-General? In true Labor fashion, this is a budget for public servants, not for families struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. This budget sees an additional $95 million pumped into just one department of public servants. Once again, I assume the funding will be for a department in Canberra, not for the regions. Meanwhile, funding for programs, like the Lighthouse Project in the Family Court, which does groundbreaking work to identify the risk of family violence, drops off a cliff in 2026-27. The Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Hon. William Alstergren, explained that the data around the Lighthouse Project demonstrates the need to expand and increase the focus on safety and welfare for families involved in the family law system. The Lighthouse Project has enabled the court to shine a light on the details of allegations raised in individual cases and provide critical, tailored support for these families. Furthermore, he has said that in many parts of the country this needs critical support. What will the Labor government commit after 2026? Or will this program be axed? In respect to the Voice, who will make up this body? How many representatives will there be? Will they be elected or appointed? How do you qualify? How often will the body change? Will these people be paid, and, if so, how much? Will they have bureaucratic support, and, if so, to what extent? These are questions that also need to be answered by this department. (Time expired) 12:35 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara If you want a reflection of the standard of politics being practised by the LNP right now, we just had one. Those were really grubby, nasty, unfounded accusations that were trying to dredge up really personal matters in order to make some sort of headline political issue out of them. The member should reflect on that contribution. Using this place as a forum to dredge up really unnecessary and awful political questions about someone's life and the private matters that have happened in this building is, frankly, a poor reflection on those who are seeking to politicise this. But let's talk about more important matters. In my home city of Melbourne, over the last few months, we saw some of the most confronting scenes of bigotry and of the glorification of an old ideology that saw one of the worst chapters of human history, a chapter that Australia stood with our allies and other countries to fight against. What happened in Germany prior to and throughout the Second World War was one of the darkest chapters of humankind. My grandmother fled Germany in 1938 to come to Australia, and she did so as a stateless refugee, someone who, at four years of age, was deemed not to be an equal member of the society that she was born into. Yet Australia provided a safe place for her. It meant that she was able to create a life for herself outside of the country she was fleeing. Australia provided a safe haven of multicultural acceptance, a home and an opportunity. She was a teacher. She had multiple degrees. She was by far the smartest person in our family. She was a proud Australian and, dare I say it, was also proud of her German heritage, and felt very sad about it. I say that because the scene that we saw in Melbourne of people marching and flippantly signalling the Sieg Heil, the Nazi salute, and parading around like foolish, young, lost souls in a city that celebrates multiculturalism was as jarring and uncomfortable a scene as I can remember in all my life living in our beautiful city. After that moment, we saw governments come together across the country to work together and to look at what legislative loopholes needed to be tightened to ensure against those sorts of ugly scenes, which stand against every fibre of the multicultural heart of our city. I want to thank the Attorney-General for his leadership and his careful consideration of these matters. I think that the legislation that the federal government has introduced this week will complement that of the state governments. As we saw on the streets of Melbourne, where people were marching up and down doing neo-Nazi glorification, those policing those matters were Victoria Police. It is appropriate for the state police to be upholding the state legislation. It is also appropriate that the federal government complements that legislation in order to ensure that there is no glorification of or profiteering from the bigoted and ugly neo-Nazi ideology that those characters were seeking to publicise in Melbourne. Obviously, as with every piece of legislation, we need to review it and ensure that it is being implemented in practice, but I want to take this opportunity to talk about this issue and say that this is a deeply personal issue. As someone who obviously is the beneficiary of Australia's welcoming approach to my grandmother but also as someone who cares deeply about this country, as someone who wants us to remain a proudly multicultural society, as someone who wants us to uphold the law equally and proudly for all its citizens I ask the Attorney-General: why is it so important that we maintain our multicultural heart, and why is it so important to have these laws implemented for our society to benefit? 12:40 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Attorney, I draw your attention to a letter dated 6 December 2022 from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to Clayton Utz in relation to a potential civil claim, which may have been brought but never was, by Brittany Higgins against Senator Reynolds. In that letter, at paragraph 3, lawyers acting for the Commonwealth state that you personally exercised a discretion to control the conduct of Senator Reynolds's defence on the basis that the Commonwealth was paying for that defence. A mediation had been scheduled between Ms Higgins and Senator Reynolds, but, according to that letter, at your request you directed Senator Reynolds not attend the mediation, at paragraph 7, and that she not seek to do so. You also effectively directed Senator Reynolds not to make any public comment about the mediation or the civil claim against her, the Commonwealth or Senator Cash. In effect, Attorney, according to that letter, you sought to gag Senator Reynolds. Attorney, you exercised your discretion in circumstances where you were in a clear conflict of interest. You had made numerous public statements supporting Ms Higgins, as did the now Prime Minister, as did the now Minister for Finance. It follows that, pursuant to section 83 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Regulation 2017, in circumstances where there was a conflict of interest by you, you ought not have been the individual responsible for exercising a discretion to take control of the conduct of the defence. Attorney, why did you exercise that discretion to block Senator Reynolds's involvement at the mediation in circumstances where she may have been able to assist the Commonwealth in the preparation of its position at the mediation? Second, does the Attorney accept that he acted in so doing whilst he had a conflict of interest? Third, does the Attorney consider that the payment of Commonwealth moneys in circumstances where Senator Reynolds did not have an opportunity to challenge the allegations, albeit in a mediation, was an appropriate expenditure of taxpayers' money? Fourth, as a result of that conflict of interest will the Attorney refer himself to the National Anti-Corruption Commission? Fifth, I seek leave to table a letter from HWL Ebsworth to Dr Ashley Tsacalos of Clayton Utz lawyers dated 6 December 2022. I also seek leave to table a letter from Clayton Utz in response, dated 9 December 2022. I also seek leave to table a letter in response to that from HWL Ebsworth to Dr Ashley Tsacalos of Clayton Utz, dated 7 February 2023. Leave not granted. Mr WALLACE 265967 It is very disappointing that the government has taken the opportunity to not allow leave to be granted for documents which clearly show that the Attorney was in a conflict of interest when he exercised his discretion. It is very unfortunate that the government has taken this position, and the government should reconsider its position at the earliest opportunity. 12:45 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I rise to contribute again on the consideration in detail of the Attorney-General's Department. I will be speaking about the Securing Faith-Based Places grants program. But, can I say again, I'm astonished to hear the political games being played by those opposite. Whether they have the self-awareness to acknowledge it or not, or whether there's just a whole lot of groupthink going on from those opposite, the general public think that they are losing their minds. The Liberal Party right now is going down the grubbiest and ugliest path of some of the most destructive politics, playing with somebody's life for their own political gain. I am once again urging my Liberal and National colleagues in this place to consider their actions and to consider whether or not this is an appropriate way of using the high office that they occupy. Is it beneath them to dredge up these nasty and grubby attacks or should they be focusing on issues that actually face the Australian people? One of the really important programs brought forward throughout the recent budget process within the Attorney-General's Department is Securing Faith-Based Places. In my electorate of Macnamara, members of my community carry an increased burden because they are at risk of a range of attacks and security concerns that affect people and their ordinary business. Simply going to the mosque, going to the synagogue, going to church or going to temple as part of your expression of your own identity is a fundamental part of your right as an Australian. A situation where ordinary Australians are having to think about whether or not that is a safe thing to do is a situation where that becomes the responsibility of governments around the country. I was really pleased to see the continuation of the long record of—most of the time—bipartisan support for organisations to not only have the security infrastructure to be able to protect their people and congregants but also to carry the financial burden that is required to maintain and manage that security infrastructure as well. I can say with absolute confidence that this federal government funding is so important to the day-to-day lives of so many people who want to go about their ordinary business, go to their place of worship and express themselves and their religious identity. I go around my own electorate and I am so proud to have a diverse and multicultural community. I also know that, for many people, that simple question of, 'Can I go and do my ordinary business in a safe way?' is a really difficult one. Frankly, it's one that I would hope wouldn't confront Australians, but it does. Therefore, it is extremely important that the government stand in and try to assist faith based schools, preschools, places of worship and community centres to protect them from crime and violent crime. We know that the increase in far-right violence is keeping our security agencies extremely busy. We know that the far right is presenting an increased threat to many communities around Australia—not just faith based communities—as well, and it is incumbent on us to work together to ensure that Australians are available and free to participate, to express themselves, to hold on to that fundamental right of freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of participation in our great society. I thank the Attorney-General for all of the work that has gone into this. I know it has been something that the Attorney has been working on for a few months. I ask him: why is it so important to be able to ensure that Australians can go participate freely, express themselves and express their religious identity in a way that is incumbent on this great country? 12:50 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the budget and the Attorney-General's portfolio. I will confine my remarks to the incipient National Anti-Corruption Commission. Prior to the election a year ago, I campaigned for about 10 months. Labor's pledge to create an anticorruption commission was front and centre in my own campaign, as it was throughout the country. It resonated with the community, who had had enough of the rorts under the Morrison government, which failed to bring this legislation to the parliament. After the election, we learned of the multiple secret ministries held by the former prime minister, a further example of the lack of accountability—accountability which is now expected and in fact always was expected of public officials. Labor was elected and hit the ground running on this policy. I was honoured to be asked to be a member of the joint select committee which examined the legislation of the NACC. Over a number of weeks and with a collegial atmosphere across the parties, we covered aspects such as the powers of the commission, mental health provisions for witnesses and subjects, protections for journalists, the role of the inspector of the commission and the relationship of the NACC to other legislation. It was a useful and efficient process which saw a number of recommendations agreed to by the government. Submissions were made to the committee inquiry by a large number of individuals and organisations, including academics, human rights advocates, media, think tanks, whistleblower groups, legal practitioners and law societies, unions, psychologists and others. Their evidence was illuminating and essential, and one common theme throughout was that they all agreed on the need for a NACC. The legislation initiated by the Attorney-General and passed by the parliament provides for an independent, powerful and measured national anticorruption commission, which will commence operation just a fortnight from now. The May budget provides $3 million over four years from 2023-24 and $0.8 million per year ongoing for the inspector of the NACC, an increase on the amount provisioned last October due to the expanded role of the NACC negotiated with the parliament during the passage of the legislation. The October budget provided $262.6 million over four years for the NACC together with $27.5 million for the transition. There was also $7.6 million over four years for financial assistance for witnesses and those seeking review. I'm pointing out these significant numbers because they demonstrate just how serious this government is about ensuring the NACC and its ancillary supporting bodies are supported and resourced appropriately to do the job that's expected by all Australians. So why do we need the NACC? A few examples of investigations by the Western Australian CCC serve to clearly indicate why. In 2018 a CCC report revealed corruption within the North Metropolitan Health Service, with serious warnings for public sector agencies and private sector contractors. In 2021 a review of an investigation by the Water Corporation led to serious misconduct allegations in their procurement. In 2022 they reported on corrupt procurement practices and conduct in the Department of Communities. Western Australia is no more or less susceptible to these issues than any other state. It is unreasonable to expect that there aren't exactly the same issues occurring at the Commonwealth level. To uncover systemic corruption is unsettling, but, when we confront the truth and take action to mitigate the risks of the events recurring, we gain a greater comfort and greater trust in the system of our government. In a democracy, trust in government is central as it underpins the success of every relationship, domestic and international, every contract we sign and every service we deliver. We look forward to the commencement of the NACC. I know I speak for all my colleagues and for my constituents when I commend and congratulate the Attorney-General for his care and enthusiasm for what will be a new era of accountability in the Commonwealth government's practice. The public expect a high degree of probity from elected officials and all who deal with them, and this is exactly what this government has provided for with this legislation and these budgets. My questions to the Attorney-General are: When exactly will the NACC commence operations? Will it actually be able to hit the ground running in July? How is the Attorney-General's Department engaging with Commonwealth agencies prior to the NACC commencing its operations? And how will the NACC deliver on Labor's important election commitments to improve transparency and accountability in the federal government? 12:55 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the members for Moreton, Robertson, Macnamara, Hasluck, Bradfield, Flynn and Fisher for their questions. I'll aim to deal with each in turn in the time I've got available. In relation to the member for Moreton's questions about family law, there is, of course, no greater responsibility for an Attorney-General than keeping children safe, including those caught up in the family law system. The current family law system is confusing and leads to poor outcomes. The government's Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 will put the interests of the child at the centre. The government has the right priorities here. We are acting on the Australian Law Reform Commission report from 2019, the largest ever report into the Family Law Act, which the Morrison government sadly ignored. Our priorities are very different from those of the opposition, who met with a disgraced so-called men's rights organisation just days before voting against the government's Family Law Amendment Bill. In relation to the member's question about the merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, the bill now before the parliament contains provision for a review of the structure of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, to be completed next year. In relation to the member for Robertson's questions regarding the Voice, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is about two things: listening and recognising. It can do no harm, only good. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a generous invitation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the Albanese Labor government has pledged to implement it in full. We know that better policies are made when they are informed by those most affected. In relation to the eloquent statements and questions from the member for Macnamara, he knows better than most why banning Nazi symbols is important—in response to the recent disgraceful activities that we've seen in Melbourne—as, equally, is securing faith based places, which is the subject of a program that we have recently announced with $40 million. Of course, we would all wish that we did not need such a program, that we did not need to provide faith based organisations with money to better secure their institutions, but this is all too clear. In each of his statements over the last three years, the Director-General of Security, the boss of ASIO, has spoken about the present threat from far-right extremist violent groups that pose a threat to faith based places. So, sadly, this program continues to be needed. In relation to the member for Hasluck's questions regarding the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was, of course, a key election commitment of the Albanese government, and we have delivered on that commitment. I'm very proud to say that the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be up and running in just over two weeks, opening its doors on 1 July. There has been extensive consultation with Commonwealth departments and agencies ahead of the start day. We have an excellent commissioner in former justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Paul Brereton. We have deputy commissioners appointed, an inspector appointed and a CEO appointed, and the staff of the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, in whole, are going to transfer as the inaugural staff of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We are going to return standards of transparency, accountability and integrity to government. In response to the member for Fisher, the ignorance that his questions displayed about longstanding, consistent dealing with settlements and litigation by our government is extraordinary. In particular, Ms Higgins' claim was managed consistently with the Commonwealth's obligations under the legal services direction 2017, which are publicly available. I would suggest to the member for Fisher that he goes away and studies the legal service directions issued by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act 1903. They set out binding rules for Commonwealth legal work. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds' legal representation was managed by the Commonwealth consistent with the parliamentary business resources regulations. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds sought and were granted assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of the claims that had been made against them. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds were under no obligation to seek assistance from the Commonwealth but they did so, and that means that they will then be subject to the management of the whole claim by the Attorney-General, in accordance with the legal services directions. It's very disappointing that the opposition are seeking to proceed down this path. At the request of Ms Higgins, with that settlement, the parties agreed that the terms of the settlement are, and we will keep them, confidential. It is entirely consistent with everything that has been said, in particular by the Respect@Work report about the need in some cases for confidentiality. I would say in respect, finally, of the member for Bradfield's statements or questions— (Time expired) Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of bill, taken as a whole and agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 110

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Second Reading 110 ADJOURNMENT 111 ADJOURNMENT Tibet 111 13:04 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar The electorate of Mackellar is very proud to be home to the largest Tibetan community in the country, and we really cherish our Tibetan Australian friends and what they bring of their very caring and kind culture to our community. As such, I was honoured and delighted to take part in a cross-party parliamentary delegation with the Friends of Tibet at the invitation of the official agent of His Holiness the Dalai Lama here in Australia, Mr Karma Singey, from the Tibet Information Office. In April this year, our cross-party delegation travelled to Dharamshala in northern India to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile. The aim of the trip was to create a better understanding of the situation in Tibet and the plight of the Tibetan people. Our delegation consisted of the Deputy Speaker of the House, Sharon Claydon; Susan Templeman, MP and co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet; and Greens Senator Janet Rice; along with Zoe Bedford, Executive Officer of the Australia Tibet Council; and Mr Karma Singey of the Tibet Information Office. Sadly, the Liberal Party representative was unable to travel with us. Tibet was invaded in 1959, and many monks and nuns were able to escape from Tibet at that time with their lives under threat, but that escape through the Himalayas was an incredibly dangerous one not only because of the physical conditions with frostbite but also because they were faced with the loss of life from being shot. Currently there are about six to seven million Tibetans living in Tibet, and there are only 130,000 Tibetans living outside of Tibet. The growing challenge for these Tibetan people of the diaspora is that that diaspora is becoming increasingly dispersed around the world, so continuing to preserve and protect their culture is becoming more and more difficult. We had an incredibly jam-packed week with many meetings. We met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was very generous with his time and spoke about the oneness of humanity. He also spoke about his concerns for the Tibetan people into the future. We also met with the Sikyong, the Prime Minister of Tibet-in-Exile, and the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile. We met with spiritual leaders. We visited the school of orphans and the old people's home. We went and visited the traditional medicine and healing institute. We went to a nunnery and arts and crafts preservation precincts. We saw performances of traditional song and dance. We saw how the documents on the history of Tibet in exile were being preserved by archivists, and we met with researchers and intelligence officers. There were many issues that were brought up during our trip. One was the ongoing occupation of Tibet. One of the biggest issues was the mass surveillance and mass collection of DNA from within Tibet and how this was being used to control and basically keep tabs on the Tibetan community. Also raised time and again was a recent UN report which showed that there were around a million Tibetan children who had been separated from their families and mandatorily sent to boarding schools inside Tibet and, in this way, had lost touch. They were separated from their families, their culture, their language, their religion and their traditions, and this was a way of being assimilated into new culture and losing touch with their Tibetan heritage. This is of great concern to the people outside Tibet and to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. One of the other concerning issues was that we were told repeatedly about the incredible environmental degradation that is going on inside Tibet at the moment. Tibet and the Himalayas can be regarded as the third pole with the ice caps there, and there are so many river systems that actually are founded and formed in those mountains. There's a population of around two billion people that are supplied by river systems that actually flow out of the Himalayas, so reports that these river systems were being dammed with multiple megadams is an issue for water security into the future. Another issue that was raised a number of times was the succession of the Dalai Lama and how that should be left to the monks and the religious people and should not be controlled by the Chinese parliament. The other thing I would like to say is about the immense gratitude that people wanted to portray to Australia for allowing political prisoners to come and stay in Australia. (Time expired) Health Care 111 13:09 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Apologies for my voice—I probably need to see a GP. That is the topic of my adjournment speech this afternoon. It's no secret to any of us, particularly those in regional electorates, that it's hard to see a GP. The gap fee is deterring many from being able to see a GP. It is fair to say that right now we are going through a primary healthcare crisis. This isn't a crisis that just started in May last year when the election happened—it has been slowly building over the past decade. Locals medical practitioners who have worked as GPs in our community for decades have been saying to me that this is the worst they've seen it. And the statistics don't lie. Last December, I reported to the House that our largest primary healthcare clinic with our largest patient list—with over 1,700 patients from Bendigo—would be introducing the private fee model. GPs had to choice to bulk-bill, and it was a GP decision in discussion with their patient. What that meant was that many in that clinic moved to the private billing model. Quickly, there was a collapse in people going to see their doctor, with many ending up around the corner at the Bendigo Emergency Department. What I can say is that a lot of the GPs there did continue to bulk-bill, patient by patient. They reported to me just last week that about 40 per cent of the consults they had are still bulk-billed. What we see happening in Bendigo and in regional GP services around Australia, because the Medicare bulk-billing incentive is currently so low, is that GPs are subsidising our primary care service. Right now, what a GP in Bendigo receives if they bulk-bill a patient is just under $50—$39.75 is the Medicare rebate, and just over $10 is the bulk-billing incentive. That is why what was announced by the government in the May budget is so fundamental. The average out-of-pocket expense someone in my electorate pays to see a GP is $36.79. This is the critical figure that is deterring many from seeing a GP—otherwise, they are choosing to see a GP, pay the out-of-pocket expense, and not pay for other things they may need. Bendigo is a growing city and our GP clinics are struggling to keep up, to manage patient loads, to manage the desperation for patients begging to be bulk-billed, and to balance the viability of their own services. The emergency department at Bendigo Health has report a 13 per cent increase in the number of people presenting. Patients are waiting up to 12 hours to be treated. The Bendigo Emergency Department also reported the highest percentage of category 4 and 5 presentations in Victoria. Something has to change. That is why the announcements that were made in the budget are so critical and will make such a difference. It is the biggest investment in Medicare in 40 years. The tripling the bulk-billing incentive will knock out the gap fee for so many patients. From 1 November, when these changes take place, if somebody sees a GP who agrees to bulk-bill them—concession card holders or children—the new Medicare rebate will be $41.40 and the new bulk-billing incentive will be $31.40, meaning that, in total, the GP will receive $72.80. That's a 46 per cent increase on GPs are currently receiving to bulk-bill that same patient. From 1 November this change will restore bulk-billing in my electorate. It improves as you get further out of town, into Castlemaine, Kyneton, Heathcote and Maldon. Because they are smaller regional towns, they will receive more of an incentive. I really welcome these changes and I say to the people of Bendigo and to the GPs: I really hope that this is the worst that it gets. This one measure in our budget will help restore bulk-billing to so many in our community, but the work can't stop there. We don't have access to an emergency care clinic in Bendigo. It is something that I'm writing to and asking the Minister for Health about—another measure that will help reduce pressure on the Bendigo Health Emergency Department. Riverina Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 112 13:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to congratulate those selfless individuals from the Riverina and Central West, past and present, who have been recognised for their outstanding community service in this year's King's Birthday honours list. It seems strange to say 'King's Birthday'—and, of course you have to be a lot older than 72, probably, to have actually talked about the King's Birthday—but we all enjoyed the long weekend, and whilst it's always been, in all of our lifetimes, called the Queen's Birthday, this year it was the King's Birthday. And long may he sit on the throne. I thank those selfless individuals who enrich not just my wonderful region but each and every one of our electorates. They do so much and expect so little—in fact, nothing—in return. They don't do it for recognition. They don't do it for acknowledgment. They do it because they love community. They do it because they want their areas, cities and towns to be their best. Locally, the King's Birthday honours included Wagga Wagga resident Catherine Malone OAM, for service to the Catholic Church and the community. She was at the front desk at Henschke Primary School for more years than she'd probably care to remember, the wife of Barry and a wonderful, wonderful human being. Aunty Cheryl Penrith OAM was recognised for services to the Indigenous community, and I thank Aunty Cheryl for what she's doing for our local Aboriginal Wiradjuri community. Ray Willett OAM was recognised for service to the Wagga Wagga community through emergency service organisations, and Dr Saba Nabi OAM was rewarded for her service to community health, education and multicultural affairs. Wing Commander Darren Dolan, of Junee, was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia, AM, in the military division, for exceptional service in combat support, organisational development and training delivery for the Australian Defence Force. Kim Hill, also from Junee, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, OAM, for her service to emergency response organisations. The late Kenneth Karsten OAM was acknowledged for his service to Weethalle, not a large community but a vibrant one indeed. Robert Millner of Woodstock was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia, AO, for his distinguished service to business, to rugby union as an administrator, and to the community through philanthropic contributions. From Parkes we had Dr Stephen Morris, who was awarded an OAM for his service to medicine. Olya Willis, from Forbes, earned an OAM for her community history efforts, and I thank her for preserving and protecting all that is great about Forbes' past. Clifford Sheridan OAM, from Young, was recognised for service to his community—of course, it's known as the cherry-picking capital of Australia, as it should be. Clifford has done so much for that south-west slopes community. The Reverend Barry James Dwyer, from Parkes—again—received an OAM for his service to the Catholic Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes, a massive diocese. He's done so much to help the people—not just Catholics but all people—within that region. Former Yass Mayor Rowena Abbey is not from the Riverina. The member for Eden-Monaro would know the value that Rowena has brought to that community, and she's a great person. The Mayor of Murrumbidgee Council—again, it's not in my electorate, but in the electorate of Farrer—Councillor Ruth McRae OAM from Jerilderie was recognised. What a wonderful person. She's been a deputy mayor, she's been a mayor and she does so much that's not seen. And, of course, I know the value of somebody, and the integrity of somebody, is not about when they're being seen to be doing something, but it is about what they're doing when they're not being seen, when they're behind the scenes, helping in, pitching in and contributing. Another such person is Griffith City Council General Manager Brett Stonestreet, who was awarded the Public Service Medal. Again, he's not from my electorate, but I know him well. I used to serve the city of Griffith—a wonderful city of 27,500, or even more. Much of Griffith's progress in recent years has been because of his delivery. I commend all of those people—in local government, health, philanthropic services, history, the military and other areas—for what they've done for our community, which is second to none. I know each and every one of us would share those sentiments for the selfless individuals within our communities, who do so much to make our communities the vibrant places they are in which to live, work, play, and raise a family. Newcastle Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 113 13:19 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I want to congratulate the nine exceptional Novacastrians who were recognised in the recent King's Birthday Honours List for outstanding leadership in their respective fields. Two Novacastrians were awarded Member of the Order of Australia, AM. I'd like firstly to congratulate the Hon. Graham Mullane AM, for his significant contributions to the judiciary, law and our community. Mr Mullane holds the distinction of being the first judge appointed from the Hunter region, in 1986. For over two decades, he dedicated his judicial service to family law at the Newcastle Registry of the Family Court of Australia. His commendable community leadership includes involvement with Scouts Australia and advocacy for the most vulnerable. The chairing of esteemed organisations like the Royal Newcastle Hospital board, the Hunter Institute of Mental Health's advisory board and the Hunter Aged Care Foundation further exemplifies his commitment to serving others. Newcastle says thank you to Graham Mullane for your lifetime of service. Heartfelt congratulations to Mr Sean Gordon AM for his remarkable dedication to First Nations people and communities, as well as his tireless advocacy for equity. Mr Gordon has devoted his professional life to fostering reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, with a focus on education and representation. His involvement in the First Nations Constitutional Convention, which produced the Uluru Statement from the Heart, is testament to his instrumental role in advancing Indigenous rights. This historic statement has paved the way for the upcoming referendum to enshrine a First Nations Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. We honour Sean Gordon's courage and leadership with this well-deserved award. I also want to acknowledge the following seven recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia. Ms Vivienne Allanson OAM, CEO of Maroba Caring Communities since 1994, has dedicated herself to the aged-care sector. Her extensive experience as a registered nurse, along with her role as a conjoint fellow at the University of Newcastle's School of Nursing and Midwifery, has earned her high regard. Her unwavering advocacy for older persons and commitment to positive change in the sector make her a fearless champion for older Australians. Mr Ross Bingham OAM, the CEO of Ronald McDonald House in Northern New South Wales since 1996, was recognised for providing crucial support to hospitalised children and their families. Through various programs, his organisation ensures families can stay together and be close to the care that they need. Dr Jennifer Buckingham OAM has been recognised for exceptional contributions to educational research and literacy. She collaborates with systems, schools and teachers to enhance literacy instruction and assessment. As the founder of the Five from Five project, she has empowered countless children with the essential tools for reading in every classroom, every day. Dr Ian Cameron OAM was recognised for his service to medical administration and to rural and Indigenous health. Dr Cameron was born in Bourke, in the New South Wales outback, and worked there as a GP for a decade before moving to Newcastle in 1996. In Newcastle he took on the role of chief executive for the New South Wales Rural Doctors Network, a position he held for 20 years until his retirement. Dr Cameron has never forgotten his roots and remains a strong advocate for health care in the bush. He was also a conjoint lecturer at the College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing at the University of Newcastle. Thank you, Dr Cameron, for your passion and commitment to quality primary health care regardless of people's postcode or circumstances. Mr John Conaghan OAM was recognised for service to people with Huntington's disease. As a senior social worker at the John Hunter Hospital, he has been instrumental, since 1985, in supporting individuals and families affected by Huntington's disease. His compassionate approach and unwavering support have made a significant difference in challenging circumstances. Ms Elizabeth Grist OAM was recognised for service to community health and to nursing and midwifery. As the Hunter New England Health functional area commander, Ms Grist helped usher the Hunter through the COVID-19 pandemic. She was instrumental in developing the major COVID-19 vaccination clinic for our community, keeping Novocastrians protected and safe. Finally, I want to acknowledge Mrs Patricia McMahon OAM for her service to the community through a range of organisations, including the RSL Women's Auxiliary, the Lioness Club, Probus, the bowling club, Meals on Wheels and the chamber of commerce. Her tireless efforts and longstanding commitment exemplify her remarkable service to the community. Her recent appointment as patron of the—(Time expired) Health Care 114 13:25 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Today I rise with a concern that I have about the government's rushed decision-making when it comes to health and a lack of consultation. It is unfortunate that there are still ongoing issues with the lifesaving fast-acting insulin Fiasp being removed from the PBS, with an extension of six months, but come October, 15,000 Australians who use Fiasp won't be able to access this lifesaving insulin. In addition to this, I want to outline another issue with tendering within the National Diabetes Services Scheme. I spoke to Dexcom, which manufactures constant glucose monitoring technology. They advised that the government had made a hasty decision to rapidly proceed with a tendering process for the next generation of CGMs via the National Diabetes Services Scheme. I understand that the diabetes community became aware of this new tendering process via the AusTender website, not via consultation, late last year, saying that the tender process will end in March this year. That is not much time for manufacturers and the diabetes community to get things together. This is, of course, an issue, given that the Australian National Diabetes Strategy notes that the government will 'support consumer involvement in the assessment and evaluation of diabetes medicines and devices', and ensure that patients are 'involved in the codesign of any new initiatives'. But there has not been any of that consultation at all. I am told that on 19 May AusTender's website had been updated to delay the tender to April to June next year, 2024. That has been welcomed. However, it was uncovered at the Senate estimates hearing on 2 June that the department noted that they intend to proceed with the tender, with it closing in early July this year, not next year. So, once again, the diabetes community has not been consulted. They do not have any time. This government is making hasty decisions. It's quite extraordinary that the government would want to make a decision about technology impacting people with diabetes when we're actually going through a major inquiry with the parliamentary health committee on diabetes in Australia, so having not only no consultation but also a tender process close before we have gone through the inquiry process is quite extraordinary. But that isn't the only part of the government's poor decision-making that impacts people with diabetes. I mentioned Fiasp. There's very limited time to get that negotiation happening. People will not have access to that very important medication. I've now spoken about a tender process that opened and shut really quickly and the lack of consultation. There's also been very, very poor communication with the community when it comes to psychology sessions. That was another rushed decision by this Albanese Labor government, where at the end of the year they made the decision to cut those psychology sessions from 20 to 10. For some reason, they won't reverse that decision. Now, we also have a 60-day dispensing rule, which was a big surprise to our local pharmacists, where they'll be over $150,000 worse off. The decisions that are being made by the Albanese Labor government in the health space are quite extraordinary,. I'm particularly concerned about this latest one of a really short tendering time. Of course, we should have a tender process to get the best products and services available to our Australian community when taxpayers' dollars are involved. But with no consultation with the diabetes community and with such little time to have those tenders come through, it really seems to be against the National Diabetes Strategy. The decisions are against the mental health community in this country. I really wish this government would start putting a priority on the health of Australians because Australians deserve to have a government that wants the best for patient outcomes, and to ensure that healthcare providers can assist them as best they can. We have a minister who is not consulting with the patients, not consulting with the industry, and this will lead to worse outcomes for the health and wellbeing of Australians. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events 115 13:30 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I'm very proud to have the opportunity to rise and talk about an important community led initiative in Eden-Monaro. The Curalo Medical Clinic in Eden on the far south coast of New South Wales was founded in 1989. Since that time the clinic has grown and moved locations. It now employs a team of GPs, registered nurses and support staff dispensing quality health care and family-friendly access to the people of Eden. About a year ago I met with the principal GP of Curalo clinic, Dr Michael Pentin, and other GPs, who sounded an alarm over the future of our GP clinics as they neared retirement. Dr Pentin highlighted the difficulties of a rural GP practice, including attracting new GPs, and the cost and complexity of running a business. As so often happens in our regions, the solution came from the community. April Merrick, Belinda Morris and Damien Hickman were inspired to create Creators of Community Ownership, where the community owns and operates a social enterprise supporting vital local services. Creators of Community Ownership, or CoCO, has been through an intense development phase. The model was built and tested with the support of Bendigo bank and won Best Social Enterprise in the Bega Valley Circular Challenge last year. CoCO then participated in the iAccelerate program, a unique business accelerator and incubator program run by the University of Wollongong, to further progress the concept and get it up and running. On 1 October this year, CoCO will take over Curalo Medical Clinic. The not-for-profit will own the practice and doctors and staff will continue their roles without worrying about operating costs, leaving doctors to focus on providing quality patient care. Operating as a not-for-profit takes the financial pressure of running a business out of the equation. As a social enterprise it will be able to access funding, donations and tax concessions, while any profits will go back into the clinic itself. Happily, Dr Pentin will continue as a supervising doctor for the time being, though he is now confident in planning his retirement while being confident about the future of the clinic in Eden. This is another example of regional communities creating their own solutions. Watch this space for how other communities might benefit from this model. I am absolutely delighted to be opening a new home for FLING Physical Theatre in Bega tomorrow night. FLING is a remarkable youth dance organisation based in the Bega Valley. It has recently celebrated its 21st birthday, and I'd like to share some amazing statistics compiled by its co-directors. Over its 21 years of operation, FLING has presented 250 performances; delivered 11,328 sessions to 16,000 participants; presented work to over 36,000 audience members locally and on tour in Singapore and Australia, including in Sydney, Melbourne, Wollongong, Dubbo, Yass, Bathurst, Cooma, Jindabyne, Eden, Merimbula and Bermagui; employed 350 professional artists; and seen 31 young people go onto professional careers in the arts, joining tertiary institutions such as the Victorian College of the Arts, National Institute of Circus Arts, New Zealand School of Dance, Sydney Dance Company's Pre-Professional Year, and Deakin and Wollongong universities. Thanks to funding from Create NSW and the Foundation For Rural & Regional Renewal, FLING now has a permanent home. I am confident that it will go from strength to strength. I'd like to highlight another amazing Eden-Monaro hero: Victor the Viking. Last week we celebrated 40 years since Queanbeyan resident Tony Wood first took the field as Canberra Raiders mascot Victor the Viking. Victor has attended every Raiders home game except on rare occasions where he was unwell and says he's attended more than 500 games over the decades. In 2021 Tony received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his enormous contribution to the rugby league community. Tony has always taken the view that it's a fun thing to do, not for himself but for the community. He's a true community advocate in our region and not just for rugby league. Forty years on, Tony continues to put smiles on the faces of people both on and off the field. Thank you, Tony, for your enormous contribution to our region. Enjoy the rest of the Raiders season. I'm sure we're headed to the grand final! This past June long weekend was the opening of the ski season in Eden-Monaro. It brings a host of benefits for communities across our region as tourists flock to experience the wonders of the Snowy Mountains. One of the highlights is the reopening of the Selwyn ski resort's new state-of-the-art visitor centre. After suffering significant damage in the Black Summer bushfires, the resort has been busy with its rebuilding efforts and guests are now welcome back to the new, improved Mount Selwyn. It has been a tough season so far, but we know that the winter weather is coming and that the ski season will well and truly get underway. Get around our small communities and spend your dollars there when you are on the mountains skiing. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:35