﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-06-21</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 21 June 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Woods, Constable Anthony</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to the death of Constable Anthony Woods be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>2</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 14 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 31 July 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 20 June 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 20 June 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 31 July 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 20 (2020-2021)</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Intelligence Agencies</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Khalil</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>10<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (</inline><inline font-style="italic">Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 28 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 28 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may </inline> <inline font-style="italic">speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must </inline> <inline font-style="italic">be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR KATTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House calls on the Government to prescribe that Australian superannuation monies be invested in Australian industries and projects by ensuring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) superannuation funds holding the money of Australian citizens be encouraged to investigate mechanisms that will enable them to invest that money in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) entities that have majority Australian ownership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) projects or industries that are based, or predominately operate, in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the Government partner with such superannuation funds, under public-private partnerships (PPPs), to invest in Australian industries for money-making projects;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) that such PPPs are listed as critical economic generators and have streamlined assessment and approval processes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) that the Government consider all other necessary measures to maximise the income stream from such investments and offer maximum returns for Australian citizens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Katter</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that since the last sitting of the House, the following have come into effect:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) cheaper child care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) strengthened paid parental leave;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) reform to the Safeguard Mechanism;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) registered nurses in aged care, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the National Anti-Corruption Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a pay rise for aged care workers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the Small Business Energy Incentive;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) additional support for more social and affordable rental housing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) the net zero economy agency;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a pathway to citizenship for New Zealand citizens; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that the Government has delivered on these commitments in the face of relentless negativity and opposition from the Liberal-National Coalition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that while the Government hasn't wasted a day since coming to Government by laying strong foundations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice giv</inline> <inline font-style="italic">en 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a </inline> <inline font-style="italic">future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under the current Government labour productivity growth has slumped to a historic low of -4.6 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the collapse in labour productivity represents a loss of almost half of the growth achieved during the Coalition's time in office;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the Government's:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) excuses and blame shifting on productivity are no substitute for a lack of a growth plan for the economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) indifference to the productivity challenge should alarm all Australians because it shows indifference to the challenges Australians are facing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to take real action to address cost of living pressures and labour productivity growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of </inline> <inline font-style="italic">this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR SUKKAR: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the importance of income management in keeping vulnerable communities safe, particularly women and children, and in protecting the integrity of our social security system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Coalition's plan to reinstate the successful cashless debit card;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that since the abolition of the cashless debit card, there have been reports of widespread abuse of alcohol, drugs and other anti-social behaviour; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Government's decision to spend over $217 million in taxpayers money to launch the so-called SmartCard; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to join with the Coalition in committing to re-establish the cashless debit card.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 23 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Sukkar</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR ANANDA-RAJAH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's announcement of a new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social rental homes across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to an ambitious housing agenda which will boost the supply of all housing, with more social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent and more homes to buy, and includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establishing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee three months early, helping regional Australians purchase a home with as little as a 5 per cent deposit and avoiding paying Lenders' Mortgage Insurance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million available to invest immediately in social and affordable rental homes, with projects already under construction as a result of this funding;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) working with the states and territories through the National Housing Accord and National Cabinet to support planning and zoning reforms to contribute to the aspiration of building one million new homes over 5 years from 2024, as well as investing $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024 as part of the accord—matched by the states and territories;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) further establishing the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide expert advice to Government on housing supply and affordability;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) delivering the largest increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance in more than 30 years, with a 15 per cent increase in the maximum rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) increasing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's liability cap by $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) providing tax incentives to encourage more build-to-rent developments to boost new supply in the private rental market;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) further providing an additional $67.5 million of funding to the states and territories to help tackle homelessness challenges as part of a one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement which provides $1.7 billion a year to the states and territories for housing and homelessness services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme, which helps people purchase a home sooner by reducing the deposit they need to save; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Opposition and the Australian Greens for blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund, and notes that every day of delay is $1.3 million not being spent on social and affordable housing for Australians who need it today.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Ananda-Rajah</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this m</inline> <inline font-style="italic">atter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MRS ANDREWS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the insidious nature of foreign interference and the threat it poses to our democracy, businesses and to individuals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) ongoing reports of attempts by Cambodia's Hun Sen regime to infiltrate and monitor activity within the Australian community, particularly in the diaspora communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reports of potential money laundering in Australia by key figures of the regime; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) expresses concern about these activities and calls on the Government to ensure that appropriate and thorough investigations occur into these concerning reports.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 23 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Andrews</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS CLAYDON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released in June 2023 show that since, May 2022:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) women's total employment is up by 249,000;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 233,500 more women have joined the labour force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) women's part-time work has increased by 20,500</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) women's full-time jobs have boomed, increasing by 228,600; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) women have accounted for 59.3 per cent of the growth in full-time jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that this comes off the back of recent Treasury analysis showing that the first 12 months of the Government have had the strongest jobs growth of any new Australian government in history; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the Government is laying strong foundations for a better future for women in the workforce by delivering on its key election commitments of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) cheaper child care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expanding paid parental leave;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) action to boost wages of the low paid through submissions to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review and aged care work value case;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) delivering the recommendations of the Respect@Work report; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) delivering our Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has opened up bargaining to workers in low-paid industries which are most likely to be female dominated through the supported bargaining stream;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) made gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) set up new expert panels in the Fair Work Commission focused on pay equity and the care and community sector, and introduced a statutory equal remuneration principle to address low wages and gender-based undervaluation of work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) made the right to request flexible working arrangements an enforceable right; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) prohibited pay secrecy clauses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — contin ued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR L O'BRIEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has scrapped the monitoring of domestic airlines by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at a time when Australian consumers are paying more for airfares but are subject to increased flight cancellations and delays;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) domestic airfares were 32 per cent higher in May 2023 than they were prepandemic in May 2019; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 1,700 flights were cancelled, and 12,000 flights arrived more than 15 minutes late in April 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Spee</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ch time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr L O'Brien</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS MILLER-FROST: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's commitment to Medicare through the largest increase to Medicare rebates in thirty years and a tripling of the bulk billing incentive;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to making it easier to see a doctor and making medicines cheaper and strengthening Medicare after nine years of cuts, neglect and rorts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Opposition to support the Government's policy to halve the cost of medicine for over six million Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Miller-Frost</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR WILKIE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety provided a clear blueprint on how to fundamentally change and improve our aged care services, but the majority of the 148 recommendations have still not been implemented; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is the point of contact for concerns and complaints about aged service provider responsibilities but it appears to be understaffed, have limited powers of investigation and be restricted in the way sanctions can be imposed on providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establish an independent body to oversee the implementation of the essential aged care service reforms in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expand the powers and resourcing of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enable it to effectively manage complaints and impose meaningful sanctions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">15 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Wilkie</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MS FERNANDO: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) up to one in six recent migrants to Australia is paid less than the minimum wage;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) exploitation does not just affect individual workers but effectively drives down wages and worsens conditions for all Australian workers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) about 20 per cent of anonymous reports and disputes resolved by the Fair Work Ombudsman, and up to 80 per cent of litigations initiated by the Ombudsman in recent years involved migrants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government is delivering on its commitment to improving employer compliance in the workplace by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) introducing new criminal offences, additional enforcement tools, increased pecuniary penalties and a prohibition measure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) enhancing safeguards and protections for workers through co-designing a range of initiatives; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for introducing stronger protections for temporary migrant workers to ensure a better future for all workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minut</inline> <inline font-style="italic">es.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Fernando</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MR MCCORMACK: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, which was established by the Coalition, has been embraced by industry and Pacific Island communities alike as a program that has efficiently reduced labour shortages, increased financial opportunities for workers and strengthened ties between Pacific countries and Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government's union-backed reforms to the PALM scheme are a huge threat to farmers, consumers, Pacific workers and our foreign relations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) farmers are now threatening to boycott the program which will force those from nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to be paid a minimum of 30 hours a week, every week under Labor's plans; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the changes to the scheme were made without adequate consultation with stakeholders and the adverse reaction shows the Government needs to go back to the drawing board; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that Labor's changes are being rammed through without warranted consideration and attention and have the potential to cause major disruptions to the scheme which would see an increase of labour shortages, a breakdown in Pacific relations and increased costs being passed onto the consumer at the grocery store.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time al</inline> <inline font-style="italic">lotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr McCormack</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this </inline> <inline font-style="italic">matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 June 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7051" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Australia's biosecurity system is put to the test every single day through the arrival of travellers and aircraft into Australia, the arrival of cargo and vessels, international mail and parcels, and the unregulated movement of wild animals, the wind and the waves.</para>
<para>Strong biosecurity is essential to protecting over $90 billion worth of agricultural production and more than $5.7 trillion worth of unique environmental assets.</para>
<para>Strong biosecurity protects our people, our environment, our economy and our lifestyle from the biosecurity threats of today and tomorrow.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, there are still those whose actions put all of this at risk, either accidentally or, even worse, deliberately.</para>
<para>Earlier this year Operation Avoca identified one of Australia's largest single detections of biosecurity risk material.</para>
<para>Thirty-eight tonnes of risk material was detected by our dedicated biosecurity officers. That's seven shipping containers worth of unauthorised meat products, turtles, pigs' heads and smallgoods trying to enter this country, material that would have been harbouring foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever, white spot syndrome virus or xylella—any of which could devastate our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries.</para>
<para>As the number of international travellers and the amount of cargo continue to increase, so do the regional and global threats, including foot-and-mouth disease and hitchhiker pests like khapra beetle.</para>
<para>During the COVID-19 pandemic, noncompliance with Australia's biosecurity laws could have risked the introduction of new COVID-19 variants into our country.</para>
<para>This could have had devastating impacts or our public health and our vulnerable population.</para>
<para>It is high time to re-evaluate the current penalty regime in the Biosecurity Act in the face of such threats and consequences.</para>
<para>Our biosecurity system is strong, but to keep Australia safe, the laws that underpin the system need to remain fit for purpose.</para>
<para>This bill strengthens the Biosecurity Act to enable targeted intervention, better risk management and more proportionate responses.</para>
<para>This bill enables a more intelligent and evidence-based approach to biosecurity risks involving international travellers at our border.</para>
<para>In order to properly respond to risks, people must be open and truthful. We must make sure that penalties available under the Biosecurity Act are an effective deterrent to those who would knowingly provide false or misleading information.</para>
<para>With stronger penalties, in some cases up to $275,000, we better reflect the seriousness of breaches of the act and provide a more effective deterrent to noncompliance with biosecurity laws.</para>
<para>For lower-level contraventions of the act, the infringement notice scheme provides an effective method for managing noncompliance.</para>
<para>Last December, we passed legislation to create a new class of infringement for deliberate concealment of non-declared goods.</para>
<para>This infringement of 20 penalty units, or $5,500, is the highest ever and I congratulate biosecurity officers who have already started exercising it.</para>
<para>Whilst this was a big step, the current infringement notice scheme does not cover some provisions that are critical for the management of biosecurity risk.</para>
<para>These new infringement notice provisions in the bill address the current gap in the ability of biosecurity officers to penalise individuals and businesses whose behaviour is less serious but may still have significant consequences for our biosecurity.</para>
<para>Big or small, all threats can expose Australia to a significant biosecurity risk.</para>
<para>These changes in the bill complement measures in the Albanese government's 2023-24 budget to sustainably fund our biosecurity system for the first time.</para>
<para>For years we have seen independent reviews and industry groups call for permanent, dedicated biosecurity funding and greater accountability for how that funding is spent.</para>
<para>Biosecurity is a shared responsibility and so is paying for it.</para>
<para>The sustainable funding model recovers more than ever before from biosecurity risk creators, whether that be importers, international parcels and mail or travellers.</para>
<para>The model rebuilds cost recovery to protect taxpayers, increase the contribution from importers and ensure that biosecurity services to industry are efficient and effective.</para>
<para>Our sustainable funding model locks in higher and permanent biosecurity funding, along with a fair system to pay for it.</para>
<para>Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world.</para>
<para>This bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce, while protecting our farmers, our economy and our environment from biosecurity risks into the future.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7053" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am very pleased to introduce the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill delivers on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, in response to the increase in silicosis among Australian workers.</para>
<para>Silicosis is an irreversible lung disease. It is caused by workers' exposure to silica dust. Health screening conducted by some jurisdictions in recent years indicates that nearly one in four engineered stone workers who have been in the industry since before 2018 are suffering from silicosis or other silica dust related diseases. These are entirely preventable conditions, and, all too often, entirely preventable deaths.</para>
<para>Prior to entering parliament I served as president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a position I was very proud to hold. Over my term I met countless workers living with occupational respiratory diseases—workers who through no fault of their own had been exposed to unacceptable risks in workplaces, workers who all too often died because their employers had failed to protect them.</para>
<para>The protection of workers is core Labor business. Our Labor government is wasting no time in acting on the devastating statistics we're seeing in relation to occupational respiratory diseases. We've seen the release this morning of further statistics related to silicosis. This devastating disease is only becoming more and more common. Every case of silicosis is unacceptable. Every death is devastatingly preventable.</para>
<para>In introducing this bill to the House, I'd like to tell the story of a woman named Joanna. Joanna is 34. She is the mother of two young girls. She came to this House a few weeks ago to tell several of my colleagues, ministers and members of parliament her story.</para>
<para>She worked at a quarry run by a large multinational company. After she returned from maternity leave, Joanna was asked to undergo a fit-for-work test. It was through this testing that Joanna was diagnosed with silicosis. She's not who many people would first picture when they think of a worker diagnosed with silicosis. She is a young woman and she largely worked in a reception role at the front office of the quarry. Yet through her work, Joanna was exposed to dangerous silica dust. She explains that no matter where you were in the plant, you would be exposed to dust. It would be 'all over your clothes, all over your skin'.</para>
<para>Joanna says it's the unknown that is so terrifying. 'What I've since learned about silicosis is that there is no cure, and you just don't know how it will progress.' She says: 'At the moment I'm feeling healthy, but I don't know if that will be the case in one year, let alone five or 10 years. As a mum of two young daughters, that terrifies me. I fear this will affect my life and my family's life, and I am angry. I should never have been exposed to this disease.' Joanna is absolutely right. She should never have been exposed to this disease. And it's with workers like Joanna in mind that I present this bill to the House today.</para>
<para>The bill establishes the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry to capture information on respiratory diseases believed to have been occupationally caused or exacerbated. The national registry will also capture associated respiratory disease-causing agents that led to the disease.</para>
<para>The national registry will capture and share data, where appropriate, on a number of things:</para>
<list>the incidence of occupational respiratory diseases and their respiratory disease-causing agents;</list>
<list>the last and main exposures including the place of business, industry, occupation and job task; and</list>
<list>respiratory health data.</list>
<para>This is vital information that will aid in detecting new and emerging threats to workers' respiratory health, and it will inform incidence trends, help inform actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure, support research into occupational respiratory diseases, and assist in targeting and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and prevention strategies.</para>
<para>The bill will require medical specialists in the fields of respiratory and sleep medicine and occupational and environmental medicine who diagnose certain occupational respiratory diseases to notify the diagnosis, the patient and the exposure details to the national registry via an online portal.</para>
<para>The bill provides the minister for health with the power to make rules prescribing which occupational respiratory diseases require notification. Consistent with the recommendations of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, initially only silicosis will be prescribed as mandatory. However, this power—which would require further consultation before it can be exercised—will ensure the national registry can respond to other threats to workers' respiratory health in the future.</para>
<para>The bill will also allow respiratory and occupational physicians to notify the national registry of information about an individual who has been diagnosed with a non-prescribed occupational respiratory disease, where that individual provides consent.</para>
<para>The bill provides for two categories of information to be notified to the national registry: the minimum notification information and additional notification information. The minimum notification information is that which needs to be supplied to notify an occupational respiratory disease to the national registry. This includes information identifying the individual with a diagnosed occupational respiratory disease. It requires notification of the respiratory disease itself, and details on the exposure including the last and main exposures.</para>
<para>These are all vitally important pieces of information.</para>
<para>The additional notification information is information that can be supplied where the individual has provided consent. This may include relevant medical test results. It might include demographic and lifestyle information such as things like their smoking history or their employment status, and details of each job where the individual believes that they had an exposure to a respiratory disease-causing agent.</para>
<para>The bill will enable the disclosure of notifications about an individual made to the national registry, including to:</para>
<list>respiratory and occupational physicians treating the individual;</list>
<list>information that is prescribed to the Commonwealth, state or territory authorities; and</list>
<list>state and territory health agencies and work health and safety agencies.</list>
<para>The disclosure to state and territory health agencies and work health and safety agencies will, of course, increase awareness of the prevalence of occupational respiratory diseases in that state or territory and will enable actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure to these diseases. This is vitally important work.</para>
<para>The bill does not exclude or limit the operation of any state or territory laws requiring the reporting or disclosure of information concerning occupational respiratory diseases.</para>
<para>As Queensland and New South Wales have existing registers that require the mandatory reporting of some occupational respiratory diseases by physicians, the bill allows for states with such registers to provide in their state legislation that the notification of these diseases will occur through the National Registry so that there is no need for a physician in those states and territories to notify twice: once nationally, and once again to a state register. They will only need to report to the national register.</para>
<para>The bill complements other work underway by the government to address silicosis, including:</para>
<list>developing a National Silicosis Prevention Strategy and action plan to establish a coordinated, national, whole-of-government focus to prevent silicosis;</list>
<list>funding of grant activities that include developing training materials to support the diagnosis and classification of silicosis for radiologists.</list>
<para>It will include targeted education and training for physicians and other healthcare professionals on the diagnosis and management of workers affected by silicosis and occupational respiratory diseases.</para>
<para>Work is underway:</para>
<list>improving awareness of the risks of silicosis; providing better coordinated support to people with silicosis and, of course, their families, who can't be forgotten;</list>
<list>developing a research forum to strengthen the dust diseases evidence base; and</list>
<list>establishing a national rapid response protocol.</list>
<para>As announced by my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, all jurisdictions have agreed to further reforms of Australia's model work health and safety laws to ensure they protect Australian workers. This will include stronger regulation of high-risk crystalline silica processes as well as other changes to further educate and protect workers in workplaces where exposure to silica dusts and other agents that may cause respiratory disease may exist. Ministers have also tasked Safe Work Australia with developing further advice on a ban on the use of engineered stone products in Australia.</para>
<para>This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to understanding and improving the occupational respiratory health of workers. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7054" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am pleased to introduce the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill deals with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, known as the NORDR Bill.</para>
<para>The bill will amend schedule 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982,known as the FOI Act. This amendment will add the offence of unauthorised disclosure of protected information contained in the NORDR Bill to the list of secrecy provisions recognised for the purposes of subsection 38(1) of the FOI Act.</para>
<para>Protected information for the purposes of the NORDR Bill includes personal information, workplace identifying information or information that is commercial in confidence in the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry or derived from personal information in the national registry.</para>
<para>The amendment to the FOI Act will ensure that information protected by the secrecy provision in section 23 of the NORDR Bill will be exempt from disclosure under section 38 of the FOI Act. This will protect against unnecessary intrusions on an individual's privacy or commercial interests by ensuring that protected information is unconditionally exempt from disclosure due to the operation of section 38 of the FOI Act, in response to an FOI request.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7046" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have pleasure in rising to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill. This is a very important bill, in part because it's part of a very important process that the Australian Law Reform Commission is undertaking in relation to the Corporations Law and a number of pieces of legislation regulating financial services. For context, it's important to note that the ALRC is currently undertaking a substantial review of the legislative framework for corporations and financial services regulation. The terms of reference for this review were provided to the ALRC on 11 September 2020, and those terms of reference required the provision of a final report to the Attorney-General by 30 September 2023. <inline font-style="italic">Financial </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">ervices </inline><inline font-style="italic">l</inline><inline font-style="italic">egislation: </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nterim </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport B</inline>has been handed to the Attorney-General, and <inline font-style="italic">Financial </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">ervices </inline><inline font-style="italic">l</inline><inline font-style="italic">egislation: </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nterim </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport A</inline>was handed down sometime before that. Together, the provisions that we see in this bill arise from those two interim reports.</para>
<para>Many of the elements of this bill arise from interim report A, but I also want to talk in my contribution today about interim report B. Together, they foreshadow significant work that this parliament and future parliaments will need to grapple with. It's worth stating at the outset that the terms of reference for this enquiry asked that the ALRC take account of a number of important prior reports, the first of which was the 2019 <inline font-style="italic">F</inline><inline font-style="italic">inal report</inline> of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. It's very important to note that that report was a precursor to some of the work that the ALRC is currently undertaking. Simplification of the corporations law and a number of other pieces of legislation dealing with financial services legislation has direct impacts on people interacting with the financial services sector. A number of references were made in the royal commission to the need to simplify these laws—to rationalise and improve the operation of these laws. I think it is important to make the connection with that royal commission report to highlight the fact that these reforms are very important in terms of their direct impact on everyday people.</para>
<para>There are a number of other pieces of analysis that this work builds upon and will make reference to, including Treasury's <inline font-style="italic">ASIC </inline><inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">nforcement review task </inline><inline font-style="italic">f</inline><inline font-style="italic">orce report</inline> of 2017; the 2015 Australian government <inline font-style="italic">Competition </inline><inline font-style="italic">policy review</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic">F</inline><inline font-style="italic">inal report</inline>;the 2014 <inline font-style="italic">Financial </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">ystem </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nquiry: Final </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline>; and the Productivity Commission's 2014 report<inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">ccess to justice arrangements. </inline>This is a very broad-ranging set of reports and they cover a range of important legal principles and drafting principles. That will go to some of the issues I touch on in my contribution relating to the hierarchy of laws, for example, and making sure that laws are designed in a way such that they are more efficient and transparent.</para>
<para>But it also goes to a number of fundamental economic principles in the optimal design of regulations and laws. On a personal note, my first full-time job after leaving university was in the Attorney-General's Department here in Canberra. I was in a division of the Attorney-General's Department which included the international trade law section, which I worked in. But the bulk of the division that I worked in was related to the simplification of the Corporations Act. This is going way back to the mid-1990s. Indeed, what we have seen since that time is a significant expansion in the complexity of the corporations law.</para>
<para>What that shows me is that this isn't a project where there is going to be a destination where we finish this task. The task of simplifying and rationalising the corporations law and a range of pieces of legislation dealing with the financial services sector is an ongoing task. It has been a priority of governments going back decades, and many of the pieces of work that are alluded to in interim report A and interim report B it will take a number of years to fully give effect to.</para>
<para>The terms of reference of this ALRC project relate directly to a number of provisions in the bill which we are considering today. They come in two parts. Part A deals with the use of definitions in corporations and financial services legislation. Specifically, terms should be defined consistent with appropriate regulatory boundaries, there should be appropriate design of legislative definitions and there should be consistent use of terminology. Tidying up definitions often ends up being quite technical. The use of the term 'tidying up', which people often use in relation to bills like this, often underestimates the importance of this. Again, referring back to some of my own experience in improving the operations of legislation in the financial services sector, a piece of reform that I worked on a decade or so ago now, was to implement a standard definition of 'flood' when it came to insurance products.</para>
<para>That was a piece of legislation that was long overdue when it was implemented in the Gillard government, a piece of legislation that actually ended up being very pro-consumer. It was far more than tidying up; it was a piece of reform that made insurance products much more intelligible for consumers but also led to a process by which products provided much more standardised coverage. So I simply make the point that standardising and clarifying definitions is a very important piece of reform in and of itself.</para>
<para>The second piece of the terms of reference is in relation to the coherence of regulatory design and the hierarchy of laws. This is to clarify how to manage legislative complexity over time, how to maintain regulatory flexibility, how to react to unforeseen circumstances and how to use the delegation of powers. This is probably the piece of work that is going to require the most complex changes to pieces of legislation, and that piece of work is going to require actions by not just this parliament but subsequent parliaments. That's really the focus of interim report B.</para>
<para>If we go back to interim report A, which focused by and large on the use of definitions, the rationalisation or greater consistency of definitions, we see a lot of the recommendations for immediate action arising from interim report A reflected in this bill. Schedules 1 to 3 arose directly from ALRC recommendations and refer to a number of elements—for example, unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. As interim report A indicated, there was a freezing of the application of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that it applied as it was at 1 January 2005 to the Corporations Law. Without getting into all the merits or lack of merits as to why that freezing occurred, suffice to say that the ALRC made the point that they didn't believe that there was a strong rationale for continuing that freezing and, moreover, that it added a great deal of complexity. Even the application of that freezing, I think, highlights a number of the challenges that we face when thinking about the simplification of the Corporations Law. There were a number of areas of uncertainty. For example, did that freezing apply to delegated legislation? Did it apply to notional amendments made by ASIC? So the unfreezing makes sense in and of itself, but it also alludes to a number of the complexities that have grown in the system. There are a number of other technical amendments which are incorporated in schedules 1 to 3, all of which arise from recommendations from the ALRC in that interim report A.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 makes a number of amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts are enabling acts for certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry, some of which are due to sunset. Sunsetting is very important in relation to a number of legislative instruments and is widely used when it comes to delegated legislation. The purpose of this bill, and schedule 4 in particular, is to make sure that sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary remain up to date when they are remade, that they can be updated.</para>
<para>But, again, this schedule highlights some of the challenges that we are going to face when we think about more systemic change in this area. The ALRC alluded to the challenge of the number of provisions that have crept into delegated legislation, and they made suggestions that, where possible, certain elements should sunset. This raises a number of questions as to the complexity, on occasions, of ensuring that those sunsetting arrangements are managed appropriately.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 deals with the rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments, and schedule 6 contains a number of additional minor and technical amendments.</para>
<para>All of these are sensible and important changes, but I also want to make reference to some of the broader work in the final couple of minutes that I have. We are talking here about a bill that forms part of a very important piece of longer-term reform. The Corporations Act has, as I understand it, increased from 400,000 words to 800,000 words in the last 20 years or so. But it's not just that: there are certain parts of corporations law—such as chapter 7, dealing with financial services and products—which have grown in complexity. On top of that, we don't just have the length of the act itself but also a creeping growth in guidance instruments and a number of individual relief instruments in a number of documents that one might consider to be soft law. Indeed, we have had significant growth in the number of notional amendments made by ASIC, which is possible under the act. All of this has created a great deal of complexity and cost. The ALRC talks about compliance costs for regulated entities, administrative costs for government agencies, all of the advice costs   —but I would add there are also costs associated with uncertainty. It's that much harder, I think, under current arrangements to even understand what the law is that applies in certain circumstances. In the case of the regulation of a number of financial services and products, that's particularly the case. There are a number of individual relief instruments or guidance documents, and a number of notional amendments, that add a great deal of complexity.</para>
<para>I might make reference to the Productivity Commission, which in one of its earlier reports said that good legislative design or good regulation should serve clearly identify policy goals and be effective in reaching those goals, that it should promote innovation through goals-based approaches, and that it should be clear and simple. That is an important set of underlying principles—often harder to implement in practice than theory, but an important set of guiding principles.</para>
<para>The hierarchy of laws section of interim report B is worth noting—not to suggest that I am supporting any particular element of it, but it's worth noting that in a sense this leads to the next stage, post this bill, of some of the reforms this parliament is going to need to consider. Page 58 looks at the current arrangements where, for example, there are 19 regulations and 50 legislative instruments underlying chapter 6D of the Corporations Act, as well as 120 notional amendments. Part 7.9 of the Corporations Act has 228 regulations and 80 legislative instruments, as well as 600 notional amendments. What they are proposing is that there be a common, core set of regimes in an overarching act, that there be a scoping order and that disclosure rules underlie that. I make reference to that hierarchy of laws because, following the passage this bill and the important work that does in relation to a number of recommendations arising from interim report A, there's a significant amount of important policy work that this parliament will grapple with moving forward as part of this broader project.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No.1) Bill is a six-schedule Treasury omnibus bill. The coalition will be supporting this bill. The compliance burden and the complexity of the Corporations Act and the financial services legal and regulatory framework are consistent issues raised by stakeholders. Red tape is a growing challenge for business. Of course, support for the passage of this bill is no substitute for a government that is refusing to take responsibility for high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills, just to name a few of the challenges facing Australians every day. Those challenges, sadly, are not addressed in this bill. We have a government that does not have the plan or the priorities to fix the economic problems facing Australians.</para>
<para>I turn to discuss the schedules to this bill. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the bill make amendments to implement recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim reports A and B of its review of the legislative frameworks for corporations and financial services regulation. The measures in these schedules are designed to make a number of technical amendments and corrections to simplify the law and improve its navigability, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The changes seek to create a single glossary of defined terms in the Corporations Act; to repeal redundant provisions and correct errors; to improve clarity; and to unfreeze the Acts Interpretation Act so the current version applies to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 to the bill makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October this year. Schedule 4 will update certain provisions in order to reflect more modern practices.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 to the bill transfers longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in three legislative instruments made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the Corporations Act and to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. Schedule 6 to the bill amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio with a view to achieving the outcome that these laws operate in accordance with policy intent. It also makes minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and to remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects.</para>
<para>The coalition supports measures which reduce red tape for business. Independent research has estimated that the annual cost to the economy of red tape is $176 billion a year. The costs of red tape to the economy are more than simply direct costs. They also include businesses which are never started, jobs which are never created and ambitions that are never fulfilled due to bureaucratic interference. This project is no small task. Treasury portfolio laws encompass over 50 acts containing thousands of provisions spanning corporations law, taxation, competition and consumer policy, and financial sector regulation. This bill needs to be the beginning, not the end, of reducing red tape and supporting deregulation.</para>
<para>This bill, as I've indicated, has many measures we on this side of the House can support. However, I have to note with regret that the government's actions in bringing this bill, which we support, do not in any way make up for the sad record of broken promises on franking credits, on superannuation taxes and on taxing unrealised capital gains, amongst other things. The sad reality is that many small businesses will be captured by the changes to superannuation made by this Labor government and by the changes to the law as regards unrealised capital gains which are a feature of those changes announced by this Labor government. The sad reality, also, is that many charities will lose out as a consequence of the changes Labor is proposing to make in relation to the application of the law concerning franking credits—again, changes which amount to a broken promise. The simple fact is that with these broken promises on superannuation taxes, at a time when cost-of-living pressures are soaring, Australians will be left worse off.</para>
<para>Of course, the fact that this government has chosen to break its oft-repeated promises in relation to superannuation is to be deplored from first principles, but this action is also to be deplored because it undermines confidence in Australia's superannuation system.</para>
<para>The money sitting in superannuation funds are not some piggy bank that governments can draw upon for tax-and-spend purposes. It represents the hard-earned money of Australians. Promises were made on several occasions before last year's election by the now Prime Minister and by the now Treasurer that there would be no changes to superannuation. What, in fact, this government has chosen to do, upon coming to power, is to announce changes that are entirely inconsistent with those commitments that were given before the election. This government has announced that a set of changes which will have the effect of doubling superannuation taxes faced by one in 10 Australians by the time they retire. It has announced changes which will have the effect of stopping companies in a range of circumstances from offering franking credits to Australian investors to super funds and to charities. It has announced changes that will have the effect of taxing unrealised capital gains in superannuation funds, a very significant change to an extremely long-standing principle in Australian tax legislation and policy, with the consequence that many Australian retirees will be required under these changes that Labor has announced to pay tax on money that they have not yet even earned.</para>
<para>Labor was dishonest in its approach in relation to superannuation. It was dishonest in its claim there would be no change to superannuation. And they have also been dishonest about the magnitude and impact of these changes and how many Australians will be affected. The government has claimed that fewer than 80,000 Australians will be affected. Independent research shows that that number is wildly wrong. By the time they retire, more than 500,000 Australians, in fact, are going to be hit by this new tax on superannuation. The government cannot explain how these changes will work, can't explain how many people will be affected. The Prime Minister has said it will impact one in 200 people. The finance minister has said it will impact one in 10. If the government can't explain it, how can Australians understand it? Australians would be right to draw the conclusion from the actions the government has taken on this front that they are looking enthusiastically for other areas where they can impose new taxes.</para>
<para>I say, on behalf of the coalition, that the deregulatory changes in this bill, so far as they go, are changes that the coalition will support. But they are changes being made in a broader context of a set of economic policies being carried out by this government which are generating higher inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout, rising energy bills and a range of new taxes, even in the face of promises made before coming to government that there would be no such new taxes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to take this opportunity to also rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No.1) Bill 2023. As part of its regulatory stewardship role, the government is progressing amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill are mostly technical but they will reduce the complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase its navigability and enhance its clarity, and they supplement the law improvement amendments in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications) Bill.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the ongoing work, which often doesn't receive much attention, of the Assistant Treasurer and the Department of the Treasury. It is an ongoing package of work to ensure that these laws are fit for purpose, and to reduce complexity. These amendments relate to an enormous number of laws, so it is an ongoing piece of work, as I say, one that doesn't always receive a lot of attention. A lot of work goes into it, and it really does make a difference.</para>
<para>The reforms in this bill implement recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its interim reports for the Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation to simplify and rationalise Australia's corporations and financial services law. The ALRC's recommendations in its interim reports are designed for immediate implementation prior to the release of its final report on 30 November this year. The recommendations address technical issues and have widespread support. This follows an extensive consultation process on these amendments.</para>
<para>I will now to talk to the detail of the changes in this bill. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill enact recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim report A and interim report B of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The purpose of the review is to inquire into the potential simplification and rationalisation of Australia's financial services law. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill improve the navigability of and simplify the law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. They create a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporation Act. They repeal redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to repeal provisions, they correct errors and they improve clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations. You can see there the changes that these schedules are making, which will make this more usable for people and make these laws easier to understand and less unnecessarily complex.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of this bill relates to insurance and makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and Insurance Act 1973. These acts are enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October this year. Sunsetting is the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. It is important to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for as long as they are needed. The purpose of the relevant insurance acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and to prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. The amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose when they are remade. The amendments in schedule 4 of the bill are primarily technical and include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices, allowing regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices, and moving some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of the bill relates to the rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments. Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate longstanding matters currently contained in Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, legislation. Long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments in schedule 5 of the bill improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 of the bill brings together the minor and technical amendments that are required. These minor and technical amendments amend various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as to correct technical and drafting defects.</para>
<para>The amendments have been identified by a number of Treasury portfolio agencies, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and policy divisions within Treasury, including as a result of the consultation with affected users of the laws.</para>
<para>It is such an important process that Treasury does in consulting with the people that use these laws and using that information to improve them in bills such as this. The amendments made by schedule 6 to the bill reflect the government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of Treasury laws to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended, making it easier for Australians to comply with these laws.</para>
<para>The minor and technical amendments process was first supported by a recommendation of the 2008 Tax Design Review Panel, which was appointed to examine how to reduce delays in the enactment of tax legislation and improve the quality of tax law changes. It has since been expanded to all Treasury portfolio legislation. As you can see, the changes that are included in this bill are not necessarily that exciting and they don't necessarily get that much attention often, but it is a really important ongoing process. Having worked at Treasury, I know firsthand the complicated and difficult work, and the important consultation work, that goes into this ongoing process of amendments to ensure these laws are fit for purpose and fit with modern life in Australia so that people who use these laws find it as easy as possible to comply with them, which is, of course, very important to ensure that the laws serve their intent. So it really is an important part of the work of the Treasury and the Assistant Treasurer, and I just want to acknowledge that ongoing work.</para>
<para>I've just followed a speech from the member from Bradfield, who took the opportunity to talk about our superannuation changes for those with accounts over $3 million. Given that he has talked about that in the debate on this bill, I thought I would respond. Our government has been completely upfront about the challenges that are facing our economy and the budget. We are making this modest adjustment to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances above $3 million, a change that will not come into effect until after the next election. Ninety-nine point five per cent of Australians with super accounts will still receive the same generous tax breaks that they do, and that 0.5 per cent of people who have balances over $3 million who will be affected by this change will still receive tax breaks, but they will be slightly less generous. That is how our policy works.</para>
<para>But we have seen, unfortunately, the scaremongering from the opposition that we have become so used to. The member for Bradfield talked a lot about dishonesty. I think really they need to look at the way they are talking about this policy to the public. In fact, just this week there was a motion put forward by a member of the opposition claiming that this would impact young people. I think that is quite misleading about the intent of this policy, because basically a young person earning $90,000 a year today, and projecting an increasing salary throughout their life, will almost never accumulate $3 million in their super accounts. In fact, Treasury projects that, in 2052, only the top 10 per cent of earners retiring that year will have more than $3 million in their super accounts. So it's pretty clear that the coalition are not talking to young people in their electorates. This is a change affecting people with the highest superannuation balances, 0.5 per cent of Australians. They will still receive generous tax breaks on that superannuation, but they will be slightly less generous as we deal with the debt that we have inherited from a decade of coalition government.</para>
<para>Let's not forget what we're talking about here. We're talking about the superannuation system that Labor built, which is the envy of the world. The only reason that young people could even dream of a $3 million super balance in their retirement is Labor's superannuation policy and our commitment to always protect that superannuation policy. It is Australians' own money, for their retirement. We will always defend that. Those on the opposite side will always attack the superannuation system, because they don't believe in it. We saw this during COVID, when the first place they looked for money for younger people was superannuation balances. We know, and young people know, that most young people don't have a lot of money in their superannuation; they are just beginning that journey of building it. Taking out money that is in there today robs their future self of money that would grow over their entire working life to help support them in their retirement. This is such an important principle. People who were forced, in a sense, to access that money during COVID will now not benefit from that in their retirement. If the Liberals and Nationals were particularly concerned about young people during the pandemic, perhaps they should have provided more support at the time to casual employees, through the JobKeeper scheme, and to students, who were largely left out of their assistance packages.</para>
<para>We are proposing a modest change to tax that, as I say, will not come into effect until after the next election. We cannot be more upfront about that. It is a very modest change, for those with the absolutely highest wealth in this country, people with balances of over $3 million. I suggest to the member for Bradfield that he should not be scaremongering about this policy that only affects a tiny minority of people, in a modest way. Perhaps he should focus on the coalition's plans for the future and come up with some ideas for the Australian people rather than just opposing everything and, worse still, scaremongering about the impacts of policies on people in our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Much as I like the member for Canberra, it is always interesting to hear members from the other side commenting on superannuation and those matters, because they fail to mention—and the member for Canberra just failed to mention—recent reports that their beloved industry superannuation funds, rather than complying with the law and taking five days to process rollovers, are taking up to 30 days and therefore are withholding members' money. They are withholding on members' requests to transfer their funds in a timely manner via rollovers, to maybe a self-managed super fund or to another superannuation fund. So, before those opposite lecture us about behaviour on super, maybe they should have a look at some of the things that are actually going on in the superannuation industry through their beloved industry funds at this point in time.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023, which is supported by the coalition, is a worthwhile piece of legislation because it seeks to reduce the compliance burden and the complexity of the Corporations Act and the financial services framework, and it's consistent with many issues that have been raised by stakeholders. As we know, red tape is an ever-growing challenge for business—not just red tape at a federal level but growing levels of red tape at the state and local government levels as well.</para>
<para>Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of this bill make amendments to implement the recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim reports A and B of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. These measures are designed to make a number of practical technical amendments and corrections to simplify the law and improve its navigability, as recommended by the ALRC.</para>
<para>The changes seek to create a single glossary of defined terms in the Corporations Act, repeal redundant provisions, correct errors and improve clarity. This will also unfreeze the Acts Interpretation Act so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of the bill makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that were due to sunset on 1 October this year. This schedule will also update certain provisions in order to reflect more moral practices.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of the bill transfers longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in three Australian Securities and Investments Commission made legislative instruments to the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 of the bill amends the various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure these laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, makes minor changes to improve administrative outcomes, remedies unintended consequences and corrects technical and drafting defects.</para>
<para>As I said before, red tape is an enormous burden on our economy, and independent research has estimated that the annual cost of red tape to the economy is some $176 billion. These red tape costs run right through the economy and are more than just a direct cost; they include that businesses never start, jobs are never created and the ambitions to grow our economy or even grow a business are never realised or undertaken, because it is just too difficult. We have been having a long debate about housing, housing affordability and housing availability. From the builders and developers that I talk to, one of the biggest impediments to achieving that is red tape. It is an enormous cost right through the economy, and any business will tell you that the cost and burden of compliance, along with staff issues or shortages, is their No. 1 issue.</para>
<para>APRA also pointed out in its issues paper for modernising prudential regulations that there are currently 140 prudential standards and prudential practice guides, in total covering some five APRA related industries. The Basel framework, which is a key underpinning to the strength and quality of our banks, has expanded from around 300 pages before the global financial crisis to more than 1,600 pages today. The Corporations Act has almost doubled in size since 2001 and contains over 14,500 internal cross-references. These are just some examples of why red tape reduction is so important. But there is so much more to do, and this is where the government falls short.</para>
<para>Businesses across this country need a government that listens to them, not one that tells them that government is at the centre of the economy. Government should never be at the centre of the economy. It is business that is at the centre of our economy because that is where our wealth and our jobs are created. The more we can get governments out of businesses' way and let them do what they do so well, which is innovate, create new job opportunities, create new products, service our markets not just in Australia but increasingly—and I'm not talking about our large businesses at the top end of town; I'm talking about small to medium businesses in electorates right across this country, including mine, who are developing an export focus. But they need assistance with that, and one of the things that we can greatly assist them with is a government that gets out of the way and lets them do that job.</para>
<para>But, as we have seen frequently from this government, this government's policies, public statements and even essays demonstrate that it isn't listening and has taken the wrong priorities.</para>
<para>After promising to work with businesses, this government has unleashed a wave of new regulation and has the basic instinct and reflex to stifle business and opportunity. At a time of rising interest rates and high inflation, we need to support economic growth over the medium term, and the government's priorities do the exact opposite of that. Whilst the bill we're debating today goes some way towards cleaning up some bits and pieces, it doesn't deal with the bigger issues that are facing the economy and doesn't deal with the issues that are facing everyday Australians. We need a government that works and focuses on supporting the aspiration of individual Australians and businesses to drive innovation, create jobs and deliver prosperity. Unfortunately, this bill, as with many others presented to the chamber by this government, fails to do this.</para>
<para>As I said at the outset, the opposition supports this bill, but it does so while noting that the government has failed to provide the necessary support to businesses and individual Australians to deal with the issues of high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising rent payments, rising business loan costs and rising input costs in terms of electricity and supply chain issues. All of this feeds through. The challenges faced by Australians are not addressed in this bill, and we would ask the government to bring to this House legislation that starts to deal with some of those issues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Law Reform Commission is a creature of statute, established on 1 January 1975 by an act of parliament, having originally been introduced to the parliament by Attorney-General Lionel Murphy in 1973. Murphy said the ALRC would help ensure:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the system of law under which people live is responsive to the social needs of our time. The rules which govern the relationship of persons with each other and with the Government should reflect current values and philosophies.</para></quote>
<para>The ALRC has published well over 100 reports since its establishment, and many of these are of great public interest. Subjects of recent reports include judicial impartiality, antidiscrimination legislation, corporate criminal responsibility, family law, and incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.</para>
<para>The current bill contains provisions that arise from the ALRC's interim reports on the financial services legislation. <inline font-style="italic">Financial services legislation: interim report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> A</inline> focuses on better aligning definitions across the law with those in the Corporations Law. <inline font-style="italic">Financial services legislation: interim report </inline><inline font-style="italic">B </inline>seeks to redress deficiencies in the organisation of the law. Compared to many other reports of the commission, this work may seem a little dull; regardless, it is necessary. Laws do not work if they are confused, and laws are not easily accessed if they are muddled.</para>
<para>Staff of the commission did not hold back when describing the state of the financial services law in this process. Interim report A starts by using the metaphor of Russian dolls to describe the plethora of definitions currently applying. In relation to interim report B, Dr William Isdale and Christopher Ash described the problem in these terms:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If Australia's corporations and financial services statutes were likened to a house, it would be a large and disordered one. A house in which new annexes have been added with little thought to overall design, and in which objects are scattered and hidden, with little regard to how they may be found in the future. In short, a house that is thoroughly disordered. A house that needs re-design and serious tidying.</para></quote>
<para>Further, they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the law today does not reflect any single design philosophy. It is disorganised, unwieldy, incoherent, and difficult to navigate (let alone comprehend).</para></quote>
<para>They suggested:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we might embrace a bit more minimalism, relocate some of our clutter, and throw out the broken toys and scattered pizza boxes.</para></quote>
<para>In legislation, as in life, simplicity is a virtue. The need for this bill and others like it is occasioned by years and years of mere adding on without regard for overall structure, meaning and philosophy. The ALRC plan for the financial services law would include the act itself—although leaner—with a scoping order to contain most of the exclusions and exemptions and further thematically arranged rules.</para>
<para>The bill provides that the Acts Interpretation Act will apply to the Corporations Law and the ASIC Act, as it does generally to other acts. This change will remove uncertainty and make it easier for both lawyers and others to deal with, explain and apply the law. It provides for a single consolidated glossary which, surprisingly, does not yet exist in the Corporations Law. This will improve the navigability of the law. There is a wholesale reduction in the number and type of terms that need definition, as well as style changes to make the law more readable. Greater consistency between the Corporations Law and the ASIC Act is provided for.</para>
<para>Each of these changes taken singly might be considered trivial. Taken as a whole, they constitute a real and effective simplification with the potential to save time, trouble and confusion for thousands of Australian individuals and businesses on a daily basis. Time is money. When we succeed in improving our legislative environment, we create value and improve productivity. This detailed legislative grunt work, which is the realm of specialised lawyers and drafters, contributes to improvements for the rest of society across the board. There'll be very little public thanks for the brilliant and fastidious pen-pushers at the ALRC, but I salute you.</para>
<para>The bill before the House also contains amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts enable some instruments due to sunset later this year.</para>
<para>I'm a member of the House economics committee, and I have an ongoing interest in the insurance industry. We recently had the opportunity to hear from APRA both in relation to their annual report and for the purposes of the committee's current inquiry into economic dynamism, competition and business formation. Regulation of the insurance industry is important, and I have particular concerns about the behaviours of some insurers over recent years, the difficulties that some people are now having in obtaining reasonably priced insurance and the tendency of insurers to ignore efforts made by their clients to reduce risk.</para>
<para>I note that recently a significant number of life insurance companies have created a new peak body, the Council of Australian Life Insurers. About 20 life insurance and reinsurance firms established CALI in 2022, departing from the previous representation by the Financial Services Council, so the industry cannot so easily be said to speak with one voice. The government must ensure at all times the way in which it interacts with the insurance industry is predictable and consistent, and the law needs to reflect that.</para>
<para>The bill further moves some ASIC made regulations into the Corporations Act, making the law clearer to those who need to deal with it, and otherwise makes many minor and technical amendments. This is spring cleaning. It is necessary to do this on a regular basis. It is work that only specialists, like those working at the ALRC, and the parliamentary drafters can do, and we need to thank them, fund them and encourage them to do this work. I would like to see more simplification and consistency in the laws we make, and I commend those responsible for this bill at each of its stages of construction.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to speak on the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. Like other speakers, I thank the ALRC for their work on this. I don't know that I agree with all the work they've been doing recently on some topics, but I agree with other speakers that this is an area of reform that does need a lot of attention to detail and persistence, and can be quite, if not extremely, dry at times. We appreciate the fact that a lot of hard work goes into bringing reform like this to the chamber. I thank them for their work on this and commend the other contributions in that regard.</para>
<para>I touch on what the lead speaker for the coalition pointed out, which is, firstly, that we support anything that is about deregulation and simplification for the business community. This body of work emanates from, initially, the Hayne royal commission and opportunities to look for red tape reduction and reforms that simplify without diminishing appropriate frameworks and protections that are in place, to ensure we have, in financial services in particular but more broadly, a framework that allows businesses to thrive but also ensures the appropriate rules and regulations are in place, to make sure we've got a corporate governance framework in this country that we can be proud of.</para>
<para>These bills also give us an opportunity to consider, with the rapid pace of technology and the ways in which doing business can change, ways in which statutes and legal frameworks need to take the opportunity to keep up to speed with that. During COVID, we made some fairly rapid changes to some of the older requirements in legislation, particularly about things like having physical meetings and documentation signing et cetera, for which we had and appreciated the support of the then opposition. Like a lot of things that we did in the urgency of COVID—telehealth being another great example—we were able to rapidly look at changes that ordinarily might have taken an excruciatingly long period of time. People were in a great mood to be open minded about ways to be innovative because of the challenges, particularly around social distancing, that were put in place.</para>
<para>I note that the Assistant Treasurer made the comment in his second reading speech on this bill that the amendments in schedule 4 'update certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices'. I really endorse reforms in this area, probably reforms more broad than what is happening in this bill, but I also reflect on the responsibility that needs to fall back on the companies that are given greater flexibility here. We have seen a lot of data breaches recently, one just in the last week or so which related to a vendor—as they sometimes call companies that provide these services, particularly in the United States—that was a supplier to a range of businesses and some prominent accounting firms in particular around electronic signing of documents. There has been a hack that, it seems, has seen the release of people's personal information through that third-party technology. We want to embrace and provide legislative flexibility for modern technology to be used in an ever greater way throughout all the requirements we have in society, particularly in business, where there are enormous red tape reduction opportunities and productivity gains to be seen around that. But there has got to be an emphasis put back, on the provision of those flexibilities, to make sure that there's a robust framework around things like the protection of data and these ongoing security breaches and hacking of people's information.</para>
<para>It's particularly concerning when it's things like somebody's private health records, financial information, credit card details, messages that might be sent on certain phone apps and all the rest of it. It seems that there are an ongoing and increasing number of reports and examples of the theft of consumer data. There are opportunities in the Corporations Act and with some of the work that the ALRC will be doing to put in place more stringent rules and regulations and requirements on businesses that hold personal information. One of the things that I think has become quite evident is the extent of information that is being kept on people but that it doesn't seem necessary whatsoever to keep—for example, records of former customers. We've had former customers of a particular business told, 'You used to be with us 10 years ago or 12 years ago, and we've just had a data hack, and all your information has been taken.' Why is it necessarily the case that that information is being kept, particularly kept in such a vulnerable state that it's being hacked and stolen by criminal entities? So we embrace those opportunities that the Assistant Treasurer mentioned but also look to make sure that we're putting those important obligations in place as we look for ways to modernise and provide productivity gains from that.</para>
<para>As the member for Bradfield mentioned and the member for Canberra responded to, we have also touched on the government's proposed superannuation changes, which are absolutely relevant to this debate and to discussion around the changes to corporations, particularly proposals of the new doubling of taxation of earnings on super balances over $3 million and, of course, the taxation on unrealised capital gains.</para>
<para>This is a very frightening and dramatic change to the fundamental principles that all corporations in this country operate under. It is very questionable, with what the Accounting Standards Board has to say about this principle and whether or not the government are looking to expand this principle beyond this thin end of a wedge that happens to be superannuation.</para>
<para>But, of course, the people of Australia should not be surprised. We knew that the government was going to come after super and dramatically change the tax treatments to superannuation. They were honest about it in the 2019 election but lost that election, so then they didn't tell anyone about it in the 2022 election so they wouldn't lose another election. Then, after winning the election, they suddenly, dramatically, had these great ideas around changing the superannuation taxation treatment that apparently didn't need to be told to the people of Australia before they went to the polls. There are a number of principles that are outrageous in that, both the misleading of voters and these retrospective changes to the provisions people have made for their retirement. A lot of people have contacted me. They had believed that they could count on the government not changing the taxation treatment of their superannuation. They had made decisions in the last couple of decades as to how they would structure their finances based on tax treatment. They did not expect the treatment to be changed in such a dramatic way.</para>
<para>The member for Canberra, in this debate, on the one hand said that this was only going to affect 0.5 per cent of those with superannuation and then conceded that Treasury modelling shows that one in 10 young people today will be affected by this. That's based on Treasury modelling. I wonder what the assumptions around inflation are in that Treasury modelling. A lot of modelling around inflation recently has been quite inaccurate, as far as the suggestion that the inflationary environment was going to be transitory. Regrettably, quite the opposite is occurring, and it's setting in quite deeply. One wonders, as this is remodelled—with 10 per cent of young people today eventually to be paying this higher rate of tax—what will happen if the future deterioration of the value of the dollar is greater than Treasury assumed in their modelling. We will wait to see.</para>
<para>As other coalition speakers have mentioned, we will support this bill. We would like to see a lot more reform in this area, and there are a lot more things this parliament could be taking action on than the important but limited elements of this bill. This week, we have a lot of government speakers on these couple of bills. It's almost 4.30 tomorrow afternoon. The government is almost there. We could be doing a lot of things with our time in the parliament to address some of the significant challenges that people have around the cost of living, rising mortgages, rising power prices, rising rents, deteriorating real wages. We see bills like this as important, but equally we can progress them through the parliament and perhaps use the parliament's time also to address some of those more significant issues. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. This bill is about simplifying and rationalising the Corporations Law. The government is progressing amendments to ensure Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. This bill has six schedules and will reduce complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase its navigability and enhance its clarity.</para>
<para>Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill enact recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim report A and interim report B of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation.</para>
<para>The purpose of the ALRC's review is to inquire into the potential simplification and rationalisation of Australia's financial services laws. Those first three schedules of the bill improve navigability and simplify the law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001. They create a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act, which goes to simplify peoples understanding of the legislation. It repeals redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to appeal other provisions. It corrects errors and it improves clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations.</para>
<para>While talking about schedules 1 to 3, I am reminded of the contribution from the member for Forde, my opposing number as the Chief Opposition Whip, who spoke at length about red tape. As I was listening to him, I was astounded. Having been in the parliament for nine years and having been here for various debates on Treasury law amendment legislation, I would have thought the former government would have finished getting rid of all the red tape after nine years, but apparently red tape is still a major problem. This government is getting on with the job of listening to our public servants, taking seriously the reports that are landing in front of our ministers and ensuring that we are doing everything possible to have our laws, particularly around corporations, set up both for people's understanding and to make them usable.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of this bill is around insurance. It makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. They are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry and they are due to sunset on 1 October 2023. For those listening from my electorate, 'sunsetting' in legislation is a way to automatically repeal legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. I like to think of a sunset clause as setting an alarm on your phone to remind you to get something done. Sunset clauses are a reminder to this place and to the organisations that we need to look at this again. They are deliberately introduced into legislation to be that alarm bell, and in this case, in schedule 4, that sunset clause is coming into review on 1 October 2023, so it's a reminder for us to look at that.</para>
<para>It's the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. Sunsetting is important to ensure legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force so long as they are needed. And this, as the member for Fraser discussed earlier, is an important thing so that the framework does not become overwhelmingly large. This ensures that things that are redundant are removed.</para>
<para>The purpose of the relevant insurance acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the industry. No-one in this place needs a reminder of how important that is, and no-one around the country needs a reminder of how important that is after the last few years. We've had so many incidents where we've had natural disasters and then, in this House, had prime ministers and members calling on insurance companies to do the right thing. So having absolute clarity in this space about the kinds of people who are allowed to be insurers is absolutely critical. The amendments will help to ensure the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose when they are remade.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 4 to the bill are primarily technical and include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices. We heard the member for Sturt talking about modern communication practices, cybersecurity breaches and the importance of people's privacy and ensuring that—when we are going for these productivities and efficiencies in our legislation to allow them into practice—we are also, on the other hand, ensuring that we have a clear eye on safety and the risks. Obviously, after some of the large hacks, we are all fundamentally aware of what this is going to. But I would say to the member for Sturt that this government sees cybersecurity as a whole-of-government concern. Hence, we have a minister who has cybersecurity named in their title, because we take that seriously in this place. I would like to assure him that those things are being taken into consideration by this government. The other thing that this does is allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices. It moves provisions from the insurance instruments into the primary legislation.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 is about rationalisation and ending ASIC instruments. It amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate long-standing matters currently contained in Australian securities and investments commission legislation. Long-term reliance on ASIC's exemptions and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendment in schedule 5 to the bill improves the clarity of the law. It provides certainty and makes it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 of the bill goes to minor and technical amendments. The minor and technical elements in schedule 6 amend various laws of the Treasury portfolio to: ensure those laws operate in accordance with policy intent; make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences; and correct technical and drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by a number of Treasury portfolio agencies, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and policy divisions within Treasury, including as a result of consultation with affected users of the law—most importantly. The amendments made to schedule 6 of the bill reflect the government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of Treasury laws to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended, making it easier for Australians to comply with current laws. The minor and technical amendments processes were first supported by the recommendation of the 2008 Tax Design Review Panel, which was appointed to reduce delays in the enactment of tax legislation and improve the quality of tax law changes. This has since been expanded to all Treasury portfolio legislation.</para>
<para>The bill demonstrates the government progressing amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. It will take years to give effect to some of these measures. I would like to commend the work of the member for Whitlam, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services, for his work in this space. I would also like to note some of the other contributions we've had. We heard this morning from the Manager of Opposition Business. His contribution suggested that the government did not have an economic plan. I refer the member for Bradfield to the May budget, where he will see an economic plan. The budget delivered in May was carefully calibrated with an eye to fiscal restraint and economic repair. The member for Bradfield might note that it also has projections to deliver a budget surplus.</para>
<para>The other area of concern for me this morning in the debate that we've heard is around superannuation, which the member for Sturt and the member for Bradfield talked about.</para>
<para>I would note to the young people listening to those contributions, echoing the member for Canberra's statements around the changes to superannuation, that we are talking about changes to the accounts of people with more than $3 million in their superannuation account, with the change in taxation treatment. The member for Sturt talked about projections of one in 10 people in 30 years potentially having $3 million in a superannuation account—this from a member of the former government, which encouraged young people to raid their superannuation accounts during the pandemic while they wasted billions of dollars giving money to businesses who did not run at a loss during the pandemic. I would say to young people, if they've heard the member for Sturt's contribution and may be concerned about their superannuation balances in 30 years, that there will be a government here in 30 years, and what is in place now with $3 million attached to it is not fixed in time forever by any government. Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House, I commend the work of the Assistant Treasurer, and I thank you for the time in the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that the Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill are mostly technical in nature and are intended to reduce the complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase navigability and enhance clarity. Although they are only technical in nature, that doesn't mean they are any less important or require any less debate in this House. These amendments, of course, will be important for anyone who touches the system, from consumers to providers of services—in other words, all Australians. Simplicity means that all players in this system have an opportunity to fully understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the bill implement the Australian Law Reform Commission's interim report A and interim report B on the legislative frameworks for corporations and financial services regulations. The Australian Law Reform Commission's review was initiated in 2020 and formed part of the Australian government's response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The purpose of the review is to inquire into potential simplifications and rationalisations of Australia's financial services law. It is an important inquiry that is complicated, complex and necessarily thorough.</para>
<para>Interim report A was handed down in 2021. Interim report B was handed down in September 2022. Interim report A contained recommendations in relation to the reform of corporations and financial services legislation, and interim report B focused on the location of material within the legislative hierarchy, who makes regulation, and the structure and organisation of legislation. The Australian Law Reform Commission's final report is to be provided to this government in November 2023.</para>
<para>Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill will improve and simplify law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001; creating a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act; repealing redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to repealed provisions; correcting errors; and improving clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations. These are straightforward recommendations of the interim reports that are to be implemented prior to the final report due at the end of this year.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of this bill relates to certain legislative instruments that regulate the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October 2023. These amendments to the Insurance Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1991, Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973 are for the purpose of sunsetting. These legislative instruments are to ensure they are kept up to date and only remain as long as they are needed. These acts regulate the types of persons that may carry an insurance businesses, and prescribe the standards that ensure the effective and careful management of the insurance industry in order to protect consumers and policy holders. It is of course the government's responsibility to ensure that policy holders and consumers are protected so they know what they are being covered for, and that the companies providing the coverage that has been agreed to will provide that coverage if the worst happens and they need to act on the policies.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 4 of this bill are again of a technical nature and will update certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices, allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and to align with modern drafting practices, and move some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation. Sunsetting is necessary, and sunsetting clauses in any legislation, particularly in this legislation, are necessary to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date, are relevant and only remain in force as long as needed. They are part of the way that we simplify acts of parliament.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of this bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and will incorporate long-standing and accepted matters that are currently found in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC, legislation. There has been a long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers relating to updating the law for changing circumstances. This can make it difficult for regulated entities to fully understand the state of the law as it applies to them.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 will improve the clarity of the law so that regulated entities are provided with certainty, and so that consumers understand their rights and obligations. Our financial systems are better fit for purpose when everybody involved in the system understands what they should do, their rights and their expectations.</para>
<para>The sixth and final schedule of this bill relates to minor technical amendments to various laws. These amendments will ensure laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, and make minor changes that will improve administrative outcomes. It also makes amendments to remedy unintended consequences and correct technical and drafting defects.</para>
<para>These minor yet important amendments reflect the Albanese government's commitment to the ongoing maintenance of Treasury laws, to ensure that the law is operated as intended and to make it easy for all Australians and Australian entities to comply with our current laws. Schedules 1 to 6 of the bill deliver on a need to update and ensure Treasury laws are fit for purpose constantly and consistently. I note these bills were the subject of public consultation at various times since November 2022. The government has considered all submissions, and many of the submissions made are reflected in the bill before the House today.</para>
<para>The government appreciates the interest shown by everybody who made these contributions, as we want to ensure that we improve the financial system for all players and that we get the legislation right. I thank the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services for his continued work in this space. As someone who worked for the financial industry for a very long time, I know that anything that simplifies the rules for the people who work there and the people who are getting financial products is very important. So I commend the bill to the House and look forward to it passing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution on this important piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. This is about the third or fourth time I've spoken on a TLAB in my one year here in parliament. I know they're sometimes a bit dense on detail, but, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander and colleagues, I'm one of those MPs who tend to like to delve into the detail here, because what these TLABs often do is the heavy lifting of the government. They change our rules, regulations and laws so that the policy ambitions of a new government can be put through.</para>
<para>It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution, as we've heard from other members of parliament here today, because within this TLAB we have six schedules that attempt to clean up a lot of legislation and act upon recommendations from some really important organisations, and schedules 1 to 3 start with exactly that. They look to act on recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission. This is an incredibly important organisation. The Australian Law Reform Commission undertakes research and provides recommendations to reform the law on topics that have been selected by the Attorney-General of Australia. Not all of them are taken up by government, but, if we look at the history of the ALRC, 85 per cent of its reports have been either substantially or partially implemented, making the ALRC one of the most effective and influential agents for legal reform in Australia.</para>
<para>In this TLAB, what the government is doing is taking some of the ALRC's very important recommendations and putting them into law. Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill enact recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim reports A and B of its really important Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The purpose of the review was to inquire into the potential simplification and rationalisation of our financial services law. What schedules 1 to 3 of the bill intend to do is improve the navigability of and simplify the law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act and to create a single glossary of defined terms in section 9 of the Corporation Act. Importantly, the bill cleans out some of these laws. It repeals redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used, and it cross-references to repealed provisions. It also corrects errors. Believe it or not, sometimes there are a few errors in legislation and documents, so, importantly, we sometimes need to bring some correction to the parliament so that we can clean up some of the errors. It also improves clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning, so that definitions contain substantive obligations.</para>
<para>This is really dense content, but they're important parts of the working of government, and I commend schedules 1 to 3. I am encouraged by those from the other side who have spoken on this already. They, too, see the benefit in doing this spring cleaning on some of these bills and legislation, so I thank the opposition for their support of this bill.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 speaks to insurance. It seeks to make amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991 and a number of other insurance acts. Those acts are enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry. They're due to sunset on 1 October 2023. Sunsetting is the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. It's an important measure that governments of all persuasions use to make sure that instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for as long as they are needed.</para>
<para>In my short time in this place, I've seen sunsetting used for good benefit. Our policy to reduce taxes on electric vehicles—and I'll repeat that: our policies to reduce taxes on electric vehicles, which was opposed by those opposite—had a sunset clause in it on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.</para>
<para>I thought that was a good amendment by the crossbench in the other place because it recognised that plug-in hybrid vehicles were a good starting point for people to make the transition to electric vehicles. In that piece of legislation back then, sunsetting was able to acknowledge that, so that for three years people could buy plug-in hybrid vehicles—which are a mix of electric vehicles and traditional powered vehicles in one. They were able to use the sunsetting clause to acknowledge that it's important, as we transition out of fossil fuel dominated transport industries to low-emission transport, that there are provisions for those vehicles in particular to form part of our very important tax breaks to businesses and to consumers to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. Sunsetting has been used over and over by governments of all persuasions, and I fully endorse the measures that are contained within this bill in regard to sunsetting.</para>
<para>The amendments in this TLAB will help ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose. The amendments in schedule 4 are primarily technical and include updating to certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices. And don't we need that! I know, Deputy Speaker Freelander, that you follow the medical and health industry quite closely, and I know in that industry faxes are still used sometimes, aren't they?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed they are.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're still used sometimes, so we all need to update our communications practices. I'm here with my iPad, reading some very important notes so I can make this contribution on this bill, and updating our communication practices is important—</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SP EAKER: I have my fax here.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hopefully, this bill contains measures which mean we don't need to go back to the fax and we can use some modern communications practices to deal with insurance acquisitions and takeovers. Other amendments will mean that regulators can prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility, and they'll move some provisions in insurance instruments into the primary legislation.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 rationalises the ending of ASIC instruments and amends a number of acts contained in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's legislation. The long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments in schedule 5 improve clarity of the law, and they provide certainty for regulated organisation entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>I'd like to use this opportunity to call out the good work of our regulators—ASIC, APRA and the ACCC. In my role on the House Economics Committee I often get the opportunity to hold private briefings and public inquiries with them, and they do a fantastic job with limited resources. Hopefully, putting some of these amendments through will enable them to focus on their core business and provide certainty for regulated entities and consumers so they can understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 contains minor and technical amendments. These small changes amend various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure that those laws operate in accordance with the policy intent. They make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as to correct technical and drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by a number of Treasury portfolio agencies, and they are the result of consultation with affected users of the laws. These amendments made in schedule 6, even though they're very technical in nature, reflect the Albanese government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of Treasury laws to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended.</para>
<para>I'd like to call out the responsible ministers—the member for Whitlam and the Treasurer. As mentioned at the start of my speech, a lot of this content is very dense and very detailed, and it takes two very engaged ministers to be able to ensure the hard work of the Treasury law amendment bill is done.</para>
<para>I give a shout-out to them for the work that they do. Some of these technical amendments in schedule 6 were first supported by recommendations way back in 2008.</para>
<para>We know those opposite for 10 years took their eyes off the ball, particularly in the dying days of the former government, but that's not the case with the Albanese government. We've got two ministers in the Treasury portfolio who are doing a fantastic job. I commend this Treasury Laws Amendment bill to the House and I look forward to my next contribution on the following bill, Treasury Laws Amendment Bill (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. I commend earlier contributions to this debate and also look forward to the contribution of the member for Bennelong on the next bill coming up for debate.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, as part of its regulatory stewardship role—a role that we take incredibly seriously—is progressing amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill, as many speakers have said, are mostly technical and will reduce complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increasing its navigability and enhancing its clarity—all important aims. For the hard work in bringing this bill to parliament, I would also like to thank the Assistant Treasurer, his team and the incredible, hardworking public servants that have worked to identify these changes and implement these changes to reduce red tape for businesses and consumers.</para>
<para>Yesterday I spoke about the importance of expertise in the Public Service, and the comments that I made yesterday equally apply to the detailed work that goes into making sure that the recommendations from reviews are able to properly take effect in legislation such as this.</para>
<para>For some context, particularly in relation to the changes proposed in schedule 1: in September 2020 the then Attorney-General asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into the potential simplification of laws regulating Australian corporations and financial services as part of the government's response to the 2019 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The ALRC found, unsurprisingly, that the law is challenging to navigate and complex for individuals and businesses and that it needed to be simplified to ensure its intent is met. Additionally, the ALRC's interim report A focused on the use of definitions. It found that complexity could be reduced by using defined terms only where this reduces repetition and enhances readability, improving the design of definitions and using defined terms consistently throughout the corporations law.</para>
<para>The ALRC made 13 recommendations along with 24 proposals and questions for further consideration. The recommendations primarily address unnecessary complexity in the corporations and financial services law, as I said. They unfreeze the AIA, create a single glossary of terms, remove redundant definitions and make other simplifications. The ALRC review effectively called for some spring cleaning to be done to make it easier for business to operate. While it may only be winter, the government is getting on with the job of implementing these recommendations.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, schedules 1 to 3 to the bill implement recommendations that were identified by the ALRC in interim reports A and B from the ALRC review. These include unfreezing the application of the AIA to the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, creating a single glossary for all defined terms in the Corporations Act, repealing redundant definitions, addressing unclear or incorrect provisions and simplifying unnecessarily complex provisions in the law.</para>
<para>Schedules 1 to 3 will improve that navigability and simplify the law by improving clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and on definitions containing substantive obligations; by correcting errors, because, as the member for Bennelong said, despite best intentions, there are errors that do occur in our legislation and it's important to do that spring clean; and, of course, by repealing redundant definitions. The consequence of these changes in schedules 1 to 3 will facilitate a more adaptive, efficient and navigable legislative framework which ensures that the legislative intent is actually met.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 to the bill creates amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. Those acts are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are currently due to sunset on 1 October 2023, not that far away. As the member for Fraser talked about earlier, sunsetting is the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. Sunsetting is important to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force so long as they are needed.</para>
<para>The purpose of the relevant insurance acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and prescribing standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. The amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments come up to date and are actually fit for purpose when they are remade. As previous speakers have said, they are primarily technical, but they include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices—I note your important contribution, Deputy Speaker Freelander, on the relevance of fax machines still in some enterprises—to allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices. The amendments also include moving some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation. Essentially, these amendments to the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments will help to ensure, as I said, that they remain up to date and fit for purpose when they're remade. They're primarily technical in nature, but it's still critical that they be made.</para>
<para>On the changes proposed in schedule 5 and the rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments: class orders and legislative instruments that notionally amend the primary law or regulations may cause complexity in the law and undermine accessibility. This can make it difficult for entities to identify and understand the law as it applies to them. Schedule 5 to the bill moves these notional amendments into primary law and regulations to provide greater certainty and clarity of the law and make it easier for industry and consumers to navigate Treasury laws. To achieve this, schedule 5 to the bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate longstanding matters currently contained in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission legislation. Long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments in schedule 5 to the bill will improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to properly understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>As the Assistant Treasurer made clear in his second reading speech on this bill, for a long time ASIC relied on its exemption and modification powers under the enabling acts to update the law for changing circumstances. But this is a more appropriate approach, moving the operation of those legislative instruments into the primary law. This provides, as I said, greater clarity and certainty and is actually a much better approach for consumers to properly understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>Moving on to schedule 6, there is an ongoing need to make technical amendments and corrections to Treasury portfolio legislation at times, to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended. The minor and technical amendment process in this schedule is consistent with the recommendation made by the Tax Design Review Panel in 2008. This panel was appointed to examine how to reduce delays in the enactment of tax legislation and to improve the quality of tax law changes. It has since been expanded to all Treasury portfolio legislation. The panel identified a requirement that appropriate priority should be given to the ongoing care and maintenance of the taxation system. The regular minor and technical amendments process has since been expanded to cover all Treasury portfolio laws. This schedule makes minor and technical amendments to those laws to make sure that they appropriately operate in accordance with policy intent. Some minor changes are also made to improve administrative outcomes, remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by Treasury portfolio agencies and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.</para>
<para>Again, I would like to thank the Assistant Treasurer, his team and the public servants who've done so much work in this dry but important area, for all the work they have done on this legislation. This legislation again reflects the hard work that the Albanese government is prepared to do to make sure that business is easier to do here in Australia. Those opposite have often talked about the need to continue to reduce red tape in Australia and make business easier in this country. Since the election of the Albanese government, doing business in this country has continued to become easier, which was a focus of our last budget. We're progressing these amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill are mostly technical and will reduce complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase its navigability and enhance its clarity. I welcome the support of those opposite and some of the positive contributions that they have made to this debate. Again, I'd like to thank the Assistant Treasurer and the incredible hardworking public servants who have worked to identify these changes to reduce red tape for business and consumers. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The parliament is necessarily a very, very busy place to work. I think we've sat for five of the last seven weeks. It's been a particularly busy period, and we're coming to the end of that intensive sitting period. There's no doubt that, since being elected 12 months ago, the Albanese Labor government has had an extensive legislative program. We have a mandate for reform, and we haven't wasted a single day. We've been busy in this place at every opportunity and busy out of this place when we've not been sitting. Because of that scale of work that we're seeking to push along, there is the need for prioritisation in this parliament and the need for hard decisions to sometimes be made about how parliament's time is best used.</para>
<para>One of the reflections that are often made amongst colleagues on all sides, from all parties, is that we don't always get the opportunity to examine legislation and to explore its implications and the values that sit behind it. Often it is these TLAB bills that people would like to see a little bit more discussion around and a little bit more depth of discourse. For those who are tuning in from home or elsewhere to hear these contributions—schoolkids who might be on their lunchbreak or workers who are putting down their tools for smoko—it's a good opportunity. In this case, since this is a bill that has bipartisan support and is relatively non-controversial, where there is consensus that these are sensible and measured approaches to improving not just our laws but our entire ecosystem of business and governance in these places and spaces, it's appropriate that the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 be one of those that we take a little bit more time to examine.</para>
<para>I commend the parliament for its decision to go into a little more detail on this particular TLAB. I know it will satisfy many of my colleagues, particularly on the economics committee, in terms of wanting to go into a little bit more detail in regard to these sorts of bills.</para>
<para>Some of the other speakers have already spoken to these points but they are really important, particularly from a governance perspective. The first point I want to deal with is the schedule 1 to 3 amendments, those that have arisen from the Law Reform Commission recommendations. The Law Reform Commission has issued its first two interim reports, <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">nterim report </inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Interim report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> B</inline>, of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The purpose of this particular review is to explore the opportunities for simplification and rationalisation of our financial services laws—indeed, to strengthen and enhance the integrity of the legal framework we operate in. The amendments arising out of those first two interim reports are included in this bill, and they are very much aimed at improving the navigability of and simplifying those laws so that they can be more easily adhered to by businesses, consumers and others who are engaging in this place.</para>
<para>There are some very sensible approaches here, and one that is immediately understandable to anyone is the concept of creating a single glossary of all defined terms. It's not a particularly workable situation where a set of laws is relying on terminologies that may have inconsistent or, in some rare cases, conflicting meanings, depending on interpretation. The rationalisation of a single glossary for the defined terms under the Corporations Act is a very sensible approach to making these laws easier to implement and to adhere to.</para>
<para>The repealing of redundant provisions is, again, a very sensible approach to improving this legislation. There are a range of provisions that are no longer used that become redundant by virtue of a range of things—evolving markets, perhaps technology—and there are cross-references throughout the legislation to some of these provisions that are wholly redundant at this point. It is a very sensible approach to improving the navigability and the implementation of this legislation.</para>
<para>Correcting errors goes without the need for explanation. Where there are errors that have arisen, often through iterative development of legislation, there's a need to correct those. There is improving the clarity of terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations, so that, for those that are trying to interpret and indeed adhere to these laws—or, in some cases, review activities or decisions that have been made that interact with these laws—there is a greater level of clarity around that and that it is focused on an implementable set of understandings that can be both prospectively adhered to and retrospectively understood in that context.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 deals with some insurance matters. I think we've all got regard for the integrity of our insurance industries, understanding that they effectively take on a great deal of responsibility on behalf of our community. Of course, there are some significant fiduciary responsibilities associated with insurances.</para>
<para>One of those matters that this bill deals with rather comprehensively is the addressing of provisions under the law that have sunsetting dates upon them. Sunset dates are important. When it comes to the legislative process, there's a good reason to insert sunset clauses for particular provisions. One might be that they reach a natural term of life at which point the context in which their application is relevant changes, and you want that provision to lapse accordingly. The other is that many legislative provisions are understandably going to evolve over time; they should evolve with the evolving context. By inserting sunset clauses for certain provisions within legislation, we allow for the parliament to revisit these matters within that evolving context, to better understand the implications of that evolving context and to ensure that the legislation remains up to date and relevant.</para>
<para>The purpose of the relevant insurance act under this particular piece of legislation is to protect policyholders, fundamentally. We want to ensure that we have a rigorous approach to regulating the types of persons that carry on insurance business, and we want to ensure that the standards that those persons and those businesses are held to are extraordinarily high. In many cases, these businesses and these people are taking on the hard-earned money of working people, and they are promising a product that can be difficult to define at times. We know that in many cases the circumstances in which insurance claims are ultimately made can be diverse and complex. That is, in and of itself, a difficult enough context in which to have to determine the appropriateness of application. If we don't start with the right people making those determinations, it will be very, very difficult for the insurance industry to maintain the confidence of the public. Indeed, the regulatory framework in which that industry operates is critical. It's absolutely critical.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 4, as the member for Bean was saying, are primarily technical. They include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices. There was an amusing discussion earlier about the use of fax machines to communicate critical information, and, of course, that is no longer acceptable. These outdated communication methods are no longer acceptable to the community. To allow legislation to languish, in terms of its applicable context, fails to meet the expectations of the community in that regard. So we want to ensure that communication practices are practicable and reflect the expectations of the community in terms of the way the regulation deals with them.</para>
<para>We also, under schedule 4, are seeking to allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices. This is important from a flexibility perspective, and it's important in order to ensure that modern drafting practices are adhered to through these processes. Again, in many cases in the insurance space we have working people purchasing a product. There can be information asymmetry in this space. I speak from my own perspective: I find the fine print in particular insurance and other financial products very difficult to wrap my head around at times. The member for Bruce has a much larger brain than I do—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You have a lot more hair!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do have more hair, but he has a much larger brain than I do, and he finds it a much more enjoyable process, which is why he is charged with overseeing the committee that deals with public accounts and audit. He does a very good job of it, I might say, as well. But unless you work within this space, unless you're spending every day operating in it—whether it's insurance or other financial services products—it can be very challenging to understand the particulars of this. The role of regulation in this space is to ensure that the communication about both the products themselves and the detail that sits behind them can be understood to the best quality possible by the purchaser.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 is about the rationalisation of particular ASIC instruments, and it amends the Corporations Act, as well as the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, to incorporate longstanding matters that are currently contained within the ASIC legislation. There's been a long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers that address the changing circumstances that make it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. Again, this just comes back to sensibility. If it is difficult for actors to understand the laws to which they are supposed to adhere, then we cannot truly have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to. Creating or maintaining laws in this place that are impractical to adhere to is a folly business. We have a sensible approach to trying to rationalise those powers, make them clearer, make them better understood and ensure that the regulator's role is clearly defined and the industries that they are regulating can adhere to the laws accordingly. Clarity, certainty, simplification—these are simple concepts that this particularly well-thought-through TLAB seeks to address.</para>
<para>Finally, in schedule 6 there are minor and technical amendments, perhaps less dynamic than some of those other matters that I've just addressed. The reality is that, at the end of the day, there are some drier matters that need to be dealt with through these processes. Schedule 6 reflects the government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of the Treasury laws. It rectifies some of the minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended, and, importantly, as I've already discussed, it makes it easier for Australians to comply with the laws that apply to them. Again, that comes back to the issue of practicability. Our laws must be practicable for those that need to comply with them, because, if we create and maintain laws that are difficult to comply with, we can't have a reasonable expectation that people will.</para>
<para>I will conclude where I started. It is a good opportunity for us to examine, on a bipartisan basis, these important TLAB bills that we don't always have the time—we can't always get the time—to prioritise. I would like to particularly note the hard work of Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones in regard to this. A lot of his work and the work of his team goes through this parliament on a bipartisan basis. It is the core of our Treasury and taxation system, and he deserves commendation, as does his team, for the hard work that they do in this space.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr H</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ILL () (): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. I'm just checking that the member for Forde opposite wouldn't like to make a contribution, because I'd be happy to hear him.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr van Manen</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's all yours.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Alright. Is there anyone else over there who wants to make a contribution? Of course, the tradition of the chamber, the practice of the House, is that we alternate the call from one side to the other, and, as the member for Hawke so aptly said, it is important that TLABs, Treasury laws amendment bills, are the subject of considered review and debate. These bills are almost always put through the House on a bipartisan basis. Despite those opposite professing to take an interest—they consider themselves the custodians of economic law and Treasury laws—it's somewhat disappointing that the speaking list doesn't have more presence and more engagement from the members of the opposition, but nevertheless. I thank the member for Hawke for his contribution and for his kind words suggesting that I have a big brain. You know what they say about people who have big brains.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What's that?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They need very big hats! You, of course, have big hair, which is a trademark.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wouldn't dare put a hat on it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He wouldn't dare put a hat on it. The member for Macnamara was a new member in the last parliament, and he had very big hair. So he's got a bit of competition. But we discovered that this is not blow dried. This is genetic. This is just how things are.</para>
<para>Treasury laws amendment bills are some of the most exciting bills, of course, in the parliament, second only to statute law revision bills.</para>
<para>Treasury law amendment bills tend to be introduced throughout the term and often at very short notice, because one of the purposes of Treasury law amendment bills is to fix up loopholes, things that may not have been predicted, but, as a result of court cases, people have found ways around the taxation law for tax avoidance, and governments of the day have an urgent need to rush legislation in to close those loopholes.</para>
<para>I think it was a particularly welcome announcement late last year by the minister for industrial employment relations, Tony Burke, when he said that he was going to adopting the practice of Treasury law amendment bills in the workplace relations portfolio. Those opposite may be a little bit upset about this, because they've never seen a loophole used by employers to lower the pay of workers that they haven't liked. I never saw them, in their nine years in government, rush in an urgent piece of legislation to close down a loophole that employers used to cut or hold down the pay of workers. But we were inspired by the practice of these Treasury laws amendment bills, and we'll be adopting that in the coming months and years in relation to workplace relations laws.</para>
<para>With regard to the bill, schedules 1 to 3 are the product of very considered and deliberative policy processes based on the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations. They've been subject to detailed consultation, which I may get time to remark upon. I'm sure the member for Forde would appreciate being reminded of the dates of that consultation some months ago following the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations. Schedule 1 to 3 of the bill enact the recommendations remade by the ALRC in its interim report A and interim report B of its report of the legislative frameworks for the corporations and financial services regulation. Actually, I was privileged in the last term of the parliament to serve as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It's somewhat arcane, somewhat nerdy, a bit like the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which I've been assigned to for some years. But it does really important work on behalf of the parliament and also on behalf of taxpayers, citizens and the business community in keeping an eye on the corporate regulators.</para>
<para>The corporations law is horrifically complex. I think the technical term would be 'about one bazillion pages' and is full of contradictions and has a whole range of particularly strange and arcane ways in which it needs to be applied and interpreted. My partner has actually recently gone to the bar as a corporations barrister, so I wish I knew less about the corporations law! But I smile and nod along as I'm told about new and interesting features we've discovered. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill, importantly, improve the navigability and simplify this incredibly complex, voluminous legislation by creating a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act. I think the member for Ford will be pleased to know I'll probably run out of time and won't actually read the glossary to you! But I could do so if you wish; maybe we could have a special reading later on. It also unfreezes the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, so the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001; repeals redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and which cross-reference to the repealed provisions; and corrects errors. Despite all of the professional integrity that the parliamentary counsel and others used to draft, unfortunately is the case that occasionally errors creep into legislation.</para>
<para>It was actually one of the genius moves of the former government—I think they abandoned it fairly soon after they tried it, but one of their particular genius moments was when they decided they would privatise some of the work of the parliamentary counsel. Wasn't that a glorious era! They thought they'd get the big law firms that make a whole lot of money from administering the law to start drafting the law. If you think PwC was a problem, how do you reckon it would go with the big law forms actually having the pen and writing legislation? I think eventually the former government backed off from that because they found that the quality wasn't very good. Who knew that the drafting of legislation is an art in itself? But it's an art that's held in the public sector under the guidance of the parliamentary counsel. Having been a public servant many years ago, I can tell you that arguing with the parliamentary counsel is not very fun. They're very particular; they have a very particular way of doing things, but that is for good reason—tried and tested.</para>
<para>When you listen to them, generally, it leads to fewer errors in legislation, like the ones that we're correcting today.</para>
<para>The bill will improve clarity 'with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations'. In a sense, it is reducing complexity and cutting red tape. Actually, in the Federation Chamber some years ago—the place where good speeches go to die—the now Attorney-General made me a bet that I couldn't speak for 15 minutes on the Statue Law Revision Bill. I thought, 'Alright; I'm going to do this,' and I won the bet. I threatened my staff for months afterwards that I'd publish it on my social media and further distort and hurt the algorithm. I learnt an interesting thing about the former government while researching that bill. Remember Tony Abbott's cutting red tape, Deputy Speaker Goodenough? You were here for that. He was going to cut red tape; it was one of his big things. He had this weird, dodgy accounting mechanism where he was adding up all the economic value that he was creating by cutting red tape. When you delved into the detail of the Statue Law Revision Bill, you realised the whole thing was an accounting mirage. He was counting $50,000 of economic efficiency for removing semicolons. Apparently, this was going to make the legal profession and the businesses trying to comply with the law that much more efficient because they would no longer have to look at the semicolons and the superfluous and's. If you'd be interested, I could send you a <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> copy of that speech, Member for Forde—if you have a sleeping disorder of any sort or you just need to nod off to sleep.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr van Manen</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm good, thanks.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're okay? You could follow along with the glossary.</para>
<para>Schedule 4, in relation to insurance, is also important. It makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. That's the year I was born, actually. You can do the maths—I've recently had a special birthday. I called it 'my next 40th', living in denial to some degree. Those acts are the enabling acts of the legislative instruments which regulate the insurance industry, and they're due to sunset on 1 October 2023. Of course, 'sunset' doesn't mean the lights go out. I was once giving a speech in here about Julian Assange—it was sort of incongruous—and the lights literally went out. It was like the parliament had been hacked the moment that I mention Julian Assange, who the United States government should drop the charges against.</para>
<para>Sunsetting doesn't mean sundown; it means the date at which a piece of legislation is automatically repealed unless action is taken to retain it. That is an important accountability mechanism for the parliament to impose when making laws. We make a lot of laws. We like to think they're all necessary—the Senate mucks up our work at times, of course—but it is important that laws are reviewed, that they're not static. The parliament deems it appropriate to put a self-executing end to certain pieces of legislation to force public servants and ministers to consciously review them and determine whether there's an ongoing need for them. Occasionally, embarrassingly for governments of all persuasions, a sunset date is missed, but not in this instance. It is important that legislative instruments are kept up to date.</para>
<para>The purpose of the relevant insurance act is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on an insurance business—I'm sure the member for Lalor would agree that this is a very important measure—and prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. These amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose when they're remade.</para>
<para>It's not always important, but I think today it is important that we understand that the amendments to schedule 4 in the bill are primarily technical. They include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices, allowing regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices, and moving some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation. That gives them greater force. Unlike delegated legislation, which can be varied by ministers through the Governor in Council—sometimes subject to disallowance, sometimes not—measures in the primary legislation can only be changed by this parliament, with royal assent of course.</para>
<para>There have been some shocking scandals of late in the insurance industry. Putting aside the dreadfully boring technical nature of these measures—that is some of what we must do—prescribing standards to ensure the prudent management of the industry and that only fit and proper persons are able to carry on an insurance business is so important.</para>
<para>The Minister for Indigenous Affairs at the table over there would know far better than I the absolutely disgraceful, shameful scandal of the funeral insurance scam that, for so many years, was being sold in vulnerable Indigenous communities. Just ripping people off blind for insurance that was overpriced, that would never be delivered on and that they did not need.</para>
<para>My mum was always watchful of my grandpa as he aged because sometimes he would fall for a scam. We went over one day, and she really lost it at him because he'd fallen for a door-to-door carpet salesman scam. We discovered that he'd carpeted the entire house with new carpet: the kitchen and, worse, the laundry, the outhouse and the toilet. I don't think anyone should have the area around the toilet carpeted, but particularly not an ageing man living by himself. It brought up a range of issues. She was particularly watchful that he never bought funeral insurance because overwhelmingly, in my view, it's a complete scam. It never adds up; it's just not a good idea. Don't buy funeral insurance—but don't take advice from me on insurance though. Lucky we've got privilege here!</para>
<para>Finally, as I think the member for Hawke might have touched on, there's schedule 5. We didn't have a member for Hawke in the last parliament. The tradition is that after a former prime minister dies then at the following election there is a seat renamed after them or, in this case, created and named after them. Victoria gained a seat at the last election, and it was named after former prime minister Bob Hawke. My seat of Bruce is named after a former prime minister. I've never been able to solve the mystery as to why the seat was created in 1955, before former prime minister Bruce died, as an exception to the ordinary custom of waiting until the person has passed.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wishful thinking perhaps?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's not speculate! Prime minister Bruce was the only Prime Minister until John Howard who lost his seat in a general election.</para>
<para>Anyway, schedule 5, 'Rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments', amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate longstanding matters currently contained in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission legislation. This long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. And so the amendments in schedule 5 improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.</para>
<para>It's really important, as I said—and I will finish where I started—that, overall, these amendments flowed from the ALRC's work in relation to schedules 2 and 3, but they both have a mix of important policy measures such as in relation to insurance while improving the clarity and the understanding of the law for all those in the country who need to read it. And look, I apologise to the member for Forde. I haven't had time to read out the glossary of terms or to take you through the consultation that preceded the bill.</para>
<para>Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7045" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill. This is a four-schedule Treasury omnibus bill, which the coalition will be supporting. Like much of the Treasury related legislation that this government has brought forward to date, many of the changes in this bill continue the work of the former coalition government.</para>
<para>I do want to make it clear to the House though that the coalition's support for passage of this bill should not be understood as an endorsement of the current government's economic plan. The fact is that just over a month after the budget, it's quite clear that the current government 's economic plan has failed.</para>
<para>The opposition's support for the bill before the House today should not be taken as our endorsement of the actions of a government which is failing to take responsibility for high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills, to name just a few of the pressing and urgent challenges which confront our economy and which confront Australians, who are being required to deal with all of these pressures and difficulties. Sadly, this bill does not contain any practical measures to address the pressures and challenges that I have just discussed—of high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills.</para>
<para>Let me turn to the matters which this bill does address and speak of the contents of the schedules to this bill. The changes in this bill are largely technical in their nature and deal with credit facilities, with financial advice regulations, with clearing and settlement services and with the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Schedule 1 introduces new rules that would prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders made under part 7.9A of the Corporations Act, in relation to a credit facility.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 makes changes to limitations presently contained in the legislation, in relation to education requirements for new entrants into the financial advice profession and financial advisers who are registered tax agents. It removes the educational requirement for experienced financial advisers who can demonstrate that they have 10 years experience and a clean record and who have passed the financial advisers exam.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 makes a number of technical changes to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to support the operation of the First Home Super Saver Scheme so that it works more effectively first-home buyers.</para>
<para>Let me now make some more detailed comments, first in relation to schedule 2 and second in relation to schedule 4. Australia has a strong financial services sector. It's one of the bedrocks of our economy, and I think all of us in this House would agree that we want it to remain that way. Our financial services sector has performed strongly over the past decade, and it served our nation well through the financial crisis. The coalition remains committed to Australians having access to high-quality, affordable financial advice. It's for that reason that we welcome the changes made in schedule 2 of this bill.</para>
<para>When in government, we implemented a series of measures to improve consumer protections and to streamline and strengthen oversight of the financial advice sector. We support a continuation of that approach. This part of the bill will make it easier for financial advisers with good records to remain eligible to provide personal advice. The expansion of personal advice was one of the key recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Qual</inline><inline font-style="italic">ity of advice review</inline>, carried out by Michelle Levy. It is something the coalition supports in principle and it's something that has wide support within the financial advice and financial services sector. Unfortunately, the government 's response to the Levy review is a half-baked attempt at a solution, which fails to address some major challenges to improving access to financial advice for Australians. While they are overdue, the government's stream 1 reforms are welcome. However, the opposition does caution that the narrow acceptance of the medium-term agenda will leave Australians with reduced access to financial advice and will leave advisers working outside the superannuation system in the cold.</para>
<para>The government 's response to the Levy review was a key opportunity to drive better improve productivity in the economy, but, disappointingly, the government has shied away from making any genuine improvements.</para>
<para>The narrow implementation of the Levy review which the government is proceeding with risks undermining innovation in investment and product design within the financial advice sector and risks creating an unequal playing field between superannuation funds and the remainder of the financial services sector. The opposition is therefore calling on the government to adopt in principle all of the recommendations of the Levy review and to work constructively with this side of the House on the implementation of those recommendations. This would be an important deregulation measure that would deliver wins for consumers as well as stimulate innovation and investment in the financial services sector.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of this bill makes technical changes to the First Home Super Saver scheme. The First Home Super Saver scheme was an initiative of the former coalition government and is working effectively to help Australians boost their savings for the purchase of their first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation. For most people, participating in the scheme could allow them to boost their savings as a first home buyer by around 30 per cent compared to saving through a standard savings account. This was just one of a range of measures brought in by the former coalition government aimed at helping Australians get into their first home. The coalition is very strongly committed to helping more Australians achieve the dream of owning their own home.</para>
<para>I will conclude by returning to the observation I made at the start of these remarks. This bill does contain some positive measures, but it is conspicuous in its failure to address the No. 1 issue facing people right across our country: the cost-of-living crisis. Businesses and families across Australia are feeling the impact of inflation and of rising interest rates, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills. All of these are eating away at already tight household budgets. Australians are having to work more hours to make ends meet and they're having to dig into their savings to make ends meet. Our core inflation is higher than any G7 nation except for the United Kingdom. Inflation lifted from 6.3 per cent in March to an annual rate of 6.8 per cent in April. Two of our major banks are forecasting a per capita recession for Australia. Many economists are predicting that there are further rate rises to come this year.</para>
<para>This is a tough time for Australians. There are real and serious economic problems facing our nation, and facing families and businesses right across this country. Sadly, this bill does not address any of those real economic problems. That said, the modest measures within this bill are ones that the opposition supports.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's nothing that says bipartisanship like a torrent of dusty drivel from a bloke who wasted a decade as a cabinet minister in the Morrison government overseeing policy failure and being party to inaction. When it comes to addressing all such matters, finally we have had the Albanese government elected, and within 12 months we have brought forward substantive progress when it comes to these very important TLABs. The reality is that the Australian people can see through the petty political games, the shifting of responsibility and the crab-walking away from the pathetic legacy that those opposite have.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, which focuses on improving the experience of consumers across four key areas. Schedule 1 addresses the avoidance of certain product intervention orders by credit providers. Safe, well-regulated consumer markets for credit products are a core element of a strong and, importantly, inclusive economy. When properly managed and responsibly sold, credit products can assist working Australians in establishing financial security and independence, such as through a mortgage on a home.</para>
<para>However, there are too many predatory credit products that take advantage of people who are already financially vulnerable and which, in some cases, charge excessive and unreasonable fees and interest. These exorbitant fees often result in their customers being unable to pay their debts and this, sadly, often results in their customers seeking other similarly predatory credit products to pay them off. It is a cruel cycle. This debt cycle can spiral and leave consumers struggling to get out from underneath it. That is why the Albanese Labor government introduced long overdue reforms of the regulation of payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. This legislation implanted our response to the review of small amount credit contract laws conducted way back in 2016. Despite being conducted seven years ago, the former Liberal government did not adequately respond to the review through legislation. Put simply, the Liberals hung consumers are too dry, as predatory lenders were able to continue to offer dodgy credit products due to a lack of sufficient regulation.</para>
<para>The anti-avoidance provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 are aimed at reducing the risk of consumer harm from predatory lenders, who modify their business models to avoid the application of the consumer protections in the credit act and other financial services legislation. The provisions also extended to Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, product intervention orders, made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009—that is, the one we refer to as the Credit Act. The legislation before the House today builds on the Albanese Labor government's response by further tightening anti-avoidance provisions.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to this bill ensures anti-avoidance provisions also apply to ASIC product intervention orders relating to credit products that are made under the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC has identified credit products that it has said cause significant detriment and harm, especially to vulnerable consumers and has issued several product intervention orders to address this harm. These product intervention orders were made by ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001 and not the credit act, to help ensure the avoidance behaviour of predatory lenders is adequately captured by the law. But the anti-avoidance provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 do not apply to these PIOs. These changes will ensure anti-avoidance provisions apply to PIOs made under Corporations Law. This will reduce the risk of harm and limit the operation of predatory lenders who are engaged in active avoidance behaviours.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill gives recognition to the value of experience in the financial advice industry. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring Australians have access to high-quality financial advice by driving strong professional standards in this industry. While education requirements for financial advisers help in driving the standard of advice, the number of practising advisers has decreased by over 40 per cent since its introduction. Unfortunately, this includes experienced financial advisors without any history of misconduct. Clearly, the current requirements do not properly balance the desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced and skilled workforce because they fail to appropriately recognise that important professional experience.</para>
<para>This has, unfortunately, made access to financial advice so much more difficult and, consequently, put substantial downward pressure on quality standards.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to this bill ensures consumers continue to have access to high-quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry. Experienced advisers make a valuable contribution to the financial advice industry. They play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year and sharing their knowledge and experience more broadly across the industry. Importantly, consumers can still be sure of receiving high-quality advice as those experienced advisers affected by this amendment must have at least 10 years of experience, have a squeaky clean record and pass the financial advisor exam.</para>
<para>The third area of focus of this amendment is competition in the clearing and settlement of cash equities. Schedule 3 to the bill implements recommendations made by the Council of Financial Regulators to strengthen regulatory powers and facilitate competitive outcomes in the market for clearing and settlement of cash equities. The ASX group has a monopoly over these services, and these reforms will have significant benefits for businesses that compete with ASX in other parts of the cash equities market—for example, financial market operators. It will also benefit those who rely on ASX's monopoly on clearing and settlement services, such as clearing and settlement participants and share registries.</para>
<para>The facilitation of more competitive outcomes in this space can decrease costs and drive innovation by ensuring transparency around fair pricing. This is a matter very close to the hearts of both me and the member for Forde, who work very close together on the House Economics Committee and who are in the process of exploring such matters through our competition inquiry. This schedule ensures that if a competitor does emerge in the provision of cash equities clearing and settlement, ASIC will be able to ensure that competition is safe and effective. If a competitor does not emerge, rules will ensure competitive outcomes can still be achieved by allowing ASIC to make rules regarding the activities, conduct and governance of clearing and settlement facility licensees. This is intended to ensure that these services are provided on fair, reasonable, transparent and, importantly, non-discriminatory terms.</para>
<para>The reforms in this schedule will also enable ASIC to write rules relating to governance of clearing and settlement facilities, including rules related to board composition and user input to governance. This will have the additional benefit of allowing ASIC to make rules which apply to the governance of the ASX's CHESS replacement project, the delay of which has resulted in significant costs to the wider industry. Where clearing and settlement services are provided by an entity which enjoys a monopoly or significant market power, arbitration will be available to industry participants that rely on access to clearing and settlement services to resolve any disputes about the terms and conditions of their access—including, importantly, price. This is intended to be a final but efficient backstop where good-faith commercial negotiations break down. It has been largely modelled on the national access regime in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, with some changes to improve the efficiency of the arbitration process and provide timely outcomes for all parties.</para>
<para>The final area of focus of this amendment is changes to the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Say that fast a number of times!</para>
<para>Schedule 4 makes several improvements to the operation of the scheme to ensure that it works as intended for the first-home buyers who choose to make use of it. As it's currently written, the underpinning legislation is inflexible and can occasionally result in a poor user experience, including some people who have made an error in the application process having their savings unintentionally locked in superannuation until retirement. This amendment will improve the implementation of the scheme to ensure it works as intended. The amendment will also provide greater flexibility for first-time buyers using the scheme to amend or revoke their First Home Super Saver scheme applications to correct errors and help ensure their savings are released.</para>
<para>Superannuation should not be released early without care. It's a simple statement. It's one that I wish the former government had paid more attention to. However, it is clear that in these cases it is unfair to the applicants to withhold the voluntary additional contributions they made for the purpose of purchasing the first home within the scheme guidelines. This amendment will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke FHSSS applications and will allow individuals to withdraw or amend applications to the scheme prior to release. The amendment also contains transitional provisions that ensure that this flexibility is extended to applications made since 1 July 2018, as well as to users who have previously applied to have funds released under the FHSSS and have since started holding a relevant interest in real property or land. This is a fair provision that allows those who have unwittingly had these savings quarantined to get access to them. I think it is worth stressing that it is in no way a continuance of the super raiding that was encouraged by the former government and has ultimately led to the erosion of the capital base of working people in our country.</para>
<para>This bill is about implementing sensible reforms to the financial services sector, financial regulation and the implementation of government schemes. It's about ensuring that Australian consumers can enjoy a well-regulated, competitive and user-friendly financial marketplace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank for the member for Hawke for his comments. It's interesting to reflect that it's only in the last couple of years that those opposite have decided that they have some affinity with financial advisers. There have been many times over the years when I've stood in this place, those opposite having spoken very poorly of financial advisers and the professional advice that they have provided. I and the coalition support the amendments in this bill to improve the operation of the education standards, as well as the First Home Super Savers scheme, which those opposite, from memory, didn't support when they were in opposition. I find it interesting that they have now had a change of heart.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill, contains four schedules. As I noted, the coalition will be supporting this bill. Many of the changes in this bill continue the work of the former coalition government. In supporting this bill, we take the opportunity to also reflect that there are many other issues that this government is failing to address through this legislation that it has the opportunity to address if it wishes to do so.</para>
<para>Across the board, we're seeing higher inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills, to name just a few, but none of those are being addressed by those opposite. These fundamental challenges that are being faced by Australians each and every day are not being dealt with.</para>
<para>Going to the substance of the bill, schedule 1 introduces new rules to prohibit schemes that are designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders made under part 7.9A of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to a credit facility. We should always be looking to upgrade and amend our laws to deal with instances where people are looking to circumvent those laws in ways that will end up as poor outcomes for consumers and the Australian people. It is entirely proper that this be done.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia. If we can introduce competition into a sector that at the moment is controlled by one entity, we hope that we get better quality of services and, importantly, cheaper prices for those who are looking to transact on our share markets.</para>
<para>To speak to schedule 2 and schedule 4 in particular, it is important that here in Australia we have a strong financial services sector. It remains a bedrock of our economy. That is important, because it gives people confidence that our banks and our financial institutions are strong and secure. It has been remarkably strong over the past decade and has served us fairly well. Schedule 2 focuses on financial advisors. We have always said, as a coalition, that we want to see Australians have access to high-quality, affordable financial advice. There has been much regulation through this place over the past decade that has sought to deliver that for Australian consumers and those seeking financial advice. With the effluxion of time, we have seen, sadly, an erosion in the number of advisers in the advice space, and many of those older advisers have sought to retire rather than undertake the additional study and other requirements to come up to the new standards that were put in place.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of this bill, I think, makes an important change to those education requirements that reflects the experience of those advisers who have been in the industry for more than 10 years and have a clean disciplinary record. I have said in this place previously—and for those here who may not be aware, I had a previous life in the financial advice space prior to coming into this place—there are many, many professional advisers who have been in the industry for a long time. You do not spend 30 years in this industry and build a client base over that time—some advisors have had the same clients for 30 years and are now providing advice to the children and grandchildren of some of those initial clients—without providing a professional service and professional care to their clients. For a lot of time in this place we have spoken about the product advice that advisers provide, and a lot of the regulation has been built on that basis. But that fails to recognise the true value of financial advice.</para>
<para>The greatest part of professional financial advice is not necessarily the product advice; it is actually the strategic advice that is provided to clients on how to set up their affairs and arrange their affairs to maximise the value of what they have and to be able to build on that. What this bill in essence recognises, in recognising the value of that experience of those advisers who have been in the industry for more than 10 years and have a clean disciplinary record, is the value of that strategic advice and the knowledge that they have built over many years. They have seen the ups and downs in the share market. They have seen the ups and downs in the property market. They have seen the ups and downs in various other markets. They have seen the changes in regulation for superannuation and a whole bunch of other things over that time. Consequently, that knowledge is now being recognised through this change to the standards, and I fully support, as does the coalition, these changes.</para>
<para>But the other part of unfinished work, and this was a review that was commenced under the previous coalition government, is Michelle Levy's quality of advice review. We have seen the government acknowledge that they are going to implement some of the recommendations. But we on this side call on the government to implement all of the recommendations. The coalition has accepted all of those in principle. But it is interesting that the ones that the government has sought to implement will benefit superannuation funds over other financial institutions and organisations. I find it interesting that the government chose to announce the acceptance of these particular recommendations at a private invitation-only breakfast with Industry SuperFunds Australia. Yet, at the same time, we see in recent media reports that those very same super funds who were invited to that breakfast and who are now being given these additional powers to provide advice at the expense of other financial institutions are some of the very funds that are not obeying the law at this point in time.</para>
<para>The law requires, if somebody wants to withdraw their funds or roll over their funds, that rollover requests must not take more than five days. But we are seeing reports that they are taking up to 30 days. I don't see the government addressing that particular issue in this bill. In fact, they are giving superannuation funds more access to advice, yet the existing funds can't comply with the law as it sits today. I find that passing strange that those issues, where people's money, Australian's money, in their superannuation fund is not released within the timetable specified by the law.</para>
<para>In welcoming these reforms to the education standards, we would also like to see further work done on the rest of Michelle Levy's recommendations to ensure there is an even playing field right across the financial services space. These stream 1 reforms are welcome, but the narrow acceptance of the medium-term agenda will leave Australians with less access to financial advice, and advisers working outside the superannuation system will be left in the cold. The response from the Levy quality of advice review is an opportunity to drive better outcomes for Australians across retirement, wealth creation and a whole range of other personal financial matters, and there are things in that review which I think are critical to achieving that, if we are genuine about wanting to reduce the cost of financial advice. According to a recent survey by the ASX, an important reason why people are not seeking financial advice is the cost.</para>
<para>This survey says that a further 29 per cent of Australians plan to seek advice in the coming year, but a lot of them are not interested in seeing an adviser because of the cost. They are willing to pay somewhere around $1,200 for advice but a financial plan, today, is something like $3,300. The rest of the outstanding Quality of Advice Review recommendations go towards providing advisers the opportunity to reduce the cost of providing advice to Australians who wish to seek it. We call on the government to pursue the implementation of the remainder of the Quality of Advice Review recommendations, and we'll work with the government in that space.</para>
<para>Lastly, I'll touch on the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which was a scheme introduced by the former coalition government. We welcome these changes, to make it more flexible, and the grandfathering going back to 1 July 2018 to allow people who maybe weren't able to benefit from those changes to have applications reassessed.</para>
<para>But, yet again, we are not seeing in this bill, or any of the bills that are before the House at the moment, any efforts by the government to address the cost-of-living issues that are facing everyday Australians. We also call on the government to deal with those issues, because they are impacting on people's lives and on businesses. The government's own budget papers acknowledged that the employment rate will go up and economic growth will fall. The government's budget papers planned for a cash rate of 3.85 per cent and it's already 4.1 per cent. None of those economic issues facing everyday Australians are being dealt with in this bill, and, given that, it is more important than ever that Australians have the capacity to seek affordable financial advice, to be able make changes to their arrangements to deal with the issues that are facing them, which this government refuses to deal with.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is terrific to see so much interest in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. I have listened to some of the debate this morning and it was certainly good to see and listen to a number of contributions made in the House today. This is a bill that was quite recently introduced. To put it most succinctly, it's aimed at improving the integrity of consumer markets for credit products. It's also removing barriers for financial advisers—we've heard some of that this morning—and will support competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities.</para>
<para>I'll step through each of schedules 1 to 4, obviously starting with schedule 1. This is where the bill seeks to introduce:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… new rules that prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of a product intervention order (in relation to a credit facility) made under Part 7.9A of the Corporations Act.</para></quote>
<para>That sounds very technical, but the nub of this is that it will enable safe, well-regulated consumer markets for credit products.</para>
<para>They're really the core element of a strong and inclusive economy. We want to make sure there are always safe, well-regulated consumer markets. People in this House will recall the very long debates we've had over the shocking, dodgy efforts that took place in payday lending operations over the years.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased that the member for Paterson is joining me in the House today, because her electorate, like my electorate and the electorates of Hunter and Shortland, were really a little epicentre of some particularly disturbing practices that were taking place with payday lending. There was the establishment of the small machines that for all intents and purposes looked like ATMs that would suddenly pop up at the smoke shops, where people went to buy their weekly tobacco. All you needed to secure up to $2,000 out of one of these little machines was some ID to say, for example, 'Yes, I'm Sharon Claydon,' and a bank account detail. Then, bingo, $2,000 was forwarded to your account. It operated exactly like an ATM, delivering ready cash to people who were very vulnerable. Most of those people were extremely vulnerable in low-socioeconomic households.</para>
<para>One would argue that the way these machines looked and the way in which they were placed in particular suburbs and areas that we know are of high need was a deliberate preying practice on those vulnerable people, who were then wrapped up in a cycle of shocking debt. They were paying outrageous interest rates for a lousy $500 or maybe $1,500, spiralling into debt. I met people who had been rendered homeless, in fact, as a result of payday lending, and that is not a story unfamiliar to many of us on this side of the House.</para>
<para>I joined with some terrific financial counsellors in my electorate to try to expose these practices, and I do want to acknowledge the fabulous work of Mr Graham Smith, who was the head of the financial council in New South Wales but practised alongside the Samaritans, one of the Anglican community services provided to the Hunter region, working with people who found themselves in this high-interest debt spiral.</para>
<para>Whilst it's unfathomable that anyone could have defended this practice, because it was a very broken business model that relied completely on the exploitation of vulnerable people and families, it's perhaps worth reminding the House at this point that there were actual friends of payday lending in this parliament. In fact, if I recall correctly, there were members of the front bench of the former government who were absolutely leading the way when it came to defending such practices.</para>
<para>And so it was no shock, although it came at a very high cost to all the vulnerable people and families in my electorate, that the former government had received a very damning report on these practices—back in 2015 if I'm not mistaken. The then prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, sat on it and sat on it and sat on it. The report had been well received by many of the advocacy groups.</para>
<para>I recall all of the peak consumer advocacy groups at the time, like Choice, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Counselling Australia peak body, the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, the Financial Counsellors Association of New South Wales, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and the Good Shepherd microfinancing people, were absolutely united in the review process. They all made magnificent contributions to the review process. They were united in the recommendations that had come forward to government. But they were faced with a concrete wall that blocked any action from taking place.</para>
<para>I want to take this brief opportunity to acknowledge the current Speaker, albeit in his former role as the member for Oxley, who really led the charge for Labor in exposing these matters to the House, exposing the human cost that was involved in an unregulated system that was profoundly destructive for many, many people we represent. I want to pay tribute to the then member for Oxley and now Speaker of the House of Representatives for his distinguished service in exposing this dodgy, indecent practice.</para>
<para>Shamefully, the Turnbull government did not see fit to bring on those recommendations and reforms. We waited and we waited, and we kept trying to put the pressure on the government about the human cost of this inaction, only to see this ignored again under the new leadership of the current member for Cook. We saw they had no interest in bringing forward any kind of decent protections for vulnerable consumers at that time. So I am very pleased to see in schedule 1 now some further action that will see safe, well regulated frameworks. That will have great implications for those people still tempted by payday lending or required out of absolute necessity to rely on it to help them through a really tough patch. That's why this schedule is before us.</para>
<para>That's also why the Australian government introduced reforms to the regulation of payday lending and to consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. That was important work for the new government to undertake, and I'm delighted that that has seen passage. These were changes, as I've tried to map out for the House today, that were long overdue. They gave effect to our government's response to the recommendations of that 2016 review. People had to wait six years for some action. It is almost unforgivable.</para>
<para>That, of course, included laws that would prohibit avoidance behaviour. The Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 introduced those anti-avoidance provisions with respect to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's, ASIC's, product intervention orders, which were made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. This bill extends those provisions to protect intervention orders that are made under the Corporations Act 2001.</para>
<para>ASIC has made several product intervention orders under the Corporations Act 2001 targeting predatory lending products that, as I've mapped out, cause very significant consumer harm.</para>
<para>Predatory lending products have no good side. The product intervention orders, quite simply, will allow ASIC to temporarily intervene in a range of ways up to, and when necessary, banning financial products and credit products when there is significant risk of consumer detriment. That is good public policy. That is the way governments should respond. We should always be very alert to any form of risk of consumer detriment. By bringing the anti-avoidance provision into the Corporations Act, we are bringing those into line with those in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. This amendment will ensure that predatory lenders cannot respond to a product intervention order by engaging in avoidance activity that is not covered by the order in a similar kind of detriment to the consumer. We are closing a loophole that we know dodgy operators and lenders will totally exploit if left unattended to.</para>
<para>In the short time left to me, I'll briefly go to the remaining schedules in this bill. Schedule 2 is an important part of the bill before the House. It's delivering on the government's election commitment to remove the education requirements for those who are already experienced financial advisers—so people who have got 10 years experience or more and, more importantly, a clean record. If they have 10 years experience, a clean record and they have passed the financial advisers' exam, we are going to remove those educational requirements for those people. We are also making sure we're attending to some of the barriers upon entry that are facing some of those wishing to take up financial advice as a career choice in the future.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 is implementing the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, the Corporations Act and the Competition and Consumer Act to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia, and to ensure that, should competition emerge for these services, it is safe and effective. Again, this is a very sensible move.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 is also making some technical changes to the Taxation Administration Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act that will make sure that the First Home Super Saver Scheme works better for first home buyers, something that cannot be claimed at the moment. Now, at this time, first home buyers need our support more than ever. <inline font-style="italic">(Time </inline><inline font-style="italic">expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. It's great to have two TLABs to fill up our day today! I rise to make a contribution on this bill but in particular on the First Home Super Saver Scheme, the FHSSS, because this was one of the great enduring legacies of the previous government. It is an excellent policy to do all we can to help people save for a deposit for their first home.</para>
<para>Homeownership is in the DNA of all Australians. We know when we say 'the Australian dream' that we're talking about the dream of owning our own home. In fact, it's completely intertwined with the legacy of the Liberal Party; we've always been about homeownership and helping as many Australians as possible to own their own home. We see homeownership as absolutely critical to economic independence for people and families. When people buy a home, almost everyone buys a home with a mortgage. You then strive to pay off that mortgage and, from the point of owning the home, particularly when you own it without the encumbrance of a mortgage to a bank, you have got that economic independence, which completely changes the decision-making of the family budget and puts people in such a position of economic security.</para>
<para>Regrettably, at the moment, the trends are not going in the direction we would want them to when it comes to homeownership, particularly for first home buyers. Too many younger people are starting to see the dream of homeownership as being unattainable to them. There are a range of very significant policy challenges in this area, and, frankly, a lot of them are not in the control of the Commonwealth government. We know that state and local governments have the policy levers around land supply and planning and zoning and building approvals and all the red tape. And a lot of the taxes that they levy—land tax and stamp duty et cetera—are not in the control of the Commonwealth government.</para>
<para>One of the most significant ones that is in the control of the Commonwealth government is migration. Clearly, demand for dwellings is going to be driven very much by population growth, and the biggest contributor to population growth in our country has been, ever since the post Second World War era, the migration intake. We in the coalition are all for sensible and managed migration, but the housing situation in this country right now is not designed against the immigration intake that the government has projected in their budget, so homeownership is a challenge and a dream that is beyond the reach of a growing number of young Australians. We need to turn that around. We don't want to live in a country where our young people have given up the aspiration of owning a home, because, as I say, the economic independence that you get from owning a home completely transforms your economic security and your power to make decisions about your future and your family's future.</para>
<para>The First Home Super Saver Scheme, which has been in place for about five years, is a great way to give young first home owners or aspirants to first home ownership a way of saving with some tax preference within a structure that keeps the cost of that saving down for them as well. Obviously we all have superannuation anyway. The ability to contribute to that super fund beyond the compulsory employer contributions within the capped frameworks puts young people who are eligible for the scheme in a position to subsequently draw that saved amount out when they are ready to purchase their first home. Saving the deposit has been, until recently, the biggest hurdle for younger people in particular. We know that capital values of property compared to average incomes have blown out dramatically.</para>
<para>Regrettably, there's a second challenge now, which is the ever-growing interest rates and the burden of interest-rate repayments. In this debate recently, when we've talked about interest rates and referred to previous periods of time when interest rates have been much higher, that was absolutely in a period when the capital value of properties that people were aspiring to purchase as their first home had a much different relativity to their income. A few decades ago, when people talked about buying their first home, their first home was perhaps double or triple the value of their annual salary, whereas now most people are talking about something that is probably towards 10 times their salary. That dramatically changes the equation. In particular, it dramatically changes the equation to save for the deposit. As we all know and respect and understand, it's very important that a reasonable portion of the value of a home is equity, not borrowings.</para>
<para>It tends to be a figure of about 20 per cent. That is a figure that puts the banks in a position where they don't have to impose things like mortgage insurance and it gives them a high degree of confidence against the other measures that they have to take into consideration, such as serviceability of not just the current interest rate but the buffer, which we all know was increased a couple of years ago under the APRA framework.</para>
<para>Getting that 20 per cent deposit puts people in a very strong position to secure finance. A 20 per cent deposit comes after all the other costs you've got to take into account as well, such as stamp duty, conveyancing charges et cetera. Of course, when you purchase a home, you always expect to have some initial costs: moving-in costs and other purchases that might be necessary to make the home appropriate for you in your immediate future there. Getting that 20 per cent deposit on a home that might cost seven or eight times your annual salary—your pre-tax salary, I might add—is an enormous challenge, so the First Home Super Saver scheme was designed by the previous coalition government to give young people a much better chance of saving a large portion of that deposit. It has been increased to $50,000. That is the maximum you can withdraw out of your super under this scheme. That $50,000 is a very significant portion of a deposit. Of course, that can make a big difference when it comes to how people plan to try to save that deposit and access the Australian dream of purchasing their own home.</para>
<para>Within this bill there are some technical changes to the way in which the scheme operates and to the Commissioner of Taxation's powers around this scheme. The scheme is one where eligible applicants do in fact apply to their fund to say, 'I've been contributing this amount of money. That's all within the rules of the scheme. I'm now off to purchase my first home and, therefore, I'm applying to you to withdraw those funds.' There has obviously been some developed understanding of how that needs to operate in a fairer away, how that can be cleaner and how the Commissioner of Taxation can have some clearer powers around that, and we want to do everything we can to support change that means that the whole point and purpose of this scheme, which is to help people buy their first home and save that deposit, is protected for those individuals.</para>
<para>We are, indeed, seeing a concerning drift more broadly in superannuation around a whole range of policy areas and also around the way in which some super funds have been behaving with regard to people accessing their own money. Superannuation doesn't belong to the super funds; it belongs to the people who are putting that money away for their retirement. The people whose money it is are what super is about, not board fees for the union officials who serve on the funds or first-class fares to Davos conventions every year for those same directors and all the other ways in which money is being paid, particularly by the industry super funds, to all sorts of shady organisations to do we're not quite sure what. We've made some important changes and we're now seeing, finally, some important investigations into the conduct of some of these money-go-round activities. We suggest it needs to be confirmed whether or not those activities are in the best interests of the members of the super funds and them getting the maximum return on those funds invested for their own retirement. That's what super is about.</para>
<para>We're now seeing, of course, this creep of tax changes around super. There is the new doubling of tax on the earnings of super funds over $3 million not indexed. We heard in the last TLAB debate that the member for Canberra has admitted that Treasury has modelled that 10 per cent of young people today will trigger that $3 million balance. Ten per cent of people are now going to be paying double the concessional tax rate. So, instead of 15 per cent, they will be paying 30 per cent on the earnings of their funds. That's if the Treasury modelling is accurate around inflation. The fact is that this isn't indexed.</para>
<para>The reason it's growing is obviously the deteriorating value of money based on inflation, and whether or not Treasury have got this prediction right—because they haven't in the past. Inflation has been running much hotter over the last 12 months than any of the predictions and the forecasts. At best, 10 per cent of young people today will be having the tax on their super funds double.</para>
<para>When we introduced this First Home Buyer Super Scheme, it was not met with a great warmness from the then opposition and now government, so I suppose we are just grateful that in this bill they are not scrapping the scheme. The ultimate economic security you can achieve is purchasing a home as early as you can manage in your life, to pay off that home loan through your career and, when you reach retirement, to own your home outright and to have a significant amount of superannuation that allows you to support your retirement. We thank and are grateful to the people that self-fund their retirement—they take an enormous burden off government by funding their own retirement. We are grateful to them and we thank them. They should not be treated as an opportunity to ratchet up taxes on the savings they have provisioned for their retirement—quite the reverse.</para>
<para>This First Home Buyer Super Scheme allows people to progress down that path and put extra into super beyond the employer mandated contribution. That extra builds up within the fund and can be withdrawn to assist you to save your deposit for your first home, buy your first home earlier and, hopefully, pay it off earlier. When you sell that home you have got to put the proceeds back in, and then you reach retirement, hopefully, and you don't have to use the lump sum of your super to pay off the rest of your mortgage that you could not pay off because it took you much longer to buy your first home because we weren't helping you to save for your deposit. That's what we want in the coalition. We want people to buy a home, own that home, pay the mortgage off as rapidly as possible and achieve the economic independence that home ownership gives to them, while also contributing to superannuation under the framework that's in place. People can have a very happy, healthy and enjoyable retirement owning their own home and having enough superannuation to give them a very happy and comfortable retirement, which they deserve.</para>
<para>We thank superannuant, self-funded retirees. We in the coalition are here to support you, back you and stand up against any attempt to raid your savings and take that from you because that's your money. The money in super belongs to the people whose savings that is—not the super funds—and the First Home Buyer Super Scheme is a great example of using superannuation to also help people achieve the Australian dream of home ownership.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill. There are a number of things in it but I want to focus on just a couple of them. The first one I will address is the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which was introduced in 2017. What we have found is that it needs to be improved because the way it's operating now can be really clunky and can have some really unintended consequences for people who are using this as a way of saving for a deposit within their superannuation, putting in additional funds specifically with the idea of it being able to be used for their first home. Of course, people can put funds into this through either salary sacrifice or personal voluntary super contributions, but what we have found since we've come to government is that the legislation underpinning the First Home Super Saver Scheme is inflexible and can occasionally result in a very poor user experience. Some people have made an error in their application, finding that their savings are locked in superannuation until retirement, which is not what they had intended, but because of the inflexibility of the scheme. We don't want that to happen. We want to fix that problem that exists.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of the Treasury laws amendment bill that we're speaking to here provides greater flexibility for first home buyers using the scheme to amend or revoke their applications to correct errors and ensure their savings are released. These changes will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke applications and will allow individuals to undo any errors that they have unintentionally made. This is the sort of thing that we do when we come to government—we look at how things are working and we take the time to address the issues that are making things less user-friendly than they need to be. So I'm very pleased to support schedule 4 of the bill.</para>
<para>Of the other three schedules, I want to focus on schedule 2, which relates to financial advice. Across this parliament, we're all at different stages of our financial journeys. Many of us have kids at a different stage and older parents at a different stage again. I don't think any of us would doubt how important financial advice is at all the different stages of life. As demographics change, we're certainly going to see needs in different areas, but there is a real challenge. Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Corporations Act so that we can deliver on our election commitment to better recognise the experience of existing financial advisers, who have been at risk of being forced to leave the advice space. At a time when we know people need to reach out, it is important that experienced, reputable people are able to continue to provide financial advice. The bill will also address some of the limitations in the current framework for new entrants.</para>
<para>I think it's worthwhile thinking about the problem we face and how we got to where we are, which goes back to prior to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. People probably don't have it at the top of their mind that, ahead of the Hayne royal commission, the Rudd government outlawed commissions and introduced legislation requiring advisers to place client interests above their own. Of course, after winning government, the coalition tried to undo those changes, although they eventually listened to our calls for a banking royal commission, and out of that we heard some quite extraordinary things.</para>
<para>One of the things we heard in April 2018 was from the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. They revealed that 90 per cent of financial advisers who provided advice to self-managed super funds failed to comply with the 'best interests of the client' test. ASIC did some investigation and research, and that was the conclusion they came to. That is an extraordinarily high number, and it was one of the things that the royal commission focused on as it shifted to looking at the financial advice industry. It heard quite a long list of things that were not working the way we would expect them to be working—things like inappropriate advice; misconduct, including falsifying documents; and multiple cases of consumers paying ongoing fees yet failing to receive regular advice reviews. There had been quite a big blowout in the number of financial advisers—from around 18,000 in late 2009 to around 25,000 at that point in 2018, an increase of 41 per cent—and yet just 8,700 of those financial advisers had completed a degree at a bachelor level or above.</para>
<para>These were the sorts of things that we heard during the royal commission, and that led to a bunch of recommendations being made. One of those recommendations related to the need for people providing advice to have a strong academic basis and high professional standards. I note one of the comments made by Peter Kell, the deputy chair of ASIC at the time. He questioned whether you could even call the financial advice sector a profession, because he didn't feel that sufficient people had reached a sufficient standard.</para>
<para>And that's what lead to the recommendation about the need for high levels of education for people before they could call themselves financial advisers. Of course, there are many financial advisers who are working, who, because of the experience that they have, are providing highly ethical, very well-informed financial advice. The last thing we want to see is those people not able to deliver a service that their clients are very, very happy with.</para>
<para>Since 2019, we have had about 10,000 financial advisers leave the industry. That includes experienced advisers with no history of misconduct. What that has done is reduce the access to quality financial advice. We recognise that experienced advisers make a valuable contribution to the financial advice space. I have spoken to many in my electorate, in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, who are senior, qualified people, based on the experience that they've had, but they don't necessarily have a piece of paper from an institution to demonstrate that. What they do have is a strong client base who really regard their expertise in the high regard. We believe that those sorts of financial advisers play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year and sharing their knowledge and experience more broadly. So we have taken the position, as we took to the election, that there is a whole group of people who should be allowed to keep practising. The current requirements do not properly balance that desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced, skilled workforce.</para>
<para>I am very pleased that, with this schedule 4 in this piece of legislation, those advisers will be able to continue to work. The amendments allow experienced advisers, with at least 10 years of experience and a clean record, who have passed the exam, to remain in the industry without needing to complete additional education. The amendments will also facilitate entry into the industry for new entrants.</para>
<para>The bill ensures that consumers continue to have access to quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry. They do ensure that there's a pool of advisers to mentor, supervise, and upskill those newer entrants. What's really important to us is the assurance that consumers have that they will receive quality advice. The assurance is that those experienced advisers, who are affected by the amendments, must have a clean record and must pass the financial adviser exam. Together, the amendments that are contained in schedule 2 ensure that consumers have access to good-quality financial advice from experienced advisers.</para>
<para>We're really conscious that timely passage of the legislation will give experienced advisers certainty as to their future in the industry. I do recognise that they have been waiting to see how our commitment, which we took to the election, would be implemented. I thank them for hanging in there. We know some have left. We know some have chosen not to wait and have brought forward retirements. But, to those who have stayed, we do value, very much, the advice that you give. More than ever, we know that people really, really need to be able to access that advice.</para>
<para>If the legislation does not pass, or if there is some delay in the passage—and we really hope there's not—these advisers will need to complete up to eight tertiary level units before 1 January 2026 in order to keep providing financial advice. That's why it was important for this legislation to be brought before the parliament this sitting period—so that we can deliver on that commitment.</para>
<para>I want to finish by encouraging people to seek advice. I'm very fortunate to have lots of young people around me who are moving through into their 30s and thinking about homes and what they might be able to do. They often admit to me that they don't necessarily have a skills base for making those decisions. I think we need to be able to reassure young people that there are quality advisers they can speak with.</para>
<para>I should also point out that there's also the improvements to the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which might also provide an avenue—and I really urge them to get advice so they know what is the most appropriate thing for them to do. It's the same with the older people in my community. Just because you've stopped working doesn't mean that you need to stop thinking about what the financial situation you're in is. I know that I get great feedback from people who head to Centrelink and speak to the Centrelink financial guidance people there to be able to look at their situation. Whichever way you do it, my real call to action to people is to seek that advice. It's not the sort of thing that any of us really love doing, but it can really make a difference, and we hope and we know that these changes we're making will actually improve the systems that we have in place and allow really experienced advisers to keep on giving that advice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 is important. It's a bill that makes significant changes, including in the world of advice, I've been listening to the debate this morning. I listened to the contributions of the member for Bradfield and the member for Forde who gave some cautious support to elements of the bill, but they said the problem with this bill is that it doesn't address the great challenges of our time. They said it didn't address rising inflation. It doesn't address rising interest rates. It doesn't address the issues in superannuation. Well, it's fair to say that the member for Bradfield does not understand the purpose of this bill and probably doesn't understand treasury bills at all. This bill is not designed to end inflation. It is not designed to reform the Reserve Bank. It is not designed to deliver world peace. It is designed to make important changes that have been outlined by the previous speakers. Not only does the other side of this House not seem to understand this bill; they don't seem to have much understanding of the economy overall.</para>
<para>Here we are, 12 months into their period in opposition, and it's an opportune moment to have a look back on the record of the Liberals in opposition. What have been the highs and lows of their economic policy performance as an opposition over the last 12 months? Let's have a look at their record, and, for the benefit of those listening, I've helpfully put it into a list of the 10 greatest hits of the Liberals economic policy while in opposition.</para>
<para>The first of these greatest hits, of course, is their attempts to blame the inflation problem on Labor. Let's be very clear about this: inflation began on the Liberals' watch. They started it, and we are fixing it. Inflation is a serious problem. It hurts the people who can't make their budgets stretch any further the most. It hurts first home buyers. It hurts people who are struggling with high rents. It hurts people who have already experienced low wages growth over last 10 years. But what has caused prices to rise, what has lifted the CPI over the last 12 months and more has been a range of factors that began well before this government took office. In fact, the CPI rising cycle began in 2020, well before this government was elected. At that point, the level of the CPI was 114.4, and it rose 12 points from that point to 126.1 at the time of the last federal election. Then it rose a further six points to 232.6 today. As of this point in the current inflationary cycle, 12 points of the increase happened when the Liberals were in government, and six happened while Labor has been in government. You can see the math, Deputy Speaker Georganas. The CPI began rising under the Liberals. It was caused by factors that were generated under the Liberals, and most of the increase that we've seen to date occurred under the Liberals. That's the first of the greatest hits of the Liberals' economic policy in opposition—their attempt to blame Labor for rising inflation.</para>
<para>No. 2, of course, is their attempt to blame rising interest rates on Labor. They claim that the government's fiscal policy has been contributing to higher inflation and high interest rates. The answer here is clearly no. Labor's budget was remarkably prudent. Labor banked 99 per cent of its revenue increases as savings in its first budget, significantly more than the previous coalition budget of 40 per cent and more than the average of the Howard government at 30 per cent.</para>
<para>And I'm being generous here; I'm not going to refer to the savings record of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments because it was atrocious. Even the Howard government had an average saving of the significant revenue bumps that it got through the mining boom of 30 per cent, well below the level of savings that Labor has delivered.</para>
<para>In addition, this government's budget has put real spending essentially flat over the forward estimates, and, in affirming Australia's AAA credit rating, all agencies have made mention of Australia's prudent fiscal policy. Indeed, the IMF said that our budget approach 'will help support monetary policy in holding back excess demand'. On top of that, there's evidence in the data that the rate of inflation is moderating. So it takes great chutzpah to claim that this government is causing inflation and causing interest rates to rise through fiscal policy when our approach has been prudent, our spending has been restrained, and their approach left us with $1 trillion in debt.</para>
<para>That's No. 2. No. 3 of the Liberals' greatest hits on economic policy in their first 12 months of opposition was a little one but one of my favourites, and that, of course, was not knowing the price of vegemite. Everybody knows that in the last session the shadow Treasurer messed up, that he did not know the price of vegemite. Everyone saw him confuse the annual rate with the monthly rate, which is a big gaff. But it's more than a gaff; it speaks to an opposition which is seriously out of touch with the concerns of the Australian people, which actually doesn't know the real impact at the front line of inflation, which doesn't understand the impact that it has on families.</para>
<para>The fourth one, of course, is their response to Labor's economic performance, particularly Labor's budget surplus. This one has seen them do a bit of squirming, and I can see why. After 10 years of failing to deliver a fiscal surplus, it must be so painful to watch Labor deliver a fiscal surplus in its first year—to be the custodians of Menzies's bark, over there, the party of fiscal discipline, the party that likes to think as they go to bed at night that they can deliver surpluses. Well, unfortunately, not only were they not able to deliver a surplus; they had to watch the Labor government deliver a surplus in its first 12 months.</para>
<para>The fifth element of the coalition's greatest hits in economic policy in their first 12 months of opposition was their opposing of the changes to the PRRT. Not only did they not help us achieve a surplus, not only have they been complaining about fiscal settings; they've also been, somewhat contradictorily, opposing the savings measures of the government, and my favourite of all the measures that they have opposed—although it is a contested field—is the changes to the PRRT. Such is their commitment to fiscal discipline and budget repair they oppose this revenue measure which was not only supported by the government but supported by the industry. It takes a certain complexion of fiscal discipline to be wanting to hand money to industry groups that don't want you to give them that money. That's not a hallmark of fiscal prudence; that is a sign of profligacy. Indeed, the Industry Group's chief executive Samantha McCulloch said, of the changes to the PRRT:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The changes aim to get the balance right between the undeniable need for a strong gas sector to support reliable electricity and domestic manufacturing for decades to come and the need for a more sustainable national budget.</para></quote>
<para>Samantha McCulloch was happy to support these changes and felt that they got the balance right for her industry. The Liberal Party was not so happy. They wanted to give that money back. Such is their commitment to fiscal discipline, they will give you public money whether you want it or not!</para>
<para>The sixth one, of course, in the list of the greatest economic hits of the Liberals in opposition has been the employment record. Unfortunately, we're heading into further sore-point territory here. We've heard them talk about 'jobs, jobs, jobs' for decades, but the record of jobs under this government speaks for itself. Last week's data from the ABS showed that nearly 76,000 jobs were added to the economy last month. The same report showed unemployment dropping to just 3.6 per cent, which is only slightly higher than the 48-year low of 3.4 per cent, also set, I might add, by this government in October 2022.</para>
<para>The same report showed unemployment dropping to just 3.6 per cent, which is only slightly higher than the 48-year low of 3.4 per cent also set, I might add, by this government in October 2022. Unfortunately, this makes difficult reading for the Liberals and their economic policy in opposition, because despite all their criticisms, despite all their predictions at the Jobs and Skills Summit, which they failed to attend, all of their predictions of calamity and disaster coming from Labor's policies, which they have needlessly opposed, the record speaks for itself—an outstanding job creation record. In fact, it is the strongest jobs growth of any first-year government on record. It makes it difficult, I imagine, to be arguing that Labor's policies are delivering ruin and wreckage to the economy in the face of such an outstanding set of numbers. Here we have an opposition that has to make arguments in the face of the strongest employment record of any new first-year government in history and the delivery of a budget surplus that they themselves were unable to deliver in 12 months. It makes it tough going for them, and I wish I could say they had ridden through that but, unfortunately, they have not. Which brings us to No. 7.</para>
<para>The seventh greatest hit of the Liberals in opposition, which is a small one but a goodie, one for the aficionados, is for not knowing Australia is not in the G7. The shadow Treasurer keep saying that Australia has the highest inflation of the G7. Of course, not only is that not true, but somebody does need to tell the shadow Treasurer that we are not actually in the G7.</para>
<para>The eighth of the Liberals' greatest hits of economic policy in opposition is their response on superannuation. We have had a wave of misinformation on this topic. It is a good one for the Liberal Party because, again, it gives them an opportunity to fight for a group of people who nobody feel sorry for. But they have said that superannuation is not a piggy bank. The shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume, said 'Super is not a piggy bank for Labor's pet projects. It is your money, not the government's.' The member for New England backed him in. He has never seen a scare campaign he did not like. He saw an opportunity here and he said, 'Labor is decreeing that your super will elevate and broaden in its purpose,' but what he wants is for this super policy to make sure that your super looks after Labor objectives.</para>
<para>According to the ABC fact check unit, 'There is no suggestion that money will be taken out of super accounts to support the budget or that super funds will be forced to invest in specific Labor projects.' That is a big negative from the ABC fact check unit. It has not slowed those opposite down, of course. They continue to claim that Labor's policies for super will undermine it. But the question becomes: Who has actually been undermining super in Australia? The real disrespect for Australian super came in the last couple of years, when those opposite put out a press release in the height of COVID, during which they allowed a policy for people to take superannuation out of their accounts. In doing so they created a giant sucking sound underneath the Australian superannuation system that led to $36 billion being removed from super accounts and, in many cases, eradicating the entire balance of many Australian's superannuation accounts. They had so few checks and balances on it that when reviews were done they found that most of the people who took that money out were either not unemployed or many of them had not even had a reduction to their income. They created a huge open door in the superannuation system and watched as money flowed out. Of course, they did that in an attempt to stimulate the economy, in an attempt to alleviate hardship, but the policy was so ham-fisted that it did not so much alleviate hardship as transfer hardship from one point in someone's life to another point, to the point of retirement, where those people who were encouraged and enabled to withdraw their superannuation will now with retire with a far smaller superannuation account, costing them tens of thousands of dollars.</para>
<para>Let's get to No. 9, the productivity record of the opposition. Those opposite left Australia with the lowest productivity rate in decades. They delivered next to zero economic reform in the nine years they were in government yet they have the gall to come into this House and complain about the low level of productivity growth, productivity that operates and is measured with a lag. The low level of productivity today speaks uniquely to their record over the last 10 years. It is this government that is investing in infrastructure, this government that is investing in education and investing in competition changes to lift productivity.</para>
<para>Finally, No. 10, the 10th element of the greatest hits of the Liberals in opposition, the crowning glory of their 12 months on those benches, is their record on energy prices. We all have to come into this parliament, boring as it is, each question time and listen to the opposition's questions on energy prices. It's always the same question—it's a little like Groundhog Day: 'Why are energy prices going up?' This is the height of hypocrisy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43, the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Parramatta will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Birdsville Big Red Bash</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPR</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>OUD (—) (): Running through the Simpson Desert may not sound like a good time to some, but, for the thousands set to descend on Birdsville next week, it's one of the highlights of the year. Birdsville's annual Big Red Bash shot to fame again last year for being the site of a new Australian record for the biggest Nutbush dance. Four thousand and eighty-four dancers busted a move and paid homage to the late, great Tina Turner. Set against the beautiful red sands of the iconic Simpson Desert, in the western part of my electorate of Maranoa, the Big Red Bash offers something for everyone, from musical acts such as John Williamson and the Hoodoo Gurus to sand dune surfing, camel rides, the famous Bashville Drags and Fashions in the Desert.</para>
<para>While the three-day outback extravaganza may sound like it's only fun and games, the event actually raises around $75,000 a year for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It also brings millions of tourism dollars into Western Queensland communities all along the road to Birdsville and allows tourists to experience the beauty of outback Queensland for themselves. In 2020, after this country had experienced one of its worst bushfire seasons on record, the Big Red Bash made a $100,000 donation towards the recovery effort, all from a little town, Birdsville, of 110 people. I wish the organisers of this year's Big Red Bash all the best for their upcoming event and look forward to seeing all the colour that it brings to the Australian outback.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Longstaff, Dr Simon, AO</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute to a mentor and a great Australian, Dr Simon Longstaff AO, who is the Executive Director of the Ethics Centre. He is an applied philosopher who began working in Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory and has kinship ties to the Anindilyakwa people. He is a profoundly influential academic. As the businesswoman Carol Schwartz noted, 'I don't know one CEO or chairman in corporate Australia who has not worked with Simon Longstaff.' In 1991 Simon joined the Ethics Centre, a not-for-profit that is bringing ethics to the centre of people's lives, to the centre of corporate Australia and more broadly. I saw its amazing work as a member of the 15th group of the Vincent Fairfax Fellowship, a great ethical leadership program, from which I graduated in 2010. I've spoken many times in this House on the need to rebuild the ethical infrastructure in our nation, and that's something that the Albanese government is proudly doing. Day by day, week by week, month by month, we're getting after it. I still draw inspiration from the time that I spent with the Ethics Centre and thank them for their tireless work and their groundbreaking work that is showing that, if we improve the ethical infrastructure of our nation by 10 per cent, we'll see a massive improvement in our economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Page Electorate: King's Birthday Honours</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who were recognised in what was the first King's Birthday Honours list.</para>
<para>An Australian Fire Service Medal was awarded to long-time RFS worker Stephanye Holden, of Ashby. Stephanye joined the Ashby brigade in 2011, and in 2013 was appointed to the position of brigade secretary.</para>
<para>Long-serving Marine Rescue stalwart Jackie Taffs, from Wooli, received an Emergency Services Medal. Jackie joins her husband, Richard, who received an Emergency Services Medal in 2015. Both have served the Wooli community through the Volunteer Rescue Association for more than 20 years.</para>
<para>A Public Service Medal was awarded to Alstonville's Stuart Campbell, for outstanding public service in coordinating the disaster response and recovery effort following the Northern Rivers floods.</para>
<para>A Medal of the Order of Australia was given to Helen Brown, of Yamba, for service to the local Indigenous community. Lorraine Burt, of Kangaroo Creek, also received an OAM, for service to veterans and their families. Lorraine is Vice President of the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia and has been involved with the organisation for 20 years. Ronald Johnson, of Woolgoolga, also received an OAM, for his service to the community through music, and Jane Thomson, of Eltham, received an OAM for service to women in the wine industry. I congratulate and thank them all for what they do for our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ellsberg, Mr Daniel</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week we marked the death of whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. He was a person of extraordinary courage and conviction when it came to telling the truth about war. By releasing the Pentagon Papers he exposed some deeply unconscionable conduct by the government of the United States. He revealed the Vietnam War was without proper foundation and that its conduct was characterised by lies and cruelty.</para>
<para>Daniel Ellsberg was charged under the US Espionage Act of 1917, and Julian Assange has been charged under the same law although he is not a US citizen. In an interview in 2021, Daniel Ellsberg said in defence of Julian Assange:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If Assange is extradited with the help of the British, and faces prosecution in the US, then no journalist in the world is safe from life imprisonment in the US.</para></quote>
<para>In relation to the suggestion he and Julian Assange should be regarded differently, Ellsberg said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I was available for people to point to and say, we support 'good whistleblowers'. But that's just ridiculous. Whatever he's guilty of, I'm guilty of.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I identify with him totally. The notion that he's guilty of something that I, the good guy, wasn't, is just false.</para></quote>
<para>We should remember and honour Daniel Ellsberg—without question one of the good guys, a man prepared to speak the truth about immoral state sponsored violence. One of the most logical and appropriate ways to honour his courage and conviction is to push for the end of the persecution and incarceration of Julian Assange.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I met with many local government representatives from all over Australia who were gathering in Canberra for their National General Assembly. The theme was 'Our Communities, Our Future'. They're looking for new federal programs and policies, and of course funding, that will support councils to build stronger communities.</para>
<para>A common theme emerged in our meetings—the desperate paucity of community centres and gathering places, particularly in our fast-growing periurban areas. I was impressed with ideas about community wellbeing hubs, focusing on health, wellbeing, employment and education services. This really resonates in my electorate of Ryan, where we have an urgent need for community centres, particularly in Kenmore, Moggill and The Gap. While providing these vital support services, meeting places, health and social support, truly local centres also reduce the need to travel and the consequent costs, time and road congestion due to poor public transport.</para>
<para>One of the universal issues that councillors raised with me is that expenditure is hugely focused on road infrastructure, far outweighing that on social infrastructure—mad! What will expensive road infrastructure do but create more traffic? Just transferring this funding to social infrastructure would be truly transformative for these communities. I implore Labor to prioritise this. Simply build services where people actually need them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rohani, Mr Shafiq</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Shafiq Rohani is a constituent in my electorate of Adelaide. He worked as a former interpreter for the Australian defence forces in Afghanistan from 2008 through to 2012. He was one of the lucky ones able to get out and come to Australia, and he settled in my electorate.</para>
<para>He contacted me in February 2022. He was greatly concerned for the safety and wellbeing of his brother Sadiquallah and his wife and children, who were still in Afghanistan. His brother, too, was an interpreter for the Australian defence forces. He informed me that a global special humanitarian visa application was lodged for his brother and his family in August 2021. I immediately made representations to the former minister for immigration affairs in February 2022, and continued to make subsequent representations to the now minister, the Hon. Andrew Giles, who was assisted greatly in this matter of Shafiq's brother and his case, knowing he was in danger over there.</para>
<para>I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government who takes these matters seriously. I'm especially thankful to the minister, who has worked tirelessly to assist Shafiq and his family. I was extremely pleased to learn that, after advocating on behalf of Shafiq and his family, their visa was granted as of 13 June 2023. It gives me great pleasure that this person and his family will now be safe here in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I call on the Western Australian Labor government to delay the implementation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. Rammed through parliament in 2021, these laws come into effect on 1 July. The lack of consultation has caused confusion and distress. I want to be clear: this law will affect everyone—local councils, shires, businesses, farmers and homeowners.</para>
<para>Every Western Australian with more than 1,100 square metres of land will be impacted, requiring a permit for activities such as clearing trees or building a fence line. Farmers will have to gain a permit to install a new stock watering point, paying a consultant up to $160 an hour plus field and travel expenses.</para>
<para>Debbie, a farmer from WA's Mid West, is looking to invest in track yards, rehydration stations and fencing over the coming years. She's worried the costs will be crippling, saying, 'It's like they could hold us to ransom.' A petition calling for the act to be delayed attracted nearly 30,000 signatures, but WA Labor continues to ignore our concerns.</para>
<para>This issue casts serious doubt on Labor's ability to handle the Voice proposal. If they mishandle this law, how can we trust federal Labor with a risky, permanent Voice that lacks any concrete details on how it will operate? No wonder so many are rejecting Labor's Voice. It's time for WA Labor to listen to the people and postpone the implementation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act immediately.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Local Government Authority</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week saw the Australian Local Government Authority National General Assembly come to the nation's capital. With more than 500 councils coming here, I thought there were some interesting facts that came out of that. LGAs employ more than 190,000 workers across more than 400 diverse occupations. This represents nearly 10 per cent of the public sector workforce in Australia. I want to thank the Town of Gawler's mayor, Karen Redman, and CEO, Henry Inat, and also City of Playford's mayor, Glenn Docherty, and Councillors Misty Norris and Gay Smallwood-Smith for dropping past and saying hello whilst here.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Spence, we know that it's through close relationships between federal, state and local governments that we're able to deliver better outcomes for our communities. Everyone knows that in my electorate right now we're going through some significant growing pains, with a rapidly expanding population, and there is an extreme need for collaboration between all three tiers of government to deliver the services that are required by the people in our community. I look forward to working more closely with all of the councils in my electorate over the coming months and years, and thank you very much for your visit and your time last week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The hubris of overreach in Labor's Voice referendum has driven the harmonious into the discordant with cacophonous effect. I believe a referendum on recognition would succeed. Instead, Labor has overwhelmed the effectual with the improbable by reason of its pitch to the Australian people to use their democratic vote to constitutionally enshrine an undemocratic body.</para>
<para>The Voice endorses rights based on race. The Voice legislation has not been tabled, so there can be no transparency and honest appraisal of how this will work. The Voice will have power in every sector of executive government and no chance of repeal by this chamber as it sits above us, not beside us. The Voice, with its constitutional right to litigate the consultation process in the High Court, means that they might not be allowed to veto, but they can certainly make a decision void.</para>
<para>For this reason, the Voice could evolve into a parochial addendum of one-sided politics that's at odds with the decision made at a general election. Today there is pressure placed on you in a quasi-guilt form by the Prime Minister, big business and big sport. The inference is that you are somehow repugnant if you dare dissent. If the Labor Party obstinately sticks to the current path in the scrub that has become narrower, steeper and stymied with fallen timber, it may take reconciliation backwards. As Euripides said, 'He who overreaches will, in his overreaching, lose what he possesses, betray what he has now.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bennelong Electorate: Cork &amp; Fork</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Sunday 21 May, my local community gathered to participate in one of the year's most anticipated events in Bennelong, Cork & Fork, run by the City of Ryde. Sadly, the event was cancelled due to heavy wind on the day. But I'm proud to announce that Cork & Fork will go ahead on the new date of 2 July. I'd like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Councillors Pedersen and Maggio for their unwavering dedication and tireless efforts in advocating for this event to proceed and working with organisers to reschedule the date. Their commitment to the cultural fabric of our community is truly commendable.</para>
<para>Cork & Fork is an extraordinary showcase, bringing together the finest offerings from the vineyards across New South Wales. And I won't say this too often, but even from the Hunter. The member for Hunter is here.</para>
<para>It's the only time in Bennelong, I understand, that we let people from the Hunter in, but they do a fantastic job! I encourage everyone who loves good wine, good food and distilleries, including Buffalo Vale and Thunderbolt, from my own electorate of Bennelong, to come along to this Cork & Fork celebration. It's truly a wonderful day out. There are kids rides, good food and good wine. I encourage people to come have the boutique wines, locally made spirits, craft beer, gourmet food products and bespoke creations, which the entire community enjoys. It's a really fun day out and, hopefully, the weather is a lot better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugee Week</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge and celebrate Refugee Week. For decades now Australia has offered a home to those who've lost theirs because of wars, because of disasters and because of atrocities. It is a proud legacy, one which defines us and one which is reflected in this year's theme of 'finding freedom'. This legacy has been tarnished more recently by those who've sought to exploit and politicise our refugee programs, but the essential humanity and generosity of Australians remains. I see it every day in my community in Wentworth, as I'm sure MPs from around the country see it in their communities. I see it in our community support for refugees like Said Imasi, who was held in detention for more than 13 years before being released earlier this year.</para>
<para>There's still work to be done to ensure our country's policies genuinely reflect the values of our communities and our principles, but we're making progress, though it is often difficult and hard fought. I would like to thank those who make that effort for progress, particularly my predecessor, Kerryn Phelps, who fought for the medical evacuation of refugees from detention. I would also particularly like to thank others in my community such as Heather in my office, Daniel, Monique, Alethea, Sam, Petra, Adam and Josh for their work driving that progress. Thank you to the Kaldor centre, the ASRC, the ASC, RACs and so many other groups dedicated to refugees. We should celebrate progress this week and every week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Multiple Birth Association, Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I was visited by Silje Andersen-Cooke, from the Australian Multiple Birth Association, and her adorable 18-month-old triplets Teddy, Eric and Ada. Silje's triplets are very active, so she brought them around to the office in a trolley, which is the pram version of a people-mover. In many ways, little has changed since my triplets were born 23 years ago. Multiples are often a high-risk pregnancy, so Mum is often on maternity leave weeks earlier than planned, and that comes at a cost to family finances. The additional cost doesn't stop there. You need two, three or more of everything at the same time and sometimes specialised equipment as well. There are no hand-me-downs with multiples. Prams for triplets and more are expensive and hard to come by. I also needed three cribs, cots, high chairs, capsules, car seats et cetera. Silje and I both had to change cars to fit three baby seats in along with other, older children. Thank goodness for cheaper child care coming in 10 days time. The Multiple Birth Association has produced a report on the comparative cost of multiples and looked at some of the approaches offered overseas to help families. It's available on their website and it's a really interesting read. I'd commend anyone to have a look at it.</para>
<para>Multiple births are an absolutely joyous thing. It's an exciting time in the life of a family—perhaps a little unexpected—but families do need support. If you know somebody with a multiple pregnancy, please reach out and offer your help.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In September 2020 I was proud to secure $23 million for the Rockhampton stadium, located at the Rocky Sports Club. Following a few setbacks, I'm delighted to say this project is now all systems go, with the development application submitted to council last month. Construction is to begin in the near future. A sporting venue such as the Rockhampton stadium is a game changer for Central Queensland and continues to deliver on my commitment to community and local sport.</para>
<para>The Rockhampton region has a proud history of creating some of Australia's best sportspeople, with the likes of Cameron Munster, Anna Meares, Rod Laver and Jamie Dwyer all hailing from our region. This stadium is another facility which will continue to support the next generation of sporting stars. Significant events such Beef Week will be better supported through this key piece of infrastructure as well. The 5,000-plus capacity multipurpose stadium is expected to host 10 key events each year and attract national and international events. It's estimated that during construction the project will create up to 67 full-time jobs and inject more than $44 million into the local economy. The investment into the Rockhampton stadium project builds on the coalition's commitment to better sporting infrastructure in regional Queensland and is another promise I have delivered on.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has already committed substantial funds in housing since being elected—billions of dollars. There is $10 billion still to be committed, but the Greens say, 'No, not by the hair of their chinny chin chin.' The Greens are sitting there in their little house made of straw, wondering where all their mates are. Is anyone with them? The affordable housing organisations aren't there with them—they want the Housing Australia Future Fund passed. The charities want it passed. Builders want it passed. Unions want it passed. People out in the real world under housing stress want it passed. The state governments want it passed. Everyone in every city in Australia who see homeless people on the streets want it passed. Unless the Greens read the writing on the wall in their little straw house real soon, they're going to find out at the next election that a whole lot of other people who voted Greens at the last election want it passed to.</para>
<para>I said there is no one else in the little straw house with the little pig, but that's not quite true. There's someone sitting quietly in the corner who does not look like another little pig. It looks like a little hairy wolf. The Greens are in the little straw house with the coalition. That should tell the Greens all they need to know about this bill. They are not in a safe place. Back in 2009 the Greens sacrificed the good for the perfect on climate change and they have had to wear that ever since. They are currently on the path of making history again for all the wrong reasons.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I'm at local sporting events, and visiting businesses and railway stations in my community there are three things I keep hearing about: No. 1, the economy, No. 2, the economy, and No. 3, the economy. The economic vice is tightening on Australians. More Australians are working two jobs. Every shopkeeper is dealing with closed wallets. We've long been told if you work hard and play by the rules, you'll get ahead, but not under this government—it's not true. Australians are working as hard as they can but the vice keeps tightening. Two budgets in, and the government still has no plan for inflation. Australians are working more but getting less for their efforts. Savings, the result of earlier work, are being corroded. Young people are finding it hard to save for homes. Older people are finding their savings aren't stretching as far. Families are in a financial vice, and it will tighten further as power prices increase by up to 29 per cent from 1 July and as interest rates continue to rise.</para>
<para>Already, the typical Australian family with a mortgage is $25,000 a year worse off than when this government took office. The Albanese government lacks a plan on inflation. The budget increased spending by $185 billion. The wages and spending policies of state governments are adding their own inflationary pressure, and continued RBA interest rate rises are signs it doesn't have confidence in the government's own settings. Australia needs a plan for inflation, one that gets spending under control, keeps the Public Service restrained and ensures the states play their part in reducing inflation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Queenslanders with school-age children or grandchildren know that school holidays kick-off this Friday. The Sunshine State is a huge place and many families will be hitting the roads over the holidays, visiting family or getting away for a magnificent Queensland winter holiday. What that means is more traffic and that people will be driving longer and further, often on unfamiliar roads and in unfamiliar conditions. So, please, if you're hitting the roads these holidays, follow a few simple rules.</para>
<para>Plan your drive, give yourself plenty of time to get where you're going and remove those temptations to speed. Include a stop or two along the way to stretch your legs and give your kids a chance to get out of the car. Always drive to the conditions. Luckily, Queensland is usually free from frost and icy roads—unless you're around Stanthorpe—but there might be fog, rain or localised flooding, or kangaroos or livestock on the road, so please slow down and drive to the conditions. Put your mobile phone well away—put it in the glove box or the boot, removing that temptation while you drive. Think of the fines. Think of the safety. Think of your family. Buckle up. Make sure you and all of your passengers are wearing seatbelts properly at all times, especially in the remote parts of the state. Don't drink and drive or take drugs and drive. Be aware that both of these can stay in your system long after you think they have gone. Lastly, to avoid the inevitable 'Are we there yet?' questions, make sure your kids have plenty to keep them busy on a long trip. I recommend Animal Spotto, and people in my electorate can email my office if they want an Aussie Animal Spotto tele sheet. Follow these seven tips, and let's ensure all Queenslanders return home safely these holidays.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Floods: New South Wales</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to ask those opposite a question: how would you feel if you had $1 million in the bank but you couldn't spend it? That's exactly the situation facing one of the rural councils in my electorate of Farrer.</para>
<para>Carrathool shire, in the New South Wales northern Riverina, has the cash ready to go, paid out of the joint funding agreement between the federal and state governments, to help local councils recover from the 2022 flooding events, which impacted the majority of my electorate. Indeed, this may be a problem not just for the good folk of Carrathool but for all of Farrer and up to 50 local government areas across New South Wales. The Commonwealth has paid our share through the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. This was confirmed in January of this year. The hold-up on having those funds cleared seems to sit somewhere between the New South Wales Office of Local Government and their new Reconstruction Authority, but when questions are asked, 'Why the delay?' all we get is crickets.</para>
<para>In the case of Carrathool, most of the money will be used to replace ageing stormwater gates at Hillston, preventing water from the Lachlan River backing up into the town's stormwater drains. It's been six months since the money arrived. One week from now, we'll hit the first anniversary of the flooding disaster which enveloped so much of the state. The Minns government must sort out this ridiculous red tape gridlock today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Briars Rugby Club</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a saying at Briars rugby club: 'Once a Briar, always a Briar.' I saw the truth of that when I joined them for their 100th anniversary, when 250 members and supporters came together to support this wonderful milestone. Some were still playing. Some had long since hung up their boots. What they all had in common was that they were Briars through and through.</para>
<para>Since the club started in 1923 they've gone from strength to strength, winning 18 premierships. A more recent addition to the Briars family is their women's rugby team. From the genesis of an idea five years ago, they now have two senior women's teams, and they play with heart, having recently experienced international success by winning the Plate Final at the Borneo 7s in Malaysia.</para>
<para>I got to meet Taylah Watson. Despite only picking up the game a little over a year ago, she's a future female rugby star and may be playing for Australia in the not-too-distant future. She attributes her love of the game to Briars Women's president David Lannan, coach Trent Eagle and all the wonderful women she plays with. That is what is so great about Briars Rugby Club. It's more than a sporting group; it's a family. I wish them a very happy 100th anniversary.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Motor Neurone Disease</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is Global Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Day, a day which promotes the fight against MND and recognises the lives lost to the disease in the last year. I want to thank all the colleagues who were able to make the Global MND Awareness Day event—which I've just now left—with Professor Samar Aoun, who's the new president of the MND Association in Western Australia, the WA Australian of the Year and the chair of palliative care research at the University of Western Australia.</para>
<para>MND, as we know, is a rapidly progressive neurological disease where the nerve cells that control the movement of muscles progressively weaken and die. Each week 14 people are diagnosed with MND across Australia, with many communities continuing to feel the loss of those taken by MND. Last week we saw celebrities including Eric Bana, Melbourne Cup winner Michelle Payne, and Mick Fanning take on the Big Freeze, which raises money every year for the crusade against MND. Together with my co-chair of the parliamentary friends of MND group, Senator Carol Brown, and all the members here, we will ensure as a parliament that we are committed to supporting greater research awareness and NDIS treatments and to bettering the lives of sufferers.</para>
<para>I want to pay tribute to all those diagnosed with MND this year and their carers and to the lasting work of the organisation MND Australia and all the work done to find a cure. I want to thank Phil, Janet and Melanie for the powerful stories they told parliamentarians this morning. It's inspiring to see the strength of this community. We can do better and we will do better. I thank everyone for their attendance today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Greens</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's pretty clear that we don't see eye to eye with the Greens political party on housing. You see, we've broken their business model by acting on climate. From controls on heavy emitters to fuel standards, EVs, home electrification, green hydrogen and climate diplomacy, we are getting on with it. So the Greens party have made housing their next battleground.</para>
<para>In choking supply by blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund and developments in their own electorates, they are effectively engineering this rental crisis for their own political ends. It's a masterclass in self-serving political opportunism, but the ramifications are far-reaching. Rents stay high, feeding into inflation, which hurts those very people they claim to represent.</para>
<para>But the real collateral is 122,000 homeless Australians, the women and kids fleeing domestic violence, our veterans, our First Peoples, and the key workers that our businesses and our health system desperately need.</para>
<para>We need to build more homes, and a party that stands in the way of that purpose is no friend to renters. There is a moral dissonance in the Greens political party, a mismatch between their words and their deeds, but I know that the Greens' supporters are morally tuned towards wanting a fairer society where everyone has access to a home. I say to the Greens party: for the sake of your own base and for every Australian, pass this bill. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Staley, Hon. Anthony Allan (Tony), AO</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>2023 Ashes</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today in workplaces around Australia there will be a few yawns going on, I suspect, because overnight there was quite a remarkable result in one of the greatest test matches of all time. To our captain Patrick Cummins, what a remarkable show of leadership. I think one of the best things about that 55-run partnership between Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon was the fact that that they smiled the whole way through. They enjoyed it so much it was as if there was no pressure whatsoever. Usman Khawaja, with an incredible 206 runs, also deserves credit. He is a former player for my local team, Randwick Petersham—known as the Randy Petes—and he is a great Australian.</para>
<para>Can I say to Pat Cummins, the Australian cricket captain, he is a legend and a great Australian on and off the field. We contacted him to attend the dinner that was held for Narendra Modi just a few weeks ago. Pat Cummins and Steve Waugh attended that dinner and represented their nation. Pat Cummins represents his nation on and off the field with dignity and with commitment, and we are very proud of him and the entire team today.</para>
<para>Can I also say that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak generously sent me a congratulations message. As for his team, as I said in my message back to him, they played with courage and conviction. To declare their first innings closed with a few overs to go on the evening of day 1 showed the sort of spirit and sportsmanship which their team is certainly known for. We look forward to a great series. This has been an extraordinary beginning, and we look forward to the next four tests. We wish our team all the very best, and congratulations to them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>DUTTON (—) (): I join the Prime Minister in celebrating what is a very, very proud day for our country. I don't want to get too excited just yet. It's only the first test. I've already had an exchange, like many Australians, with mates in the UK at the moment, so I don't want to go too hard too soon, but it was a remarkable test—as Jim Maxwell pointed out, I think, one for the ages. It was a remarkable event that took place out on that oval. The Bazball approach that the Brits have brought to their game really follows in the footsteps of what Australia has done for many, many years, and that has brought excitement back to the white-ball game.</para>
<para>The declaration, as the Prime Minister pointed out, set the game up for a remarkable outcome. I went to bed last night thinking it was going to be interrupted by rain and we would perhaps not see play on the fifth day. But I did wake up in the early hours of this morning and watched it until the last run was scored.</para>
<para>Prime Minister, I'm not sure—and I don't want to go into too much detail for the House!—about whether you were in bed or by the fireplace or where, but Kirilly was asleep beside me, so I had my phone on Fox on silent, so I couldn't—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I went downstairs to the TV!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You went downstairs to the TV room, for the sake of all Australians! That's good to know. I don't want to give any more detail, but I will say that what it did save me from was listening to the chants of the Barmy Army. The Barmy Army have an incredible dynamic and are a great credit to the followers. It was good to see Merv Hughes and Geoff Marsh and others in the stand with their supporters as well. It was an exciting day. For the Treasurer, for the Speaker, for myself, for the Leader of the Nationals—it's a very exciting night to come as well.</para>
<para>We commend the Australians, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon in particular, and Usman Khawaja who set the first innings alight. He did a great job. He deserved the ton that he got. He was lucky at one stage, but he's an incredible player. They are very, very proud and are, I'm sure, celebrating very hard. We're all very proud of them.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Did the minister mislead the parliament when she said: 'I can tell you what the Voice will not be giving advice on … It won't be giving advice on changing Australia Day'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Durack for her question. It is not the policy of this government to change the date of Australia Day. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have strong views on the date of Australia Day, but it is the parliament that makes those decisions. It is clear from the question that we are putting to the Australian people that the power of the parliament will not change. The Voice may give advice, but the parliament retains its primacy. The parliament will make laws. Subsection (iii) lays this out clearly, and it would do well for people to listen to this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
<para>This is not about culture wars; this is about closing the gap. This isn't about division; this is about bringing people together. This isn't about tokenism; it's about making a practical difference.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. What are people in the housing sector saying to the government about the Housing Australia Future Fund, and why has the bill failed to pass?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She was there, of course, in Melbourne on Saturday when we announced a $2 billion additional investment in social housing—new money for new homes. It comes on top of the other initiatives that we have taken.</para>
<para>But there is one initiative, the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund that will build 30,000 new social and affordable homes, which has been blocked in the Senate. It's supported by housing and homelessness organisations across the board, but the Greens political party have formed an unholy alliance with the coalition to block it in the Senate. It's a coalition of the unwilling. This is what the St Vincent de Paul Society said yesterday:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This will further delay solutions to Australia's social and affordable housing crisis, after a decade of neglect. The Society is urging the Government, Coalition, minor parties and independents to support the establishment of the HAFF as a priority …</para></quote>
<para>The coalition have never supported social housing, and they say no to everything in this parliament.</para>
<para>But, for the Greens political party, this isn't about the Australian people. This is about them. They want the issue not the outcome. They deal in protests; we focus on progress. You don't have to think that that's the case, because the member for Griffith has carefully and clearly said the quiet bit in an article that's been written in the <inline font-style="italic">Jacobin</inline> magazine. He wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this parliamentary conflict helps create the space for a broader campaign in civil society.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say this: 'We're opposing 30,000 social and affordable homes' because—and I quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.</para></quote>
<para>They're opposing it because it would demobilise people from campaigning against poverty. They want people to stay in poverty so they can have a rally against it. You can imagine. He went on even further. They want to keep people down. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While Parliament has debated the HAFF, the Greens have also launched a national door-knocking campaign targeted at Labor-held federal electorates.</para></quote>
<para>They want to knock on doors; we want to build them homes with doors. That's the difference. It's all about the campaign, not about the substance, and it is exposed by that. (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>)</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is far too much noise on my right.</para>
<para>Mr Chandler-Mather interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Griffith is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Greens</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>DUTTON (—) (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Australian Labor Party accept Greens preferences at the next election?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The House will come to order! Both members on my right and left are very exercised on this topic. There is far too much noise. It's the second question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the member for Wannon needs to listen!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really do thank the Leader of the Opposition for this question. The Leader of the Opposition, who relies upon One Nation preferences, who goes out there and defends Clive Palmer and all these far-right groups, is asking a question about where preferences go. A bit sensitive are we, Pete?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is not helping.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order on relevance. The Labor Party also accepts preferences from One Nation and Clive Palmer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. That's an abuse of the standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. The Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Often part of the coalition of cookers there in Queensland—they're all there: One Nation, Clive Palmer—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause. Order! The House will come to order.</para>
<para>Honourable members interj ecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree with the Leader of the Opposition on that point. Order! Everyone's got to settle down. I mean it. I want to hear from the member for Fisher.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister used that unparliamentary term yesterday. You asked him to withdraw that term. He should be asked to withdraw it again.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I can't hear what the Prime Minister is saying. It would assist me greatly if the House would come to order so I can hear. I cannot hear a word that he is saying. Everyone's had their fun. We've got to call the Prime Minister back to order to answer the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. During the—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Resume your seat. I didn't hear what the Prime Minister said. Resume your seat. I will make decisions if things aren't parliamentary or if members find things unparliamentary. Do you find the term that the Prime Minister used unparliamentary? I'll ask the Prime Minister to withdraw, just to keep moving.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. I note that they find it offensive that I mentioned Clive Palmer and One Nation and the association with the Queensland LNP, but they're prepared to back up Clive Palmer in court cases against Mark McGowan's government.</para>
<para>I'm asked about political parties. On the weekend, there were two party conferences. There was one in Victoria, where we were announcing $2 billion for social housing. But there was another political party conference held right here in Canberra. At the Liberal Federal Council it was a different story. They weren't talking about issues. There were no policy initiatives. It's still a policy void opposite. But there was a real treat. There was a 7½-minute video titled<inline font-style="italic"> The Peter Dutton I know</inline>. It's 7½ minutes, Mr Speaker, but I assure you it seems like longer! It seems like a full-length feature movie. What those opposite don't seem to get is that we do know this bloke. Australians do know this bloke. They know he said no to help with their power bills. They know he said no to secure jobs and better pay. They know he said no to cheaper medicine. They know he said no to jobs and manufacturing. They know he said no to the national apology and now he's saying no to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. We know that he went forward with a budget reply and still hasn't produced any costings for that budget reply. No ideas, no policies, no solutions—it's just no, no, no to everything. Australians will reject the negative approach of this negative opposition leader, who has taken the word 'opposition' a bit too literally. It is possible for you to support something constructive just once. It's been more than a year. We'll continue to wait.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How would the Albanese Labor government's Housing Australia Future Fund help tackle the country's housing challenges? What is the cost of blocking its establishment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hawke for that question. I know that he, like me, wants to see more Australians with a safe, affordable place to call home. He has also been a big supporter of our ambitious and broad housing agenda, particularly in his own electorate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What agenda!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Our housing agenda is ambitious—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. The member for Deakin is continually interjecting. He is warned. He will not interject anymore.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are investing more than $9.5 billion in housing and homelessness in just this financial year—$9.5 billion in just one year—because we are taking this so seriously. Part of our ambitious plan is the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund that will deliver 30,000 desperately needed social and affordable rental homes in the first five years of the fund.</para>
<para>It will also provide the certainty that organisations working on the front line have asked for. There in perpetuity is half a billion dollars each and every year. These groups were in Canberra this week. Indeed, they were there on Monday when the Greens moved a suspension in the Senate to block the Housing Australia Future Fund, and they were supported by the Liberal and National senators.</para>
<para>But there is a cost to this blocking, even though some have been saying there is no cost. Let me be clear: this is from the people who are on the front line. PowerHousing Australia said that the delay until October could mean approvals for 8,000 social and affordable homes would be delayed. Charles Northcote from BlueCHP said his staff had spent the last 18 months preparing 3,000 properties, to start construction as soon as the bill had passed, and 'this may not happen' now. The Master Builders said, 'The opposition and the Greens need to come to the party on this one. We need houses and our industry needs jobs to do.' That was from the Master Builders. The New South Wales Minister for Housing said, 'The work that we are doing, the work that everyone who is interested in actually delivering housing under these processes was doing, is now paused.'</para>
<para>There are very serious costs to blocking this bill in the Senate. Decisions taken by the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals are having real consequences not only for these organisations on the ground but, importantly, for the people whom they are supporting each and every day. These are people who need homes. Every day of delay past 1 July is $1.3 million that will not be spent on housing. But while they're blocking, we'll get on with building. While they're about delays, we're about delivery. And while they're about protest, we're about practical action that will help people, because we won't forget about the people on the ground.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coal Industry: Coal Quality Testing</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources. Documents I have with me contain evidence of coal quality fraud by three companies regarding Australian exports to South Korea. When I first raised this issue with you last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission initially told me it would investigate. But since then no agency has contacted me, the whistleblower involved struggled to even get a meeting with the ACCC and only TerraCom is being investigated. Minister, is your government trying to cover up these obvious coal crimes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Clark for his question. I can assure you that this government is not interested in covering up anything at all, least of all accusations such as this. I also want to thank the member for Clark for his advocacy for whistleblowers across Australia. I admire him for his strong sense of social justice and I thank him for his tireless work in protecting our nation against corruption and misinformation. My office has engaged with the member, perhaps not on the matter you are raising today but on other matters in relation to alleged misconduct in coal quality testing. I can assure the member that I do take these allegations very seriously. I will have to look into the matters that you have raised and the lack of involvement in relation to the ACCC. Of course, I will do that, and my office will undertake to do that, straightaway.</para>
<para>It is a serious matter. There are allegations of coal quality testing misconduct. They are being looked into, and we'll make sure that all of these are looked into, as they should properly be. What I would say is that anyone with information on this should go forward to the ACCC. From what the member has said, it sounds as though that has happened. They might not have had the response they needed to have. I will make sure—and I will speak with the Treasurer, of course, about undertaking to ensure—that a response, and a fulsome response, is given, because it's very serious. The export of coal is very important to this country's economy, especially to that of the eastern seaboard, and it will continue to be a provider of energy security for our trading partners, so we do need to have confidence that the testing of that coal is undertaken in a proper manner.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Clark?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wilkie</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaker, I seek leave to table the documents I referred to in my question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is leave granted?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is not granted. I don't know what the legal consequences are of tabling documents of that nature, with respect to the investigations. But I think the minister's answer directs us to the other issues that'll be dealt with.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government: Housing</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of building the homes our people and our economy need, and what is blocking further progress?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Another excellent question from the member for Aston, which gives me the opportunity to add to the answer that the housing minister gave a moment ago, as well. A defining feature of this PM and his government is to try and bring people together to address the big challenges in our economy and in our society, which have been neglected for too long. That's not because we expect some kind of unanimity around issues but because we want to draw on the best pragmatic, problem-solving and collaborative instincts of the Australian people to try and create more opportunities in more communities. That's the approach that guided the $2 billion social housing accelerator, which we announced on the weekend, which will build thousands of new homes for the people who need them the most. It's the same approach that I'll be taking to a meeting with state and territory treasurers on Friday to advance the Housing Accord, which brings together governments, investors and industry.</para>
<para>This is a really important part of our broad, ambitious housing agenda, but it's not the only part of it. As the housing minister said a moment ago, we are investing $9.5 billion in housing in this year alone, our first year in office. In just two budgets we've made room for an extra $6.9 billion to fund more social and affordable housing and the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in three decades. Not since the member for Sydney was the housing minister have we seen this kind of investment in housing. In her case, it was about $6 billion, including 21,600 new homes for social housing. I pay tribute to her for that.</para>
<para>Those investments then and these investments now show how serious we are about working with the sector and working with the states to build more homes for the people who need them in our communities, unlike the Liberals and the Nationals, who always say no to more social housing, and unlike the Greens, who said, 'Yes, but no.' They say they believe in social housing; they're just not prepared to vote for it when it really matters. They say they want more social housing, and they go into the Senate and vote against more social housing.</para>
<para>This government and our budgets aren't just defined by our Labor values. They're defined by Australian values: working together to get things done for each other, putting pragmatism and problem-solving ahead of posturing and product differentiation—not just issuing pithy press releases but running this country and our economy in the interests of the people and communities who sent us here to work for them. What the Liberals and Nationals and the Greens have shown in the last week in the Senate, in particular, is that they have no idea what that means and no idea why that matters.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Would the Voice have the power to advise the government to abolish Australia Day?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Voice will not be bothered by culture wars. It will focus on the practical differences in terms of closing the gap. As the second reading speech of the Attorney-General made clear, it will focus on matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently. The keyword there is 'differently'. The word 'differently' talks about things like the 10-year gap in life expectancy. It talks about the fact that our young people more likely to be incarcerated than to go to university.</para>
<para>It talks about infant and maternal mortality. It talks about children born at lower birth weights, higher rates of family violence, lower rates of finishing school and higher rates of unemployment and overcrowding in houses. It will not be involved in culture wars.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>MND Australia</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from MND Australia, who support people impacted by motor neurone disease. On behalf of the House and the member for Mitchell, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endangered Species</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government protecting Australia's threatened species while also easing housing pressures at the same time? Are there any obstacles to these efforts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Solomon. He is such a great local member because he's all over the environmental issues in his seat, but also supports the building of much-needed extra housing.</para>
<para>Last week I made an announcement about a housing estate in Darwin. This was a project that began a few years ago, in 2019, but recently some rare birds were found on the site—Gouldian finches. They're absolutely beautiful birds. I paused the construction on that project to make sure we could protect those birds, and that's what we've done.</para>
<para>The birds are present around a dam on the site. We've protected the dam; we've protected a 50-metre buffer around the dam. We're getting rid of the gamba grass, which is a terrible invasive species in the Northern Territory, replacing it with native grasses for the birds to nest in and feed in. We've also protected a stretch along the coast where we have migratory shorebirds. We're stopping people walking through their nesting areas, which they were previously doing. All in all, we'll add 34 hectares of nature reserve to this area, which is about 18 SCGs.</para>
<para>At the same time as protecting the birds, we'll see 800 new homes built. A new school. A new childcare centre. New community facilities. A new bike path. And I'll tell you what: in a city with a one per cent rental vacancy rate and where one in every 20 people are homeless in the Northern Territory, this much-needed housing will make a real contribution.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Any other housing projects being held up for environmental purposes? I think there's quite a few.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's interjecting again. I know it's not Gold Coast housing, but Darwin housing is important too.</para>
<para>I'll tell you who is opposed to it. The Greens political party are opposed to it—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>At least they are consistent. They're opposed to Defence housing in Darwin. They're opposed to social housing in Sydney and in Melbourne. They're opposed to a $10 billion fund to build more social housing, 30,000 new homes. It doesn't matter who the housing is for—whether it's women and children escaping domestic violence, whether it's veterans, whether it's Defence personnel, whether it's private renters, whether it's public housing—if it has four walls, a roof and a front door, they're agin it! The difference is we on this side know that we need extra housing, we need to put roofs over the heads of Australians, and we can better protect the environment at the same time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Can the minister name an issue that affects non-Indigenous Australians that does not affect Indigenous Australians?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. I couldn't hear the question and I just want to make sure it's in order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is: can the minister name an issue that affects non-Indigenous Australians that does not affect Indigenous Australians.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, there is no reference in the question to the responsibilities of the minister. Not one. It's not like a rephrasing or anything. It is simply not there, there's no attempt to be there.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It would assist the House if the question could reflect on a policy. 'An issue' is so broad. I'm going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With respect, I don't think there can be any doubt that this question refers to the Voice, which is the subject that this parliament has been engaged with over repeated days. We have heard this minister assert this point on a number of occasions.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question didn't contain the words 'the Voice'—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! We can find a way through this. I will hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With respect to what the Manager of Opposition Business just said: questions are in order or out of order based on the words of the question, not based on the vibe in the mind of the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting. Members on my left will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for industry is not helping.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for industry will cease interjecting immediately. The Leader of the Opposition?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to make a contribution, following on from the Leader of the House's contribution. I presume, surely, that you're in a position to rule this question in order. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about the question being in order. It is within the scope of the minister's portfolio, with or without reference to the Voice, and it cannot be ruled out of order on any basis relating to the wording of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was regarding an issue that affects non-Indigenous Australians that does not affect Indigenous Australians. I'm going to allow the question, but it is, by any definition, a very broad question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Scrymgour</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Zoe thinks it's funny!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lingiari is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I have said already, the Voice will not be required to make a representation on every law, policy and program. The Attorney-General made clear that 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people' means matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or matters which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently. Just look at the bottom score of every rung of every social ladder in this country, and you might figure that out.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for skills will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Strategic Review</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on the Defence Strategic Review for northern Australia and cleaning up the mess of the last decade left by the former government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his ongoing interest in the defence of Australia.</para>
<para>Today, there are almost 2,000 US marines in Darwin operating alongside our troops as part of the 12th marine rotation, which commenced with a decision of the Gillard government back in 2011. This activity represents an increased focus on the part of our Defence Force on our nation's north, as does the $3.8 billion commitment over the next four years by the Albanese government to increase the utility of our northern bases for our Defence Force. This represents one of the six key priorities the government is focused on in response to the Defence Strategic Review, and it comes after a decade of inaction from the former government when it came to our northern bases. It was the 2012 force posture review which said how important our northern bases are to our nation's defence—and this was reaffirmed in the <inline font-style="italic">2013</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Defence white paper</inline>.</para>
<para>But, in the decade which ensued, when those opposite were governing our country, the Defence Strategic Review found that precious little was done to increase the capability of our northern bases.</para>
<para>But the failure of those opposite to act on our northern bases really shouldn't come as much of a surprise, because the Defence Strategic Review also found that the former coalition government effectively cut billions of dollars from the Defence budget. In their last five years in government, there were $20 billion worth of effective Defence cuts, including billions of dollars stripped out of our Defence Force through a single strategic reserve adjustment.</para>
<para>The former government's effective cuts to Defence, their failure to invest in our northern bases, and the capability gap that they opened up in respect of our submarines as a result of a decade of indecision, together represent a monumental failure on their part in respect of the defence of the Australian people. That could not have come at a worse time for our country, as Australia faces the most complex and threatening strategic circumstances that we've had since the end of the Second World War.</para>
<para>All of that is now changing. Under the Albanese government, we are bringing the defence budget back into order. We are focusing our resources where Defence needs them the most, based on a new posture which includes focusing on our northern bases. These are serious decisions being made by a serious government committed to keeping Australians safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The Voice referendum working group member and Yes 23 director Thomas Mayo has stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we keep going, we maintain this momentum, until we change the system, until we tear down the institutions …</para></quote>
<para>On what basis did the minister appoint Mr Mayo to the referendum working group?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a responsibility, and that responsibility is what I say.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Industry and Science</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government changing previous approaches to revitalise manufacturing, sharpen Australia's technology edge and deliver skilled, high-paid jobs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Adelaide for that question. He knows ours is a government that wants to deliver A Future Made in Australia. Our people possess, in spades, the know-how to get stuff done in tough circumstances, and they can show the rest of the world how to get that done too. I was reminded of that potential this week, meeting the cohort of students that are off to compete in the International Science Olympiad and others who are about to get involved or have been involved in the National Youth STEM Summit, as well as the first ever intake of Indigenous science graduates at the CSIRO, who the member for Canberra and I visited today at Black Mountain. These recent graduates are going to be researchers, scientists, skilled workers and future industry leaders. We can put that enormous talent to work if we rebuild manufacturing and open up economic opportunity through the things we are doing as a government today.</para>
<para>We know there is a lot to do. We're not wasting any time in revitalising Australian manufacturing and sharpening the nation's technology edge. That's why setting up the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund matters. That's why the $392 million Industry Growth Program announced in the budget matters. That's why putting together plans for tech like the National Quantum Strategy to drive future growth and support industry matter. That's why making headway towards our goal of 1.2 million Australians in tech related jobs matters. That's also why refreshing our national science priorities to help guide our scientists and researchers matters.</para>
<para>We've mined and farmed our way to a lot of money, but the next chapter in future growth is going to focus on the value-add. It's about us doing more with what we've got and doing more of it onshore.</para>
<para>What we're not about is chasing manufacturers out of the country like that mob did—driving out jobs and pressuring communities. It's not about suddenly putting together a manufacturing grants program that gets spent in the weeks leading into an election like the Liberal and National parties did.</para>
<para>You would think, Speaker, that after a decade of chaos and neglect they would have learned their lessons, but the Liberal and National parties have not. Look at their track record in opposition.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Liberal and National parties refused to back the National Reconstruction Fund to help manufacturers. They refused to back-in lower energy prices to help manufactures. They refused to back better wages for low-paid blue-collar workers. The only time the Liberal or National parties ever want to talk about manufacturing is if there is a TV camera present or a lame social media meme to be made. We deserve better than that, and that is what the government is absolutely delivering.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities: Fees</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. You and I, and many others in this place, benefited from free university before fees were introduced by the Hawke Labor government. Last night the University of Melbourne Vice Chancellor called for first degrees to be free, something the Greens have also been calling for. Will you commit to making university free or is Labor content with students continuing to accumulate massive rising debts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, we don't support that, because what that would mean is that fewer people go to university, not more. In fact, that would mean that just a lucky few would end up going to university, and the sort of people that would miss out would be people from poorer backgrounds, people from the bush and more Indigenous Australians. Kermit the Frog was wrong: it is easy being Green because you can promise the world and you don't have to deliver anything. You can pretend that you care about homelessness but you're going to vote against putting a roof over their heads. Here on this side of the parliament we want more homeless people to have a roof over their heads and we want more Australians to get the chance to go to university. That's what the accord will be all about.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Apprenticeships</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for skills and training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting apprentices and encouraging more women into trades?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. It wasn't long ago that we were at Melbourne Polytechnic meeting apprentices and teachers and talking about the skills that we need to deliver to the economy and to nationbuilding projects. It's absolutely critical. While the Albanese government is investing record dollars in apprenticeships, there's no doubt we need to make sure that there are not just enrolments but also completions. The problem is we see too few completions. In fact, there has been a decline in trade apprenticeships being completed over the last decade. In 2012, 57,000 trade apprenticeships were completed. In 2021, it had fallen by more than 20,000. Over that decade we saw a decline in trade apprenticeships. So too was the failure to ensure greater participation of women in traditional trades. When we compare ourselves to countries that we often compare ourselves, eight per cent is a very low number for women in traditional trades. We must do much better than that.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has introduced the Australian Skills Guarantee that ensures that on Commonwealth-funded projects we have at least one in every 10 workers being an apprentice. We've also now set goals to double the proportion of women in Commonwealth-funded projects as well—that's projects over $10 million—because we need to see a greater level of participation. Even though there are too few women in traditional trades, I recently was in the member for Cooper's electorate, with the assistant minister for health. We were at a company that employs female electrician apprentices, and we spoke to Georgia. She said to us that she was very happy to be an electrician—secure work, great pay—and she wanted to ensure women followed her. She said, 'Just back yourself.'</para>
<para>That's a fantastic sentiment: back yourself. But the Albanese government will back you too, with non-financial and financial support to ensure that women complete apprenticeships in the traditional trades. And, indeed, we will ensure it by removing cost barriers. The fee-free TAFE proposal, the initiative that we have set in train now for a year, has ensured that we have removed cost barriers for women apprentices to go into building and construction, for example, which is absolutely vital. And we continue to see more of that. Well done, Georgia, for sending that message out. What a role model she is and others are.</para>
<para>But industry must also lead. What sort of business model, in 2023, is hiving off half the working population in terms of who should be applying for certain jobs? That is not a good approach by industry. We need to ensure that women have opportunities in what have been male dominated industries.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is do the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the Voice have the power to provide advice to the government on any program within the budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. I have made the point repeatedly this week that the Voice has no power of veto, so the answer to your question is obvious. I am not sure what the opposition is missing. This is a practical and simple proposition. This is about making practical change to the lives of First Nations people in this country, and it is also about uniting this country and recognising 65,000 years of history.</para>
<para>There are 10 design principles, and that is the end of my answer</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through a voice improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and why is it important that people avoid false campaigns designed to create fear?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. Let's cut to the essence of what is within our reach. There are two things. There is constitutional recognition of the fact that we share this continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth, which has been here for 65,000 years. The form of that constitutional recognition that they have asked for through the First Nations National Constitutional Convention held at Uluru in 2017 is through a voice. The Voice will give us the best practical means that we have ever had to close the gap between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>Australians get it, because Australians value fairness above politics, Australians value solutions above games and Australians have the sense to look past the fearmongering of some. Earlier this year, the Leader of the Opposition apologised for boycotting the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. Yet, what we have is a return to the same playbook. In January 2008 the Leader of the Opposition said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think the Australian people deserve to know the full details of the implications of this policy including the financial ones. It would beggar belief that they would be contemplating an apology that could open the government up to serious damages claims without knowing what those claims would be.</para></quote>
<para>He continued: 'At a time when there are stresses on the economy, we need to know fully the impact of all government decisions.' He predicted $10 billion in compensation claims if the apology were made. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. The apology was an important step in Australia's journey of healing and reconciliation, and I urge everyone to return to the words that came to us from the very centre of the continent and the Uluru Statement from the Heart: 'We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.'</para>
<para>I urge people to look at the words that are being put forward that make clear the primacy of the parliament. I urge people to have a look at the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, which has legal consequences, speaking about matters that affect Indigenous Australians differently. I urge people as well and I urge those opposite to listen to the words of the person that this Leader of the Opposition appointed as shadow Attorney-General:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Voice is advisory. It won't be Moses handing down the tablets from the mountain. The parliament will still be the democratic centre of our national life. The parliament will still be supreme in matters of law and policy.</para></quote>
<para>The member for Berowra continues to be a powerful advocate for the constitutional change. I say to all Australians: parliaments pass laws, but it is people that make history, and we have an opportunity to advance reconciliation in the last quarter of this year. I sincerely hope and call for Australians to vote yes. (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>)</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PM, could you confirm that house prices in Brisbane and Sydney exceed $800,000? Since only a million people live outside the 70 kilometres of the East Coast, Perth and Victoria—who'd miss Victoria!—if migration is halved, if your housing authority buys or designates 14,000 one-hectare housing blocks out at Charters Towers, Ingham, Mareeba and Atherton, and if the authority overrides what the Reserve Bank describes as insurmountable building, planning and zoning impositions, won't we get house and land packages in paradise for under $280,000?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I thank him for his ongoing interest in delivering more homes for people who live in regional Queensland. I note he will be cheering for Queensland tonight, and I note also that this is one of the three nights of the year where the member for Kennedy and I might have some differences there! I also thank the member for his support of the Housing Australia Future Fund. He's quite right. One of the things we need to have a look at is decentralisation in this country. There is enormous potential for growth in places like the paradise that the member for Kennedy has shown me around over the years, whether it's Kurri, Mount Isa—which I'll visit with the member for Kennedy in a couple of months time—Julia Creek or the other wonderful parts of the member for Kennedy's electorate.</para>
<para>I know that the member understands that, if we look at affordability, part of what we have to do is look at decentralisation and growth in regional Australia—where people are wanted, where there are jobs available, where people can live with an extraordinary quality of life in those local communities that do have that real sense of community that comes with a smaller regional town. This is why I'm happy to work with the member for Kennedy in ensuring that, when we look at where in Queensland the investment of the increased social housing funding will go, a portion of that goes to regional Queensland, including the member for Kennedy's electorate.</para>
<para>It is why we announced the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of homes on Saturday. It's why we made $575 million available for social and affordable rental homes by widening the remit of the NHFIC as one of our first acts when we came into government. It's why we're building, through the National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million homes. It's why we are delivering increased support in build-to-rent accommodation through the budget measures that the Treasurer announced on budget night, which are anticipated to build something like between 150,000 and 200,000 additional homes. The fact is that the member points towards what needs to be a part of the strategy—to take pressure off our big major cities, particularly along the East Coast, but also to have growth in parts of regional Australia that are going to be a part of powering us into the future, particularly in the member's electorate. (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>)</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Twelve months ago Australia's infrastructure investments were a mess of waste, rorts and broken promises. How has the Albanese Labor government cleaned up the mess and delivered on its commitments, and what more is left to do?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders are very clear as to the matters about which a minister can be asked. Speakers in the past have ruled questions in whole or in part out of order where the text refers to things that happened, in this case, before the minister became the minister, and I ask that you do that for this question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I want to hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The part that the Manager of Opposition Business is objecting to is the part that sets the context of the question. I don't think it is in the opposition's interest to be taking out the concept that you can set the context of a question given that almost all their questions do that. The question itself asks how the government has cleaned up the mess that was just referred to and delivered on its commitments, which is clearly the job of the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This issue was dealt with last week. I will listen to the minister carefully. This is not an excuse. The minister knows that she cannot simply give an answer regarding the former minister. She will have to set some context, but the majority of her answer, I am going to listen to carefully to make sure it is within the standing orders. I give her the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. They seem a little sensitive over on that side about these issues. I thank very much the member for Bendigo for her question. She knows how important infrastructure investment is in her electorate. It is why she is such a strong advocate for projects like the Bendigo Airport upgrade and is supporting making sure that we have strong rail manufacturing here in Australia.</para>
<para>Of course, just over 12 months ago, our government inherited an infrastructure investment portfolio that was chock-full of waste, rorts and undelivered promises. Under those opposite, Australians suffered through a wasted decade that saw many communities miss out on investments that they needed. Over the last 12 months, we have had a lot of work to do to repair the damage and put Australian infrastructure back on a sustainable footing. I'm very happy to report that that job is well underway.</para>
<para>We are getting Inland Rail back on track. The first deal for flights to operate out of Western Sydney International Airport have been secured, with the airport having a milestone recently. The Prime Minister and I visited it recently, and the airport itself is 50 per cent complete. We have created new trusted and fair grants programs for every community, from the city to the bush. We are returning Infrastructure Australia to its rightful role as the Commonwealth's infrastructure advisor. We are delivering an aviation white paper. We are partnering with Queensland to deliver the Brisbane Olympics and we are working with the states and territories to clean up the infrastructure investment pipeline. We have established the High Speed Rail Authority, focusing first on the detailed case from Newcastle to Sydney. We are investing in the Cairns marine precinct. We are building the Rocky ring road and we are getting on with projects all along the Bruce Highway.</para>
<para>We are listening to local communities and we are bringing the Australian Council of Local Governments back here to Canberra. Importantly, we are investing a further $250 million to fix our local roads. We are investing $2.2 billion in the Suburban Rail Loop East. We are creating a maritime strategic fleet and we are introducing Australia's first fuel efficiency standard. We are revitalising the Muswellbrook town centre, which will be opening very soon. We are sealing the Tanami in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory, and we are building a metro line to Western Sydney.</para>
<para>Working together, we have done an awful lot. But the thing is, with infrastructure investment, that job is never done. There is always another road to build, another rail line to upgrade, another job-creating project to invest in. Working cooperatively with states and territories with a revitalised Infrastructure Australia, we will keep investing in those projects all around the nation to deliver a better future for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister, where in the wording proposed to create a new chapter in the Constitution is the Voice restricted from offering advice to the government and the executive on any issue it chooses?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Spence is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker has asked his question. He won't interject during this answer.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Social Services and the minister for the environment are getting very close to being warned. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Barker for his question. I'm sorry that it appears that you aren't able to read the very simple instructions for what this is about. Clause 3 makes very clear—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Spence will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Spence then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the minister to withdraw. Whilst I did grow up in a household where English was not my first language, I can read.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just ask the minister if she can assist the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to assist the House and I withdraw that comment. I have said on at least five or six occasions this week what the Voice is responsible for and what the second reading speech of the Attorney-General said, particularly in relation to matters that affect Indigenous people differently. I think it is patently clear.</para>
<para>But let me say this to the member for Barker: I have been to communities that are crying out for a different way of doing things.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not what the question was.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been to communities where there are 30 people living in two-bedroom homes. I have been to communities where babies are drinking sweet cordial—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The deputy leader will cease interjecting or be warned. I can't hear the minister. If the deputy leader interjects, she will be warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been to communities where babies are drinking sweet cordial instead of water because it's cheaper. I have been to communities where you cannot get in and out, because of the road conditions. I have taken a friend, who died at 43 of end-of-life renal failure, to visit his son in jail. I have seen friends die in hospitals when they were very young because their conditions in their life when they were young were terrible.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rick Wilson</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Two dead women in the last week.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for O'Connor is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So do not tell me what I do or do not know about Aboriginal Australia, and do not tell me that the proposition that the Prime Minister has outlined is not needed in this country. I am not interested in culture wars; I am interested in closing the gap.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government's investment in communications infrastructure helping fix connectivity challenges for Australians in rural and regional communities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. He knows that, if you live in a capital city or in a region, access to fast, reliable, and affordable broadband has never been more important. That's why the Albanese government is supporting the NBN to provide thousands of Australians living in rural and regional areas access to faster, unmetered Sky Muster satellite broadband.</para>
<para>This is a game changer for regional Australia. We know that Australians have never been more data hungry, with more devices consuming more data than ever before. What this new product means is that satellite consumers can get faster downloads of up to 100 megabits per second—unmetered data, 24 hours a day. And that is a first for an NBN consumer satellite product.</para>
<para>These improved satellite services have been made possible by this government's $480 million upgrade to the fixed wireless network—upgrades that the Liberals and Nationals talked about but never actually delivered. In contrast, the Albanese government is delivering. Over 400,000 homes and businesses can now access faster internet speeds with this new satellite product, including more than 4,800 in the member for Hunter's own electorate. The honourable member for O'Connor may be pleased to know that there are almost 29,000 premises in his electorate that can benefit from that; and the member for Maranoa may be pleased to know that there are some 20,000 premises in his electorate which will enjoy those faster and more reliable internet speeds. I know that the member for Indi, who has been a passionate advocate for improved connectivity, will be pleased to learn that there are some 11,500 premises in her electorate alone that can benefit from this.</para>
<para>This product launch follows the successful trial of over 10,000 customers, who reported greater user satisfaction with higher speeds and uncapped data. It complements the commitment that we made in the October budget to deliver $1.1 billion for rural and regional communications infrastructure. Importantly, that included $656 million to improve mobile and broadband connectivity and resilience, which is so important for rural and regional areas, with $65 million to communities in need to improve their disaster readiness.</para>
<para>Our work to fix the NBN and to improve regional connectivity comes after nearly a decade of technological and economic incompetence by those opposite, whose multitechnology mix failed the regions, who promised an NBN for $29 billion. It doubled in cost and didn't deliver. This government is delivering. <inline font-style="italic">(Time</inline><inline font-style="italic"> expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanations</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Does the member claim to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister, in question time today, in quoting an article I wrote in <inline font-style="italic">Jacobin</inline>, said that the article said that 30,000 homes were being opposed. Those words do not at any point appear in the article. I would ask that the Prime Minister come back and withdraw those comments. The words you attributed to me do not appear in the article.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't do that, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to give a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the Prime Minister claim to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to the member for Griffith and the comments that he just made in parliament. I gave direct quotes from his article. There were two direct quotes from his article which went to the campaign that he's running. I'm happy to give him leave to table his article because it exposes the political nature of the opposition to 30,000 public housing units, which this member is engaged with.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Macnamara will cease interjecting. He's not in his seat. Is the member for Griffith seeking to table a document?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would love to. I don't have it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The House will come to order!</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left! The Prime Minister is seeking the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an article by Max Chandler-Mather, published in the <inline font-style="italic">Jacobin</inline> magazine, in which he says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Consequently, if the Greens were to wave through the HAFF bill, it would foreclose on the possibility of building the social and political pressure needed to force the government to take meaningful action.</para></quote>
<para>and says further:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.</para></quote>
<para>and goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While Parliament has debated the HAFF, the Greens have also launched a national door-knocking campaign targeted at Labor-held federal electorates.</para></quote>
<para>This article exposes the political motive of the Greens political party and this member in opposing public housing. It makes it very clear. I'm very happy to table every word of it, and I'd encourage people in my electorate to read this because it's an example of why you should vote Labor and never vote Green.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, respectfully, have tabled one document. I have some more. These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The urgent need for the government to accelerate action to help households transition away from fossil fuels and electrify with cheaper renewable energy.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">M</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ore than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places</inline>—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Accelerating action to help households transition away from fossil fuels and electrify with renewables is an urgent matter of public importance. This week the Australian Energy Market Operator told us what we already know: energy transition is nowhere near fast enough. We are a long way from meeting even our modest climate goals, and we are running out of time. The transition must be a whole-of-economy effect, but one source is particularly close to home: Australia's 10 million households remain dependent on inefficient fossil fuel appliances and together account for more than 40 per cent of emissions in the domestic economy. At the same time, our reliance on expensive fossil fuels means that more than one in 10 Australians are skipping meals to pay their energy bills. We've dragged our feet on household transition for too long, and Australians are paying the price. As the Grattan Institute made clear this week, and as numerous others have made clear before, all electric homes are cheaper to run, better for our health and essential to reaching net zero.</para>
<para>We should be accelerating this transition, deploying rooftop solar, household batteries, heat pumps and electric cooktops at pace. But, instead, we are making things worse. We've got the policy wrong for a decade. More households are joining the gas network each year than leaving it. That's it; more people are joining gas rather than leaving it. That's despite gas being more expensive, bad for our health and contributing to nearly a quarter of our carbon emissions. But we have just enough time to turn things around.</para>
<para>Converting our homes to all-electric will be a major logistical challenge, but because electrical appliances are more efficient and rooftop solar is so cheap, it is a $300 billion economic opportunity that's worth the effort. The funding announced in May's budget is welcome, but it must be just the start. The government should prioritise three areas.</para>
<para>First, we need to start getting off gas now. The process will take time and will take leadership. That's why today I'm calling on the federal government to work with the states to end gas connections for new homes and put in place a clear road map and time frame for ending residential gas use across Australia. The government set aside nearly $7 million of taxpayers' money in the budget to fund a future gas strategy. That strategy should define a smooth exit from household gas which includes adjusting the regulatory framework so that the network is the right size and serves the right places, managing the costs of gas exit so that these are born equitably, and producing a blueprint for market reform so that the governance of our energy sector supports an all-electric future. The community needs to get off gas, and we need to support them to do that in a measured, thoughtful way that works for Australian households and works for families' power bills but also works for climate.</para>
<para>Second, we need to deploy existing funding effectively. The $1 billion already committed to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for household electrification is welcome, but it is less than 10 per cent of the support that Rewiring Australia estimates is needed to electrify every household. With the budget constrained, private capital is absolutely crucial to this transformation. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation's $1 billion could do 10 times as much work, if not more, if it were deployed through mechanisms that leverage private markets. By providing guarantees to private sector lending rather than providing loans directly, the CEFC could support many multiples of the 110,000 households currently anticipated. This is the opportunity to move beyond 110,000 households and support literally millions of Australian families to get into cheaper household electrification. This is a model that is common practice in markets across the world. It works and delivers value for money.</para>
<para>Finally, we need a one-stop shop for electrification. We need to make sure that consumers have the information and the support to make the right decisions for transition. I am frequently told by constituents that they want to get solar, a battery or a heat pump but they just don't know where to start, particularly with complicated layers of federal, state and local incentives and regulation. Multiply that by 151 electorates and we need a significant and sustained communications campaign to electrify every Australian household. A one-stop shop should be central to this. It would be a platform that explains clearly how to electrify and how to solve problems at each stage of the process, provides a comprehensive list of government incentives, shows household solar rooftop potential and helps families estimate the financial benefits of electrification.</para>
<para>Accelerating household electrification is an urgent matter of public importance. It won't be easy, it will take time, but we can do it. Let's get on with the job.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance. I know this is an issue that the member for Wentworth is very committed to, and I note her commitment in the speech that she just gave. It is also an issue that those of us on this side of the House are incredibly passionate about. It drives many of the policies that we put in place. We put them in place because we know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. That's why we're investing in nation-building initiatives such as Rewiring the Nation and the Capacity Investment Scheme. It will futureproof our grid.</para>
<para>This is on top of the whole suite of measures that we have right across the board, from that massive investment to assisting households to enable them to take up the many benefits of renewable energy, particularly in terms of reducing their power prices. We're doing that because ours is a government that is committed to transitioning to renewable energy. We are, of course, at the same time also providing important cost-of-living relief for Australian families, because we do understand how difficult it is at the moment, particularly with power bills, and we do have our energy relief plan, which is very targeted.</para>
<para>Part of the suite of measures which we have brought in means supporting households, small businesses and community facilities to utilise renewable energy by providing them with incentives which lessen their power bills. All of these initiatives working together are so incredibly important, and the cost-of-living measures that we've introduced are vitally important at this time.</para>
<para>We have a very strong commitment to all of these measures. Particularly when we look at that in contrast to the Liberals and Nationals, it's a very big difference. We saw a decade of inaction when they were in government, and all we've seen them do in opposition is vote to make power bills higher for families and refuse to support action that will actually assist families. That's why our action in government, investing in longer term plans to get cleaner, cheaper energy to all Australians, has been vitally important, and we do that because we believe in the absolute potential of renewable energy. We know it's so important. It's also something the country voted for. People wanted to see action on climate change. They wanted to see more initiatives across the board to deliver more effective renewable energy. I would also add that, in regions like mine, this action is so important for the great economic potential and jobs growth it brings. This is an issue that we feel incredibly passionate about.</para>
<para>I'm very proud of all the action we've taken. We've legislated Australia's target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. We've supercharged the offshore wind industry and delivered the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation investment to decarbonise our grid and to take us to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. We've put a whole range of measures in place. There's also been so much other action in our recent budget. There's the $1 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to turbocharge financing options for household energy upgrades, to upgrade homes with battery-ready solar PV, modern appliances and other improvements. This will help more than 100,000 households lower their energy bills. There's the $300 million to support upgrades to social housing and the $310 million for the Small Business Energy Incentive, which supports more efficient use of energy. There's also the $100 million for the Community Energy Upgrades Fund to co-fund upgrades with local councils so they can be more energy efficient in all the wonderful services that our local councils provide. There's been an incredibly positive response from all of our councils in relation to this particular initiative. This whole suite of measures is about giving Australians a choice to take actions that will suit their homes and their businesses to reduce their energy bills. This is on top of other initiatives, like our rollout of community batteries and helping Australians buy cheaper, cleaner electric vehicles.</para>
<para>There's a whole range of measures that we've brought in since we've been in government, particularly because we know how important it is after the decade of inaction by the previous government. The Liberals and Nationals failed to take action when it came to investing in renewables and failed to take action when it came to addressing climate change. Look at their record. We saw 20 failed energy policies when they were in government. It seemed every other week they were rolling out another policy, each of which failed and had nothing in it. They've voted down every initiative we've put forward to create energy relief.</para>
<para>There has been one policy they've brought up whilst in opposition: nuclear, yet again. That's all we hear from them. Here we go! It's their only approach to energy relief. In my community and in many communities, people are completely opposed to nuclear. They've said that many times, and they're opposed to it for many reasons. One is that we know it is far too dangerous and far too expensive, yet those opposite keep rolling out this idea. They have no other plans and no other initiatives after a decade of inaction. There are many reasons why nuclear power would be bad for our country, particularly the cost. The fact is that even a small modular reactor would cost a massive $5 billion to build. They'd need at least 80 of those around Australia, so it would be incredibly expensive. I'd really like to know where the Liberal and National parties plan to put all these nuclear reactors. We know they need to be near water, which is one of the reasons communities like mine are very much opposed to nuclear. Essentially, this is the only policy we've heard from the Liberals and Nationals of late, and they have rejected all of the really proactive policies that we've put forward. I can tell you the community is opposed to nuclear, yet those opposite keep rolling out the same old idea.</para>
<para>What is so disappointing is that during the wasted decade of inaction they could've been investing in the cheapest form of energy, in renewables. They could've been doing that the entire time. Imagine how much further along we would be if we'd had that decade of investment, but they didn't do that. It's taken a Labor government to do that, and we are very proud of all the actions that we've taken. So many communities that have suffered over many years, particularly rural and regional communities, now have the opportunity to unlock their economic potential and jobs growth because of that investment.</para>
<para>Action on climate change is something we are absolutely committed to. We've made that commitment for many years and have taken it to many elections. We are following through and we're very proud we're following through on this very comprehensive set of measures in terms of our investments there—from households to councils, providing a huge investment in supercharging our renewable capacity as well as providing, at the moment, important relief for those people who are struggling with their power bills. We are delivering on that commitment because we're really focused on transforming Australia's economy to a low-carbon economy. But we know that it takes a massive investment to do that, and that is something that we are doing. We really need to make sure that our country is positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. You can see in our budget all of the commitments that we made to save Australians money on energy bills and to invest in nation building new industries.</para>
<para>And we need to be making sure that all those communities and households are getting all of the assistance that they can. I mentioned before some of those programs that will absolutely assist households, small businesses and as many in our community, through our local councils, get those really important energy upgrades. At that level it's so vitally important that we have ongoing investment. There has been a really positive response to our plans in terms of what we've announced. Many small businesses have spoken to me about it—many households as well. And, as I say, many councils are really pleased that we are doing that at that real grassroots level to assist people. You need to provide the incentives for people to do that. You have to have the commitment and provide the incentives, and we have been doing that in our budget and doing that very proudly. So there is a lot of opportunities moving forward, and a lot of people are very positive about that.</para>
<para>In addition to those targeted household rebates, which are so vitally important, providing energy bill relief, our recent budget is funding a whole range of plans to ensure that those households and communities can take advantage of the savings from smarter energy use. It's all part of ensuring the nation is absolutely ready and prepared to capitalise on this global boom in clean energy investment. As a government, we're incredibly proud of that, and I know there are many who share our commitment to this as well. We will, obviously, keep working together to that aim in terms of ensuring that we can totally embrace all the renewable energy opportunities right throughout our nation into the future.</para>
<para>It's important for our economic future. It's important in addressing climate change. It's very important in addressing our power bills as well. There are a whole range of initiatives, and they are ones that those of us in the Albanese Labor government are incredibly proud of—all the action we are taking to date.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The calls for households to move away from fossil fuels and towards electrification are just becoming louder. Many in the community are, in fact, way in front of government in pushing for this. I recently joined over 130 people in my electorate at the Renewable Electrification Community Forum, hosted by Wangaratta Landcare and Sustainability, led by Russell Sully and John Naylor. We heard speakers from Rewiring Australia, social enterprise energy retailer Indigo Power, and solar specialist Solargain. Attendees used their precious Sunday morning to hear the case for home electrification, and this case is strong.</para>
<para>Just this week the Grattan Institute released a report saying, if we have any hope of getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, then Australian households must get off gas and electrify. This might seem like an impossible task that lies ahead, but it's not. It's a big task, but we have solutions in front of us. This requires electric cooktops, home heaters, water heaters and cars, and installing batteries in our homes to store the electricity these appliances need to run. This must happen in houses, apartments and businesses. It must happen for landlords and renters alike. It must happen in the cities, and it must happen in the regions, and it must enable low-income people to share in the benefits of this transition.</para>
<para>And there are multiple benefits to home electrification. Firstly, importantly, in this cost-of-living crisis that we face, this is cheaper. An analysis by energy entrepreneur Dr Saul Griffith shows that a fully electrified household would save $5,000 a year in petrol costs and power bills.</para>
<para>Electrification is also healthier. We know that using gas releases pollutants that cause asthma and other problems, but, with high upfront costs, we cannot expect individuals to electrify on their own. The Grattan Institute says that more than half of Australian households face significant barriers to upgrade to electric; therefore, the government can and must do more to support households to do this.</para>
<para>I'm pleased that the government is committing $1 billion towards the Household Energy Upgrades Fund to provide households with low-cost loans for solar panels, modern appliances and double glazing, and I have called for this for a long time. But since this announcement we have seen scared detail on the eligibility for these low-interest loans and the how and when that they can be accessed. We need more detail; we need it soon. Any incentives to help homes electrify must be prioritised for low-income households so that our transition towards renewable energy doesn't leave the most vulnerable people behind.</para>
<para>When we talk about household electrification, home batteries are also an integral part to this. 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 Green Energy Markets, this figure assumes that the cost of household batteries will be subsidised this decade, and the case for government support is clear. Since being elected, I have twice introduced my Cheaper Home Batteries Bill. This bill offers a simple solution to help homeowners purchase a home battery. By including home batteries under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, my bill could drive down a battery's cost by around $3,000. The scheme has worked for solar. It's driven the cost of solar panels down by about 80 per cent over the past 10 years, and we now have one of the highest rates of household solar in the world. We could do the same for the home batteries.</para>
<para>Like electrification of appliances, a home battery can improve household savings and reduce our national emissions. They provide a reliable energy source during times of emergencies like bushfires and storms when powerlines go down. We know about this in our electorate of Indi. Places like Corryong and the alpine areas know too well the experience of blackouts during crucial emergencies. We know that if households were given some help to buy a battery, the uptake would improve. Local councils like Indigo Shire in my electorate were part of the Project EDGE, which provided financial support for about 130 households in places like Beechworth, Worrigee and Yackandandah to take up batteries. We know that with a government nudge, with significant support—more than a nudge, a big nudge, actually—everyday Australians will want to engage with home electrification. Let's get on with the job.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>MPIs are my second favourite thing, after the Fed Chamber, where good speeches go to die, but it is terrific to have a sensible topic for debate for once on the MPI. It is important that Australia accelerates the transition away from fossil fuels by electrifying people's houses with cheaper renewable energy. It is so important. It's obvious that it's the teals and the crossbench bringing this debate, not the opposition, because it is a sensible topic for the parliament to spend an hour debating. Renewable energy will lead to lower pollution and lower emissions. It's the cheapest form of new energy, unlike Mr Nuclear Sheen over there—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am sorry, member for Bruce. If you're going to refer to a member, you need to use their proper title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax—he's not the suppository of all wisdom, to quote George Bush. But it is so important for Australia's economic future. This is the bit that they don't get. Australia has the best renewable energy resources of any OECD country. We can reclaim the advantage in cheap, ubiquitous power that we had through the 1960s and seventies and onshore manufacturing, creating tens of thousands of jobs, many of them in regional areas, if only this entire parliament—not just this side of the House and the people over there but all of the parliament—would embrace a renewable and clean energy future. The crossbench and the teals get it. They get it on renewable energy. Even the Greens political party, I'll admit, so far get it, and, rarely, their actions in the parliament actually match their words. Unlike, of course, with affordable housing, where they see one thing in their electorate and then do another up here.</para>
<para>When push comes to shove, the Greens political party always vote against affordable housing, but on renewable energy they've done the right thing so far this term.</para>
<para>There is one group in parliament, of course, that doesn't get it. That's the opposition—the Liberals and the Nationals—who are stuck in the Dark Ages after the decade of delay and division and dysfunction. They're still arguing over whether climate change is real, instead of seizing those opportunities—lower pollution, cheapest form of new power and jobs, jobs and jobs. Even from a national security point of view, every major military of every developed country has climate change risk near the top of their risk profile. Those geniuses over there say they're serious about national security. If they were, they would be serious about action on climate change. They're two sides of the same coin.</para>
<para>But words don't convince them. Reason doesn't convince them. Evidence doesn't convince them. Let me put it in political terms which they might understand. The only reason that these fine women, the teals, are sitting over here, occupying these seats is the previous government's inaction on climate change. I'll illustrate it. Remember Josh Frydenberg? Remember this other former future prime minister, Tim Wilson? We had Dave Sharma; remember him? He's a goner.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Bruce, there is a fine distinction between legitimate visual aids to support a speech and the use of props for dramatic effect.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've only got three left. I've got Celia Hammond and Trent Zimmerman—and Jason Falinski, who might actually be the new president of the New South Wales Liberal Party. He got beaten too—didn't he?—because of the former government. I could table them. I seek leave to table the photos of the former future prime ministers.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is leave granted?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not only is leave not granted, but I point out, Deputy Speaker, that he is defying your instruction.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I can think for myself, thank you. Leave is not granted, and I ask the member for Bruce to keep the photographs down.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're down there. I'll keep them.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Put them back on your wall.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll send them to you. Words don't convince them. They don't even want to see the pictures. But the major reason that the member for Wentworth can bring this motion is a decade of inaction on climate change—actually, maybe I misled the House. It's probably the second major reason. I'd say the member for Cook is the major reason. But certainly their inaction on climate change is the—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's never overstate our own part in these things! They had 22 failed energy policies, and they couldn't implement one of them. This government is acting. The No. 1 criterion to get power prices down is certainty for new investment. That is what they failed to provide for a decade. We're rewiring the nation. We're fixing the grid to create the conditions for renewable energy to move around the country. Remember the geniuses over there and the Snowy Hydro—the new battery? Except they forgot to fix the grid. It's like getting a new battery pack for your phone without the cable to plug into the network.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the urgent need for household electrification. The warnings are clear. Global warming is still accelerating and we are due to tip over to 1.5 degrees as early as 2027, so we must accelerate ambition. That is why I've called on the Albanese government to be more ambitious with its emissions targets and pushed it to commit to 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035 as our next NDC commitment under the Paris Agreement.</para>
<para>Reducing our emissions requires the biggest collaborative effort by every sector of society. Forty-two per cent of our emissions comes from households. Electrification of households and cars is key to reducing our emissions and will have the biggest impact on climate this decade. During a cost-of-living crisis it will also significantly lower household costs.</para>
<para>Electrification of homes means that when a household gas appliance such as gas space heating, gas hot water heating or a gas cooktop needs replacing, it enables and encourages replacing it with an electric alternative. It won't happen overnight. However, the government urgently needs to lay out a plan and give Australian households the confidence to get started and the assistance they need. In our homes, gas heating is the No. 1 guzzler of energy, accounting for 40 per cent of our home energy. Swapping gas heating for a split cycle air-conditioning system will save Australians about $400 a year, and it's about four times more energy efficient than gas.</para>
<para>If we combine getting off gas with sealing gaps and insulating walls and ceilings, these three things will reduce household energy use by 30 to 40 per cent. Over 80 per cent of the measures in the USA government's Inflation Reduction Act went to supporting household electrification and will result in reductions in emissions and huge cost-of-living savings. The USA government recognises this, and the Albanese government needs to as well.</para>
<para>There are a number of ways in which this can be done. The Australian government should also come to the party with, for example, tax breaks and incentives for landlords so that people who are renting or living in strata accommodation can also benefit through this transition off gas. Also we need to ensure that we have supply and choice, so I call on manufacturers of gas machines to make pledges to phase out new models of gas appliances and prioritise expanding electric ranges. We have seen this in the car industry with pledges around phasing out ICE model vehicles. We need to see it in cooktops and in all those appliances.</para>
<para>In Australia we have the biggest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. Almost one in three homes has rooftop solar. That's 3.2 million households. The uptake of household batteries, however—whilst increasing; it's up by 55 per cent on last year—is still currently only one battery for every seven solar systems installed. This uptake in installing household batteries has been spurred by surging power prices with Australians turning to solar and batteries to ease their dependence on the grid. But the obvious barrier is cost. A 10-kilowatt battery is around $10,000. So Australia needs to get an ambitious renewable energy storage target to drive that small-scale battery and complement the capacity mechanism that was announced by the government. We could also look to support small-scale technology certificates. If one in five households that already have rooftop solar could also get batteries, we could already achieve 30 per cent of our storage needs.</para>
<para>Additionally, we need to look at heat pumps, community battery projects and vehicle-to-grid technology. Heat pump hot water systems work with rooftop solar to capture excess solar energy and turn it into hot water. It's like a home battery, and it stores that excess energy for later use. In terms of community batteries, the government has committed to some 400 batteries, and we need to see that expand. Vehicle-to-grid technology is another energy storage option available to some electric vehicle owners. This technology allows an EV to be used to power your home. Another area which we don't talk about enough but which is incredibly important is our green building standards. We are behind. That urgently needs to be reviewed and improved. We need to ensure we have incentives so that any homes built from now on are energy efficient and effective and also climate resilient.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I begin by thanking the member for Wentworth for putting forward this matter of public importance. She understands the importance of electrifying our nation, as does the Albanese government. For far too long, Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in seizing the economic and environmental opportunities that come with cleaner and more affordable energy. In the global race for new energy jobs and investments, we have found ourselves falling behind after a decade of policy drift and funding neglect. But no more! We now have a government that wants to seize the opportunity of renewable energy.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we recognise that much of the potential of renewable energy exists in regions like my electorate of Corangamite, where there is much open space and where there is capacity for wind, hydro, solar and hydrogen. Corangamite, which includes the Surf Coast, Golden Plains, the Bellarine Peninsula and parts of Geelong, has a strong manufacturing history. When you add a dynamic university like Deakin, a TAFE like the Gordon and industry that is already on the renewables journey, we are well placed for rapid success. And there are many other regions across Australia just like mine. It is government's job to unlock these opportunities and create a foundation for our regions to embrace renewables.</para>
<para>That's why the Albanese government is working towards low emissions and a renewable future.</para>
<para>This is what the Albanese government is doing. Alongside targeted household rebates to ease energy bills, our 2023-24 budget has a comprehensive plan to ensure households and communities can make the most of the savings that come with smarter energy use. Through a $1.6 billion energy savings plan, households and businesses will have access to energy upgrades that will improve their energy usage and help them save on costs.</para>
<para>We will also rewire our national grid and invest $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. This fund will provide $1 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, allowing them to partner with banks and lenders to offer financial options for household energy upgrades. From installing solar panels to modernising appliances, we will empower more than 110,000 households to lower their bills and make their homes more energy efficient.</para>
<para>But our vision goes beyond energy savings. We are determined to become a world-leading producer of green hydrogen, which is a renewable resource with incredible potential. Renewable hydrogen is crucial to manufacturing green metals and other products needed to transition to net zero by 2050. We're investing $2 billion in Hydrogen Headstart to provide vital financial support for large-scale renewable hydrogen projects through a competitive production contract process. These projects will see Australia achieve a gigawatt of capacity by 2030, creating more jobs now, more jobs for the future, and a restored national focus on new energy sources.</para>
<para>We will also provide funding of $38.2 million for a guarantee of origin scheme certifying renewable energy and ensuring the tracking and verification of emissions for clean energy products. This funding is critical to enhancing our reputation as an attractive investment destination, accelerating the growth of our hydrogen energy industry and opening doors to future markets.</para>
<para>But we won't stop there. The government will provide an extra $5.6 million to leverage our nation's strengths in renewable energy, including critical minerals and our highly skilled workforce. By capitalising on these advantages, we will accelerate the development of our clean energy industries.</para>
<para>We have great potential. Our nation is ready for the task and so is our government. With the support of the community and industry, we will become a visionary renewable powerhouse.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia needs to get off natural gas if it is to have any hope of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Household gas amounts to 17 per cent of all of our emissions in Australia. As a paediatric neurologist I committed my professional life to looking after sick kids. That was a job I loved, and I'm very lucky that in this place I have the chance to still uphold those core principles. Getting off household gas will significantly improve health outcomes for all of us, but it will particularly improve health outcomes for children.</para>
<para>When gas is burned it releases carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde and ultrafine particulates. These substances are harmful. One study estimated that exposure to gas stove emissions was responsible for as much as 12 per cent of childhood asthma in Australia. Another found that exposure to indoor gas appliances in early infancy was associated with lower scores on general cognitive, memory, verbal and executive function testing in four-year-old children. The reality is that the faster we electrify our homes, the healthier our children will be. We have to do that, though, in a way that will raise all boats. We have to help those people who might well struggle with the cost of transitioning to electric appliances, heat pumps, home batteries, solar and the cheaper forms of active transport. We all accept that electrifying Australia will be a challenge, but we know that the most vulnerable will benefit most from cheaper and cleaner forms of electrification.</para>
<para>This challenge is one which, like other significant challenges we face to overcome climate change—transitioning our industries away from fossil fuels, upgrading the transmission grid and ending new coal and gas projects—comes with exciting opportunities.</para>
<para>Electrification is an intelligent, targeted way to tackle inflation and to reduce our cost of living. Australia is blessed with the greatest renewable energy resources in the world, and we are brave early adopters. The 3.3 million homes with home solar will attest to that. That's almost one-third of Australian homes. The more electric appliances that we have, the more rooftop solar that we can tap into and the cheaper our power bills. Estimated savings per household from electrification of our transport and of our homes is $5,400 a year per household. Spending less to power our homes will help bring down inflation.</para>
<para>The federal government recognised that with this years meet budget. It earmarked $1.3 billion for home energy efficiency retrofits and for electrification. But we've not yet received any information regarding the government's plan for low-cost loans and for subsidies. We need national leadership to help lower our power bills, save our climate and protect our children's health. With all-electric homes being cheaper to run, better for our health and crucial for driving down emissions, supporting households to transition away from fossil fuel appliances has to be a climate, cost-of-living and health policy priority, but doing so is a complex task. Households will need support to help them overcome the many financial, regulatory and informational barriers to electrification, and that particularly applies to those who are renting and those on lower incomes. We need our state and territory governments to set end dates for the use of gas and for all governments to launch campaigns to support and encourage people in switching their homes from gas to all-electric.</para>
<para>I was proud to host the second Electrify Parliament event alongside Allegra Spender MP and Senator David Pocock this morning. Their election, alongside the election of other independents in 2022, demonstrated that the Australian public now expects the parliament to act decisively on climate change not just to save our planet but to usher in a cleaner, greener, cheaper economy. This morning's event was one which saw Liberal, Labor, Greens and Independent MPs unite with a common aim to electrify Australian households, and I look forward to working with everyone in this building to accelerate electrification of our homes. I thank the member for Wentworth for introducing this motion and highlighting the goodwill that is behind this most important transformation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wentworth for this MPI topic today. It is one that is deeply important in my electorate of Lingiari. My electorate of Lingiari is certainly vastly different from that of Wentworth. In truth, we could not represent more different electorates, but what we do share is a commitment to renewable energy and to supporting households with their energy needs. It is an issue that is very important to the Albanese-Labor government. We all know that we needed to transition our energy market to renewables, and we knew that households are absolutely essential in this.</para>
<para>Our Labor government is committed to household solar, and you can see this in many facets of our government policy. We have the Rewiring the Nation agenda, We have the Capacity Investment Scheme. We have $1 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to turbocharge options for household energy upgrades. We have $300 million for social housing upgrades. We have $310 million for our Small Business Energy Incentive, something which will encourage our small businesses to save energy and to save on energy bills. We also have $100 million for the Community Energy Upgrades Fund, which will boost local councils and the work that they do on community energy. I know from talking to a lot of the councils in my electorate that they are certainly looking forward to accessing that.</para>
<para>The answer to today's MPI—what we are doing to move renewables—is simple: we are doing a lot. The $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund is of particular note.</para>
<para>This fund will help more than 110,000 households electrify and lower their energy costs. I am sure the member for Wentworth will agree that reshaping our country's reliance on fossil fuels is a mammoth effort. For hundreds of years Australia's economy, and indeed the global economy, has been shaped by and built on fossil fuels. We know that this needs to change. The future we are passing onto the next generations is at stake. But more importantly, we have the opportunity to build a sustainable, clean, green economy. Labor understands this. We aren't interested in virtue signalling, like some of the other parties in this parliament. We are interested in the hard, painstaking work of reforming our economy.</para>
<para>For the Northern Territory, and Lingiari in particular, we are currently embarking on a renewable energy transition. This makes sense; we have all of the prerequisites needed to do this. We have an abundance of sun, a large mass and a smart bunch of Territorians ready to work in the renewable energy sector. We need to seize the opportunity ahead of us. Indeed, in Lingiari we are working hard to do so.</para>
<para>It is particularly important to look at our bush communities when looking at renewable energy and household energy security. Many bush households rely on diesel generators, which are both costly and hard to maintain. Our houses out bush need rooftop solar, more so than anywhere around the country. When you're along a dirt road, five hours away from a major town, reliable energy is much more than just comfort. In the steaming summers and brisk winters, reliable energy is a matter of life and death.</para>
<para>I see far too many of my mob out bush without access to reliable, renewable energy. This needs to change, and it will change. My office has been speaking with Tangentyere housing in Central Australia about an ambitious pilot program to get solar on town camps, and I know that this is also happening in other places to across the nation. But we can only do this because of the support and the commitment of the federal government. For a long time we had a federal government that was not interested in the hard, painstaking work of reforming our energy system. But not anymore. The Albanese Labor government is ready to seize the opportunity ahead for all of us.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Energy is all around us from the moment we're born, in the clothes we wear and the gadgets we use. Unlike money, energy is a fundamental part of the universe. Each of us has an energy footprint. In the developed world we each use around 25 kilowatt hours of electricity per day. This is the equivalent of charging your phone more than 1,000 times a day.</para>
<para>But Australia is still the lucky country when it comes to energy. Not only do we have resources such as coal and gas, but we also have unlimited sunlight. The amount of sun that falls onto our roofs is one of the highest in the world. One only has to fly across Western Sydney and my electorate of Fowler to see how popular this technology is in Fairfield, Liverpool, Cabramatta, Edensor Park and other suburbs. With more than 3.4 million solar systems, Australians are embracing renewable energy because it means they save money on their energy bills. They can also contribute to creating a cleaner energy environment.</para>
<para>But there are two obstacles we need to tackle when it comes to electrifying our homes with renewables. The first issue is that solar, however successful it has been, has not helped those who are not fortunate enough to own their homes. Furthermore, rental units with solar are still a rarity. We must ensure we are not leaving people behind as the momentum for an electrified world increases. Therefore, it's critical in our debate over the affordability of owning a home to not forget the renters and those socially and economically disadvantaged.</para>
<para>The second issue is that the 3.4 million solar systems generate a lot of solar electricity in the middle of the day, but there's no infrastructure at the moment to store this energy, despite us having experienced a solar boom for close to 20 years. The government has given a rebate for solar, financed by all of us who pay for electricity, but somehow we have neglected to create the appropriate channels to use it more efficiently.</para>
<para>We now have the ridiculous situation where solar systems are being switched off remotely by energy retailers and are seeing valuable renewable energy evaporate, instead of being used effectively. Surely this has to change.</para>
<para>The predicament we are now in, with people facing higher energy bills and no solar storage technology, is due to past government's inaction and failure to develop policies that enable collaborations and solutions to deliver the framework and an electricity infrastructure program for a cleaner energy environment, such as batteries to store the solar energy generated in the middle of the day to be used later on. While the government announced the community battery program recently, this is just a drop in the ocean, because we need a large-scale program to be more effective.</para>
<para>Surely we can look at what other parts of the world are doing in this space when we know that we need to develop such infrastructure. How can we electrify our homes using the maximum amount of solar energy? In this morning's forum on electrifying parliament hosted by my crossbench colleagues the member for Wentworth, the member for Kooyong and Senator Pocock—and thank you to the member for Wentworth for having this MPI—we heard that landlords could be incentivised to install solar on developments, including apartments, which can ultimately reduce energy costs for renters and ease the cost-of-living pressures. The technology is there to put solar on these developments, and renters can get a share of solar on their buildings.</para>
<para>High-rises can have solar walls that generate energy. We can also send solar power from our roofs into our electric hot water heaters and use this just like a battery to absorb extra solar. We must find pathways and incentives to make solar available for renters and unit blocks as they have missed out on renewable benefits for decades. We can assist in introducing heat pumps to generate hot water—this is very energy efficient—and remove fossil fuel driven hot water generators from our homes. The member for Indi and the member for Warringah also mentioned this technology.</para>
<para>We should also revisit the solar rebate scheme because, since the introduction of this scheme, solar panel prices have halved, so maybe it is time to support more community solar and batteries so whole communities can have lower electricity costs.</para>
<para>Overall, in the push for everything to be electrified, the government needs to bring the different stakeholders together and develop a strategy to enable ordinary Australians to benefit from this transition, especially families in south-west and Western Sydney, like those in my electorate of Fowler. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to ensure that all policies are equitable and inclusive for every single community in Australia to reap the benefits of a cleaner energy world.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to provide my contribution on today's matter of public importance. It is an issue that the member for Wentworth and the Australian public are deeply concerned about. The Albanese Labor government has been firm since day 1: renewable energy is the most effective form of energy. This insight guides our investment in crucial initiatives like Rewiring the Nation and the Capacity Investment Scheme, which ensures the future security of our grid. Moreover, it also means supporting households in overcoming the most significant barrier to household electrification, the upfront costs.</para>
<para>To be clear, we're not here to ban or mandate; we are here to support and incentivise. Our commitment expands beyond households. It encompasses small businesses and even community facilities. The recent budget reflects our dedication by delivering substantial investments in energy efficiency. These measures are designed to alleviate the financial pressures on Australian families and contribute to reducing emissions. We have allocated $1 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to bolster financing options for household energy upgrades. We are actively partnering with banks and other lenders to modernise homes with battery-ready solar PV and contemporary appliances. These efforts will help over 110,000 households reduce their energy bills. We have committed $300 million to support upgrades to social housing in collaboration with states and territories. Furthermore, we have earmarked $310 million for the small business energy incentive. This will provide businesses with an additional 20 per cent deduction on expenditure that supports electrification and more efficient use of energy.</para>
<para>Our goal is to empower Australians and enable them to make the choices that suit their homes and businesses to reduce energy bills. We aspire to give all Australians the opportunity to go electric if they choose to do so. The Albanese Labor government is committed to driving down household and business energy costs and making homes and businesses cheaper to run. By improving energy efficiency, we can ease the cost of living and take the pressure off Australians. We know that Australia has slipped down to 58 out of 63 countries on energy use per capita due to the decade of inaction. However, we know that upgrading an average house from a one-star rating to a three-star rating can reduce energy consumption by 30 per cent, leading to lower energy bills. That's why the Albanese Labor government is helping households, including social housing and businesses, to access energy savings and upgrade through the energy savings package.</para>
<para>Let me also address the rumours about banning gas cooktops. The Albanese Labor government will not be banning gas appliances in people's homes. We know many people love cooking and love cooking on their gas cooktops. We are not forcing anyone to change, but we encourage them to consider induction, which is cheaper to run, cleaner and safer. The opposition's scare tactics are a weak attempt to compensate for their lack of policy. They are importing a culture war from the United States. This is just another hollow scare campaign from the feeble opposition.</para>
<para>The Small Business Energy Incentive will help up to 3.8 million small businesses save energy and reduce their energy bills. The bonus tax deduction will encourage businesses to invest in electrifying their heating and cooling systems, upgrading to more efficient appliances and installing batteries and heat lamps. We are also partnering with local governments to deliver energy upgrades and build savings for community facilities like local pools, sporting clubs and community centres. The Community Energy Upgrades Fund will also co-fund upgrades with local councils and unlock energy saving upgrades for community facilities around the country.</para>
<para>Our work here is not done, but we are firmly committed to this vision, a vision rooted in giving all Australians tools, information and access to cheaper— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to take a moment to thank all the members that have participated in this debate. Unlike our esteemed member from Bruce who says that MPI debates are where great speeches go to die, I think it is this time in the parliament when the community wants to see us have real and sincere conversations. Before I dive into what I want to say, I want to make a few comments in response to esteemed members who have spoken today.</para>
<para>Firstly, from the member for Richmond we heard a lot of information about everything the Albanese Labor government is currently doing, yet what really struck me was one line when she made the point that we are largely here because we have had 10 years of inaction due to the opposition. She also made the point that the opposition are bound to fail because they are advocating for nuclear. Her argument against nuclear was that it would cost $5 billion each, and we would need $8 billion to build the number of nuclear reactors we need. I am very sorry to inform the member for Richmond that that money required, the $40 billion, is infinitely within reach as this current government has continued to subsidise fossil fuels to the value of $41 billion. So whether or not you agree with the opposition's take on nuclear energy, this should not be a discussion about what money is being made available where, because money is already there in our federal budget.</para>
<para>Then the member for Bruce paid us—me and my colleagues on the crossbench—the compliment of saying we were here because of inaction from prior governments. I say to the member for Bruce that that may indeed be one of the reasons we are here, but it is also because Australians were tired of the legislative gridlock we found ourselves in in this place.</para>
<para>I would argue that a government is only as strong as the ambition it sets and the change that it drives, and in this context I would warn our current government that its ambition may not be strong enough nor its pace fast enough.</para>
<para>The member for Corangamite then did a great job of talking about how government is committed to unlock opportunities, and I thank her for taking us through the comprehensive plan of how the government is going to make the most of this. But I make the point that the numbers we heard were numbers like $1.6 billion, $1.3 billion, $2 billion, $38.2 million and $100 million—which, all combined, still do not add up to the $41 billion dollars currently being provided for fossil fuel subsidies. The member for Lingiari again talked about some fantastic numbers for social housing and community, but again it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars as opposed to the billions of dollars being invested in fossil fuels. And the member from Holt has just finished talking us through how the government will not ban or mandate a move away from a gas, yet I have worked in an environment where, had we not banned or mandated a move away from tobacco, we would still have hundreds of thousands of Australians dying every year from lung cancer. You can indeed mandate things when it is in the best interests of your community and your society.</para>
<para>From my perspective, when I was elected a year ago one of my pledges was to get North Sydney to net zero by 2035, and I'm incredibly grateful to the people I get to work with—both the experts and my community members who are working to make this happen. They do it by nudging the 80,000 homeowners, landlords, families and businesses in our electorate to make a set of decisions over the next 12 years to get them to choose home appliances that bring them closer to an electrified future. The reality is that capital, government, community and innovators must come together to support individuals to achieve positive climate and social outcomes. For anyone interested in learning more about what is being done in North Sydney, I encourage you to visit my website, kyleatink.com.au, as my team has literally just launched a web resource for every person who lives in my electorate to help them find the subsidies, the rebates and the channels to enable them to electrify faster.</para>
<para>What is clear is that for us to move our country forward we ultimately need to break not only our society's reliance on gas but also our government's addiction to gas. In our recent budget we saw the government attempt to sell us on modest changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, but what they actually showed us is that, ultimately, the government will make more money off those people who are addicted to tobacco than they will of those who are permanently extracting our limited gas resources. It is time we moved beyond platitudes and million-dollar headlines to really be the change we need to see.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion is now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Days and Hours of Meeting</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I want to advise members of likely arrangements at the end of the session, given where we're at with the Senate. We had very good progress last week with the Senate for legislation that they were considering, and the Senate put in some extraordinary hours last week. The last couple of days we were making reasonable progress with legislation. Today some of the speaking lists have gone back out again, and trying to second-guess where this will land is something that I don't want to necessarily make bold undertakings on.</para>
<para>I advise members to work on the basis that the Senate is unlikely at this point to have got through all of its legislation when we would normally rise on Thursday. That being the case, my expectation at this stage is, if that is the case, we won't do a late night. What we would do would be to suspend at around the normal time and then come back for a brief sitting on the Friday morning. The different occasions when I've seen the House wait for the Senate to finish have often resulted in what was meant to be one hour becoming seven, and we end up staying here for not necessarily much point.</para>
<para>It is also the case that if they have got through the legislation but it looks like no bills are going to require amendment then there is a scenario where we would still be able to adjourn on Thursday, even if they are still going with business, because nothing would actually have to come back to us before it could be dealt with. There are a number of pieces of legislation that are time-sensitive, and if they do end up requiring amendment, there is no way of being able to send them to the Governor-General unless we receive and endorse those amendments.</para>
<para>So at this stage I'd encourage members, as I always do, to work on the basis that they are likely to be required to be here on the Friday morning. If that's the case, it will be a very brief Friday morning I expect, because the different amendments that are being spoken about are unlikely to be highly controversial in terms of debates and votes. If I get more information, certainly I'll continue to update the House, but that's the latest I've got.</para>
<para>There is a debate management motion before the Senate at the moment that might fix all of this, but I don't know whether it's going to get the required number of votes or not. I'll keep members informed.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAK</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the House for the update. On indulgence—I have a lot of work to get through here.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To the minister at the table, Mr Burke: if the parliament was to come back on the Friday morning, what time do you think the parties will be called back?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I normally work on the basis of nine o'clock as the normal starting time being the time that works for most people. There are occasions when people put compelling reasons and we adjust that, but the rule of thumb is ordinarily nine o'clock.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7027" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7028" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7029" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6958" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7039" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6946" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6996" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Membership</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: report 7 of 2023</inline> and the annual report of 2022.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's seventh scrutiny report of 2023 and its annual report for 2022.</para>
<para>In its seventh scrutiny report, the committee has considered 16 new bills and 224 new legislative instruments, and is seeking further information in relation to one bill and one legislative instrument.</para>
<para>For example, the committee has commented on the Extradition (Republic of North Macedonia) Regulations 2023. These regulations declare the Republic of North Macedonia to be an 'extradition country' for the purposes of the Extradition Act 1988. The effect of this is that Australia can consider and progress extradition requests from the Republic of North Macedonia relating to persons in Australia.</para>
<para>The committee has previously raised concerns regarding the compatibility of the Extradition Act with multiple rights. While such human rights concerns may not arise in relation to the Republic of North Macedonia specifically, because this measure enlivens the operation of Australia's legislative framework for extradition, it is necessary to consider the compatibility of that framework more broadly with human rights, and the committee is seeking the Attorney General's advice on a few matters related to this. I stress, for the purposes of the House of Representatives, that our questions are not related to North Macedonia specifically but rather are about the processes that Australia has under the extradition arrangements and legislation.</para>
<para>I have also tabled the committee's 2022 annual report, which details the work of the committee for the 2022 calendar year.</para>
<para>In 2022, the committee tabled six scrutiny reports examining 141 bills, and 1,803 legislative instruments, and commented on 33 of these. In addition, the committee tabled its inquiry report into the Religious Discrimination Bill and related bills.</para>
<para>During this reporting period, the committee concluded its consideration on the vast majority of bills prior to their passage. A human rights analysis was available to inform members of parliament prior to the passage of 99 per cent of bills. Further, of those instruments subject to disallowance, the committee concluded its examination of 100 per cent of these legislative instruments within the disallowance time frame.</para>
<para>I just want to make a point about how much work actually goes into that. For every single piece of legislation, for every single legislative instrument, the incredible team in the secretariat go through a deep analysis of what is being proposed, what is being legislated, and have extensive internal documentation around their decisions as to whether they would present human rights legal advice to the committee to then be shared with the parliament. It is an extensive program of work done each and every week by these incredible public servants.</para>
<para>I take this opportunity, as the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, to acknowledge the extraordinary amount of work that the committee secretariat, led very capably by Anita Coles and her team, do to make this committee function. It is an example of public service and public service expertise that our country is very well served by and very fortunate to have. I thank the committee for all of their efforts throughout 2022. I was the chair of the parliamentary joint committee for a portion of 2022 and have been the chair into 2023.</para>
<para>It is one of the most intensive and heavy workloads of any committee, and it is only possible to be to be the chair of the committee thanks to the hard work of those outstanding public servants.</para>
<para>The annual report also provides information about the work of the committee, including some major themes and scrutiny issues arising from the legislation examined by the committee. This is interesting because it does lead into our current inquiry into Australia's human rights' framework that we're undergoing. For example, the report outlines the committee's direct impact on the development of legislation to establish a national anti-corruption commission. The committee's advice to parliament on this legislation included recommendations for amendments to improve the bill's compatibility with human rights. The Attorney-General agreed with the majority of these recommendations and amended the bill accordingly. The committee's findings and recommendations were also extensively referenced during debates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This was an excellent example of the committee's direct impact on the legislative development, and I thank the Attorney-General for his productive engagement with the committee's recommendations on that matter.</para>
<para>Just finally, I would point members to the report around which rights were actually activated as part of the human rights analysis. Increasingly, as government deals with the challenges of an increasingly digital world and the increasingly digital framework of legislation and of governing, the privacy of individuals and the compatibility of privacy and the protection of individual's data is a very difficult issue. The right to privacy is one that is fundamental to the way in which we need to treat the personal details of the people that we are privileged to represent with respect, and that is something that the committee was focused on and did the most work on compared with any other right during last year, 2022.</para>
<para>I thank the committee for all their work throughout 2022. I thank my fellow committee members, including the deputy chair, who's with us today in the chamber. I thank all of the efforts of people who have contributed to the inquiry so far. With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report 7 of 2023 and annual report 2022 to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr J</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ONES (—) (): I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7014" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7013" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the House that the question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be disagreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the establishment of the nature repair market. The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 will be a significant step forward in the Albanese Labor government's nature-positive plan. I live in one of the most beautiful areas in the world, the south coast of New South Wales. I feel it is my responsibility to help keep it that way. In Gilmore we have some of the most innovative and passionate people you'll ever meet, people who take it upon themselves every day to think of new and improved ways to look after the land that they are the custodians of. The beauty of the land, the people and the culture are just to some of the reasons we need the nature repair market.</para>
<para>This market will provide easier access for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects aimed at protecting and repairing our precious natural environment. The goal is simple: we want to leave the world around us better off for our children and grandchildren.</para>
<para>The Australian government has committed to protecting 30 per cent of our land and seas by 2030. Commitments such as this are crucial, given the horrendous findings of the 2021 <inline font-style="italic">State of the environment</inline> report, which, to be clear, paints a grim picture of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. To achieve a nature-positive future, we need significant investment in conservation and restoration. We must harness the power of business and private sector investment to reverse environmental decline, and we have all the elements in Gilmore. We just need to harness them, which is what this bill will help us achieve.</para>
<para>Let's talk about a few examples of environmental protection that are happening in my electorate. I grew up on a dairy farm, and through the decades it's fair to say I've seen a lot of change. From my conversations with farmers over the years, it's clear how far ahead of government they are in recognising the impact of our changing climate and the need to adapt for the future. It's this experience we need to harness. 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.' And 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.</para>
<para>Further north, in Kiama, one cannot help but be struck by the story of The Pines, Kiama. Established as a dairy farm in 1854, The Pines is a family run microdairy, run by Kel and Mahlah Grey. They manage all facets of farming themselves, using organic, biodynamic, holistic and regenerative farming methods. Using minimal processing with their small and lovingly cared for herd, The Pines makes a range of regenerative dairy products, including award-winning cheese, yoghurt, a range of artisan gelato and, of course, milk. The Pines places a huge emphasis on sustainability and enhancing the precious ecosystem of the farm, where the wellbeing of animals and the land is at the forefront of everything and regenerative farming practices ensure nothing from the farm goes to waste.</para>
<para>These farmers and many like them are ahead of the game because of the decade when we had a government that did not care about climate change and did nothing to support farmers to adapt. The former government stuck their heads in the sand about what climate change means for the future, which is why, after a wasted decade, the Albanese Labor government aren't wasting time. We're going to make it easier for landholders to repair and maintain the land. We're going to help farmers like Rob realise their dreams of leaving the land they work on in better condition than they received it. The Nature Repair Market is going to be a key part in realising the Albanese Labor government's Nature Positive Plan, and I know it'll make a huge difference to the lives of farmers where I live on the New South Wales South Coast.</para>
<para>The proposed legislation will allow the Clean Energy Regulator, an experienced and independent statutory authority, to issue tradable biodiversity certificates to Australian landholders. These certificates can then be sold to businesses, organisations, government and individuals, ensuring participation in the market. It's a tested system and it's going to work. All landholders, including Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, conservation groups and farmers will have the opportunity to participate. The breadth of restorative activity is so broad. It'll be things like weeding, native species planting and pest control, and it will include projects on land and on water, encompassing lakes, rivers, marine areas and coastal environments. I'm sure this will be welcome news for local land care groups, such as Shoalhaven Landcare. They have a very successful fox control program.</para>
<para>Importantly, the Nature Repair Market will create employment and economic opportunities, especially for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. It will promote and uphold the principles of free, prior and informed consent, respecting their connection to country and enabling them to shape projects that reflect their knowledge and values. Just last month, I went on a cultural burn in Mogo. It was incredible. To watch people caring for country and the land was remarkable, all while they were taking the time to explain the burn to community members present. I saw how the Walbunja Rangers and Batemans Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council cared for the land.</para>
<para>This is the type of activity that the Nature Repair Market will support. Cultural knowledge will be recognised and valued as it always should have been.</para>
<para>Managing how and when land burns is so important, and I'll tell you why. Like everyone in our communities, we all went through the horrific bushfires of 2019 and 2020. These fires were devastating on every level. People lost their lives, homes and livelihoods, and the repair bill was absolutely eye watering. But if the land were managed better, like it was by our First Nations people, I think it could have been different. I saw how the bushfires burned out of control through almost 90 per cent of my electorate of Gilmore, but the Walbunja Rangers and the Batemans Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council were able to burn the land recently with ease. In doing this, they were able to ensure that part of the earth wouldn't burn out of control in the future. The Nature Repair Market Bill will allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in a market based economy to deliver services like cultural burns, because they help the environment—they repair nature. I'm excited for the traditional owners of the South Coast to be able to practice these important cultural traditions and to be recognised for their contributions to maintaining our beautiful region. But it doesn't stop there.</para>
<para>I'm excited to see more projects, like the $1.5 million delivered in federal funding from the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program for a project connecting community to Shoalhaven waterways, supporting great local organisations like Shoalhaven Riverwatch and Shoalhaven Landcare. This project will reduce rubbish and pollution and engage bush care groups and bush regeneration companies to re-vegetate the Shoalhaven River. There will also be an education program incorporated into the urban rivers program. Local schools will assist in the regeneration and maintenance of the Shoalhaven River. This will help educate the next generation of people who will live and work in the Shoalhaven. It will also ensure that people in the next generation understand the importance of managing and caring for our waterways like the Shoalhaven river.</para>
<para>From waterways to the skies: I want to revisit a topic that is close to my heart, something that I speak about every year when I attend the birdlife event in Ulladulla. That is the beautiful birdlife we have in the Shoalhaven. Living on the south coast of New South Wales, we are so privileged to be surrounded by the most incredible abundance of bird species. Sometimes, when you live here, you can forget just how special that is. We just take it for granted that we see these unique and rare species in our own backyard. Being surrounded by so much beautiful birdlife is a privilege, but it brings with it a key responsibility to protect and enhance those species that we share this beautiful place with. We as individuals all bear that responsibility. It is hard not to feel passion about that when we are so immersed in it. That's why I always get excited to see the passionate people who come along to talks like at BirdLife Shoalhaven and BirdLife Australia at Ulladulla and Shoalhaven Heads. These are passionate people doing what they can to help our native species. Thanks to all those people for all that you do and for your dedication.</para>
<para>Of course, individuals also rely heavily on a government structure and policy framework that supports and enhances the work they're doing. They should be able to rely on a framework that is working with those who want to protect our species, rather than leaving them to do all the heavy lifting. I'm so proud to be part of the Albanese government because we are taking seriously the responsibility of government's role in this.</para>
<para>When I spoke at the Bird Haven Festival conference in 2022 at Shoalhaven Heads, it was not that long after the 2021 <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of the environment report</inline> was released—a truly shocking and heartbreaking assessment of where our environment was at. In particular, the impact of the bushfires, an ecological bomb, was stark and obvious. The report outlined immense habitat loss for our threatened species. The report also outlined an eight per cent increase in the number of plant and animal species that were listed as threatened. What was clear was that government needed to do more, urgently.</para>
<para>We didn't waste any time starting that, which is why I'm so pleased to be speaking on this nature repair bill. The previous government wasted enough time, and because of that we need to move quickly. We need to move quickly if we're going to turn this ship around. Luckily, we now have a master at the helm of our ship. The Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, got straight to work and has put some truly incredible notches in her environmental belt over the last year. Her focus is making Australia nature positive: protecting threatened species, boosting recycling efforts, protecting more of our land and oceans, and supporting First Nations communities to manage land, sea and country.</para>
<para>The government is putting its back into managing our environment for future generations. Finally, the environment is back front and centre where it belongs. It is vital that we have strong environmental protection laws functioning effectively this country. We want an economy that is nature positive to help us halt destruction and repair nature, and this legislation is based on just that. The principles are clear: clear national standards of environmental protection, improving and speeding up decisions, and building trust and integrity. For the first time, we will introduce standards that decisions must meet, which describe the environmental outcomes that we are seeking, and the new environmental protection authority will make development decisions and enforce them properly. Putting protection of threatened species and ecosystems at the heart of decision-making, key parts of our nature positive plan include: delivering national environmental standards, improving environmental data and information, progressing regional planning, improving conservation planning, reform of approaches to environmental offsets, and enhancing First Nations partnerships to give First Nations people a stronger voice in our system of environmental protection. The government worked closely and collaboratively with environmental groups and the business community to get to this point. This is well-thought-out legislation, and of course it is backed up and supported by research, by the science. What we're trying to do now is push Australia's environmental protection forward in a positive way for the first time in a decade. The job is big but we are working together to get it right.</para>
<para>I want to take a moment here to thank our community groups. Government would get nowhere without the hard work and dedication of incredible individuals and environmental groups. There are too many groups to name but I would love to give a shout-out to all the volunteer groups maintaining and improving our ecosystems on the South Coast. Recently I had the opportunity to join the team from Seven Mile Beach Landcare for a morning of weeding. Volunteers have been passionately caring this coastal bushland for many years and you can see the difference. I also had the opportunity to see first-hand the work of Boongaree Bush Care at Broughton Creek near Berry, with the planting of trees and the establishment of a reconciliation garden. It cannot be overstated how important our local conservation groups are right across Gilmore. Citizen science projects and educational awareness presentations for the public are so invaluable, sharing knowledge and understanding with local people. I sincerely thank each and every person across Gilmore who has put in the work to improve and maintain our environment.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the establishment of the Nature Repair Market is a transformative step towards a nature-positive future. It aligns with our international commitments, generates investment and job opportunities, and creates new income streams for landholders, including Aboriginal people, Torres Strait Islanders and farmers. It represents a clear break from the neglect and environmental degradation of the past. I urge all members of this House to support this crucial legislation. Let us stand together to repair and protect our precious natural environment for the sake of future generations. I commend this bill of the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise in support of the nature Repair Market Consequential Amendments Bill 2023, and I want to acknowledge the work of the minister, who is present with us in the chamber, the Minister for the Environment and Water, for her excellent work in this portfolio. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on its nature positive plan with the establishment of the Nature Repair Market. The Nature Repair Market forms part of our nature positive plan to protect more of what is precious, repair more of what is damaged and manage nature better for the future. This market will make it easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects to protect and repair nature.</para>
<para>The Australian government is committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. The same goals have been adopted globally under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. These goals reinforce the findings of the 2021 <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">Environment Report</inline> and its story of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. The report, which is more of a report card with a miserable scorecard, says that the Australian environment is in very bad shape and getting worse. Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. Considering we are an island continent with one government responsible across this wide land for environmental policy, the blame rests solely with those opposite, who presided over this.</para>
<para>It found that, for the first time, Australia has more foreign plant species than native. It found that habitat the size of Tasmania has been cleared. The report found that, with up to 80,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre, plastics are choking our oceans. The report found that flows in most Murray-Darling rivers had reached record low levels.</para>
<para>This decline doesn't happen by accident. Our environment has fared terribly under the Liberals and Nationals. During the last decade that they presided over this nation's environmental policy, they axed climate laws and, despite having a widely supported blueprint to do so, they chose not to fix Australia's broken environmental laws. In turn, they failed to land a single one of their 22 different energy policies. They promised $40 million to Indigenous water, but they didn't deliver a drop. They had a recycling target of 70 per cent, which was stuck at 16 per cent for four years. It shows that those opposite simply set recycling targets with no plan to actually deliver them. Not only did they not deliver on their promises; where they did take action, it was to vote against the safeguards mechanism, a policy they had previously championed. Again, where they did take action, they cut highly protected areas of marine parks in half and they cut billions from our environmental departments.</para>
<para>As the Minister for the Environment and Water said in introducing the Nature Repair Market Bill to the House:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Just because something is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It means we should … do it properly.</para></quote>
<para>It's a real reflection of this government's approach to policy and strong faith in our country and economy, and this government's ability to be able to advance good governance. In this spirit of action and progress, this will be a world first scheme. Under the nature repair market, landowners can be paid for protecting and restoring nature on their land. It will make it easier for businesses, philanthropists and others to invest in repairing nature across Australia. We need significant investment in conservation and restoration for a nature-positive future. Business and private sector investment can contribute to reversing environmental decline. In fact, a recent report found a biodiversity market could unlock $137 billion in financial flows to advance Australian biodiversity outcomes by 2050.</para>
<para>The bill will enable the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, to issue Australian landholders with tradeable biodiversity certificates. The certificates can then be sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals. There is an economic dividend to environmental policy. We will be supporting landholders, including farmers and First Nations communities, to do things such as replanting a vital stretch of koala habitat, repairing damaged riverbeds or removing invasive species. Importantly, it will enable participation and create employment and economic opportunities for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. This bill will promote and enable free, prior and informed consent for projects on their lands or waters. It will enable Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders to promote their unique knowledge and promote it on their terms. There will be opportunities to design projects that reflect the knowledge and connection to country of our First Nations people and to utilise their skills and knowledge for a nature-positive future.</para>
<para>This is the power of economic policy that has the economy working for people, and not the other way around. Private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders are increasingly looking for ways to achieve positive outcomes for nature. We want to leave nature better off and help create an Australia that is sustainable now and into the future, with legislation that ensures the ongoing integrity of the market, encourages investment in nature and drives environmental improvements right across Australia. The nature-positive plan reflects our commitment to restoring public accountability and trust, a common feature across the depth of the Albanese Labor government's approach to policy and governance in this term.</para>
<para>What this means in practice is that the bill will enable the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, to issue Australian landholders with tradeable biodiversity certificates that are then sold. It means that the bill provides for biodiversity certificates to have integrity and represent a natural environmental improvement. Buyers can then invest in the market with confidence.</para>
<para>Transparency will be a core element of the scheme. Comprehensive information about projects and certificates will be available on a public register. Additional information will be regularly published by the regulator, and there will be the active release of relevant data by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This will enable parliament and the public to monitor the scheme and provide an opportunity for citizen oversight. It will support certainty and value to the market. This mechanism will ensure that statements made under certificates will accurately reflect the projects and investments they represent and that the projects in the carbon and biodiversity markets are not affected by misleading claims.</para>
<para>The environment is an economic driver. It has always been—whether to repair the diversity for flora and fauna that shapes the natural environment around us, parts of which can be found nowhere else in the world, or whether to do so for the food, livestock and farming that are the basis of trade and our national economy. This is as much an economic policy as it is an environmental one. This recognition is particularly evident through the market mechanism which underpins this bill, which has been outlined.</para>
<para>What of our tourist industry or the drivers of corporate social responsibility initiatives? In my electorate of Calwell, we have the magnificent Woodlands Park and the Moonee Ponds Creek Trail. These are environmental attributes that many schools in my electorate use to educate our next generation about the importance of preservation, about protecting habitat and species and about recycling. Through this bill, this government is giving weight to the environment for a generation of young people who are becoming increasingly concerned about our footprint on wildlife and our natural habitat.</para>
<para>These are issues which concern people amongst our communities who expect government to have a role in creating the mechanisms to invite and to repair and to not only protect what is damaged but create the natural conditions for a habitat to exist where it would otherwise have perished. The government are not just committed to doing things differently; we're committed to doing things right, however difficult things might be. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank all of the members who have participated in what I think has been largely a very constructive debate. I want to particularly thank my colleagues but also a number of the crossbench members of parliament, who have made some suggestions to the bill that I'll be going through later on and who have made very constructive contributions.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to protecting more of what's precious, restoring more of what's been damaged and managing nature better for our children and our grandchildren. That's what this legislation is about. It's about restoring habitats, it's about eradicating pests, it's about improving our soils, it's about helping threatened species, it's about protecting our beaches and it's about making our land more resilient to drought and floods. This bill does this by making it easier for businesses, for philanthropists and for other Australians to invest in projects that repair and protect nature. It will establish the framework that is needed to measure, monitor, report and track these projects.</para>
<para>This scheme will be open to all landholders, including farmers, First Nations peoples, conservation groups and businesses. It will be built on integrity and the best science, with independent experts providing advice as the market develops, and it will contain strong compliance and assurance so that everyone can have confidence in the environmental benefits being provided.</para>
<para>There will be full transparency about the operation and performance of the market and of the Clean Energy Regulator in administering the scheme. The regulator will publish annual reports and be subject to questioning through Senate estimates. It will be subject to regular independent reviews and the scrutiny of the Auditor-General.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to using every available tool to halt and reverse environmental decline. Our latest budget confirms that no government has spent more on the environment than the Albanese Labor government. This bill is another piece of the puzzle, but it's an important piece in a broader nature-positive agenda.</para>
<para>As members of parliament will know, we are developing comprehensive reforms to our environment laws. Last December I set out our government's plans to fix our broken environmental laws. This is a huge undertaking. Work on the design of these laws is currently underway, and the draft legislation will be available for public consultation later this year.</para>
<para>These reforms include changes to environmental offsets. As the government has made clear in its response to the Samuel review of our environmental laws, offsets will only ever be used as a last resort. Offsets cannot make unacceptable impacts on nature acceptable. That doesn't work. Our new laws will make sure that offsets are used to more than compensate for acceptable and residual environmental impacts—like for like—so that nature is demonstrably better off overall.</para>
<para>These changes to our environmental laws are coming, but it's important that we pass this bill now. Once this bill passes, we can start to develop the detailed rules or methodologies that will be needed for projects to proceed. The development of methodologies is not simple. It's not quick. We need to start work on that now. The Clean Energy Regulator will need to set up its systems and recruit the expertise it needs to administer this new scheme. All this will take time. It will take at least 12 months before the scheme is open for business and the first projects can start coming forward. By that time, I certainly hope we will have passed our new Commonwealth environmental laws.</para>
<para>Demand for these projects is something that will also develop and grow over time. Changes to the safeguard mechanism will create new incentives for carbon projects. These projects will include, for example, the planting of trees and the regeneration of depleted landscapes. We want to provide every incentive for these carbon projects to also deliver biodiversity benefits for nature and for the sustainability of our farms to protect waterways, to reduce erosion and to provide habitat for native species. This is what farmers have been telling us that they're already doing and they want to do more of. It's why work on this scheme started under the previous government. Companies are also telling us that they want to invest in nature. It's something that their customers are demanding of them, their shareholders want to see and their staff also want to be part of.</para>
<para>This is part of a global movement because businesses internationally understand that we have a biodiversity crisis as well as a climate crisis. Right now there is a global, industry led initiative called the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures that's helping organisations report on their nature related risks and opportunities. This task force is made up of individuals and organisations with assets of over US$20 trillion. I want to make sure that we have an operational nature repair market properly up and running for when businesses are ready to start investing and managing their nature related risks at scale, and that means we need to start setting this infrastructure in place now.</para>
<para>We acknowledge that this is new and innovative policy. For some time now Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to measure and value environmental services, and that's something we can be proud of. We know there are challenges to delivering on a successful market and it will take time for this market to be established and to reach maturity, but we have to start tackling those challenges now. We need to send clear signals to scientists, to business, to farmers and to other landholders that we want to see more investment in nature repair. Private investment is not designed to replace government investment. It will complement government efforts. It will add private money to the stream of investment our government is already making in nature protection and restoration. As I said a moment ago, no government has invested more in nature than this current government.</para>
<para>This bill will facilitate further private investment and philanthropic investment. It will help connect individuals and businesses that want to be part of that better future to landholders who want to repair and protect our unique environment. It will enable farmers and First Nations communities to be rewarded for their ongoing stewardship of our country.</para>
<para>This bill has been developed in close consultation with many parties—with First Nations groups, with farmers and other landholders, with scientists, with economists, with legal experts, with environmental NGOs and Landcare groups, with businesses, with philanthropists and others who want to demonstrate their environmental credentials, and with investors who want a transparent, regulated, high-integrity scheme for supporting nature repair. We've said we're open to refining and clarifying the bill where appropriate. We've agreed to better define the role of both the regulator and the environment department in supporting participation and shaping the market. We've reinforced the scheme's integrity and transparency to ensure that projects deliver real outcomes for nature. We've made improvements to support First Nations participation in the scheme and better protect First Nations interests in land and restoration of land.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank many of the Independent members of this House for their support and for their active engagement in the content of this bill. Many of their suggestions have been accepted by the government, will be accepted by this House and have led to genuine improvements to the bill. The objects of the bill will better reflect the government's goal of no more extinctions in Australia as well as implementing our international obligations through the convention on biodiversity. The objects will be subject to five-yearly statutory reviews that will report on how well the nature market is achieving its goals. Amendments will also give landholders more options for how they participate in the scheme. They'll be able to determine whether or not a biodiversity certificate issued for their project can be used as an offset. Further amendments will improve transparency and integrity by expanding the publication of information both in the parliament and on the public register of projects.</para>
<para>I specifically thank the members for Curtin, Goldstein, North Sydney, Clark, Warringah, Wentworth and Calare for their very active engagement on the Nature Repair Market Bill, for their proposed amendments and, I hope, for their support for this important bill. I thank all members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPU</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wentworth moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Goldstein has moved an amendment to that amendment, adding words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:13] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>82</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>55</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is beyond belief how I feel this evening in this House, having seen the Greens once again team up with the Liberals to vote down, to vote against nature, to vote against weed eradication, to vote against communities like the Blue Mountains—and for the member for Macquarie to vote against communities like mine—to vote against nature itself.</para>
<para>The Greens have once again come into this chamber to show to the Australian public that they are not the party they claim to be. Their voting record demonstrates a very different idea than I know, than people in my electorate who tell me they are Greens supporters—and I know how disheartened they will be tonight seeing this. It is a perfectly reasonable bill, setting up a market to attract private and philanthropic funds into a market where they might support nature repair—the repair of areas like mine, where noxious weed infestations are an absolute blight and risk infesting a Ramsar wetlands site. The Greens have come in here tonight to vote against a solution to a problem.</para>
<para>I listened to the Liberals speak across this debate. I listened to those opposite and their speeches, and couldn't believe that they were against a market—that they've finally found a market they're against! But to know that the Greens have come in and said, 'Sorry, you might have found a solution, you might have found a way to attract investment into our communities to ensure that we can build back degraded land in our communities, to create employment potentially for Indigenous communities, to create employment for locals in these spaces'—the Greens have come in here and voted against repairing nature. That's what we're looking at now. I know that, in my community, the people from the Greens party that stand beside me election after election are going to be absolutely bewildered this evening.</para>
<para>This bill offers a solution. Let's face it: we are talking about a bill put forward by the member for Sydney. Is there a person who has fought harder for conservation and the environment in this place? Is there a person who has fought harder and is there a person who has voted more often to support the environment than the member for Sydney? The problem, as I see it, is that no solution is good enough unless a small group of people sitting in this chamber thought of it first. That's how it feels to me.</para>
<para>I think that, across this consideration in detail, there should be some members of the Labor Party taking notes, so we can go back to our communities, to our neighbours who support conservation, to our neighbours who care about the environment, to our neighbours who are saying to us, 'It is so good to have a government getting on with action to reduce climate change, so good to have a government who is doing the things we've wanted them to do.' They will be bewildered by the fact that the party they thought was founded on environmental values has voted against this bill in this House tonight. It is an absolute shame.</para>
<para>When this bill came into the parliament, I found the member for Sydney and I said, 'Does this include noxious weed eradication?' The member for Sydney said, 'Yes, Jo, it does.' I went home and I rang my council, and I said, 'We've got a bill in the House that might help our community eradicate the noxious weed that has taken over what was farmland in my community.' And the Greens think this is not a good idea. It is extraordinary. It is almost beyond belief for those of us on this side of the House to see this as a voting pattern for the Greens. Housing is one thing, but the environment—the Greens voting against a creative way to solve problems and to create a market that will attract investment into communities across this country to see nature be repaired and be taken back to a better place than it is currently? I cannot believe I'm seeing this this evening.</para>
<para>I know there will be people in my electorate that will be bewildered. I know there will be people across the country who will be bewildered. But we now know who's going to team up with who, and who stands with the Australian public.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 30), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">non-corporate government body</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">offset</inline> means a measure that compensates for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, as required under Commonwealth, State or Territory law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 99 (after line 15), at the end of Division 3, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">76A Use of biodiversity certificates for offsetting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A biodiversity certificate cannot be used for the purpose of offsetting unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the biodiversity outcome of the registered biodiversity project in respect of which the biodiversity certificate was issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the impact on the environment to which the offset relates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">affect the same species and ecological community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This means that a biodiversity certificate that was issued in respect of a project that enhances or protects biodiversity in a particular species and ecological community can only be used to offset impacts on the environment that affect the same species and ecological community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 151, page 168 (line 18), before "both", insert "the original biodiversity certificate cannot be relinquished and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 151, page 168 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (2) must provide that a biodiversity certificate (the <inline font-style="italic">first certificate</inline>) only meets the relinquishment equivalence requirements in relation to another biodiversity certificate (the <inline font-style="italic">second certificate</inline>) if the first certificate and the second certificate were issued in respect of registered biodiversity projects that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are covered by the same methodology determination; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) relate to the same species and ecological community.</para></quote>
<para>In essence, these amendments seek to ensure that, should offsetting be permitted under the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 scheme, the effectiveness of such biodiversity offsets is strengthened by ensuring the integrity of the potential biodiversity offsets which the government intends to permit. They do this by clearly defining a biodiversity offset as a measure that compensates for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, as required under Commonwealth, state or territory law. They also include clear limits on the use of offsets to ensure that certificates can only be used for offsetting if they are like for like with the harm they are offsetting. 'Like for like' is an established principle in offsetting, based on the notion of equivalence. These amendments define the requirement for like for like to ensure that a biodiversity certificate that was issued in respect of a project that enhances or protects biodiversity in a particular native species or ecological community can only be used to offset impacts on the environment that affect the same native species or ecological community—in other words, same species for same species and same ecosystem for same ecosystem. For example, should platypus habitat be affected by a project seeking to offset an impact, any certificate used to offset that project must repair and restore platypus habitat.</para>
<para>The amendments mean that certificates which relate to critically endangered species and unique biological communities should not be able to be used as offsets. We must end the practice of offsets being used as a smokescreen to cover up the destruction of irreplaceable habitat. Surely this principle should underpin our environmental laws, especially if we are to avert the extinction crisis that we currently face. The amendments also enhance the relinquishment requirement for biodiversity certificates to clearly establish that equivalent certificates are based on the like-for-like principle and ensure that they may only be relinquished where the original certificate is no longer available for relinquishment. I'd add that efforts to protect, improve and restore our unique biodiversity are welcome, and government should provide supports and incentives to landholders to protect and restore biodiversity of habitat, but the nature repair market cannot do this alone. It must be backed up by critical reforms which strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, by a strong national environmental protection agency and by greater public funding for conservation and environmental management.</para>
<para>In closing, I would note that recommendation 27 of the Samuel review called on the Commonwealth to reform the application of offsets under the EPBC Act to address environmental decline and achieve restoration. Strong new standards should apply to the nature repair market, but they are sadly not yet in force or even before the parliament for consideration. Hence I speak for many people when I say I hold concerns about the effectiveness of the current proposed nature repair market in protecting our environment and not simply being used to greenwash harmful activities. Indeed, without an ironclad commitment to strengthening the integrity and governance of the scheme, I find it difficult to see how the bill can be supported. No wonder some stakeholders have noted that bringing the Nature Repair Market Bill before parliament now is a case of putting the cart before the horse, and I'm tempted to agree. Nonetheless, I move these amendments in good faith, expecting the government will hold true to its commitment to zero new extinctions and a nature-positive approach to our environmental laws and policies. To that end, I call on all members to support these amendments and on the federal government to ensure reforms to related environmental laws are brought forward which strengthen the ability of the market to operate in a way which genuinely supports restoration and addresses the extinction crisis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the member for Clark's amendments. I would also like to respond to the comments from the member for Lalor. With respect, this is a process that we're all involved in for the good of our communities and for the good of our environment, and this is a process that my office and I have engaged in in good faith with the minister. We have the process of a second reading debate, the consideration-in-detail stage and then a third reading in order to improve legislation, and that's what I think the member for Clark's amendments would do.</para>
<para>These amendments clarify that biodiversity certificates can't be used for offsetting unless the outcome of the project and the impact it's being used to offset affect the same species and ecological community—that is, like-for-like offsetting—and also that alternative biodiversity certificates can only be relinquished if the original biodiversity certificate is not available for relinquishment. These are very reasonable amendments, particularly in the context where there is a lack of trust around offsetting. I agree with the member for Clark about those concerns, and there are many stakeholder groups that I and my office have engaged with who continue to have those concerns.</para>
<para>I'm here in the chamber to support the member for Clark, but I'm also here to ask the minister to answer some of these concerns directly. For example, if the regulator finds that biodiversity certificates are being used for offsetting without following the hierarchy—avoid, mitigate and, as a last result, offset—what will be the consequences? How does the minister guarantee that this offsetting market, which will be set up as a default position as a result of nature repair—it will be part of it—will have integrity? How does the minister address the concerns within our communities and within expert environmental stakeholder organisations, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defenders Office and others, who continue to have deep concerns about this bill? I stand here today with the member for Clark, in good faith, to have this conversation and hear those answers from the minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government won't be supporting the amendments proposed by the member for Clark, but I thank the member for Clark and the member for Goldstein for their comments. I have to say that, while I don't support these amendments, I do share the concerns of the member for Clark about the way offsets have been used in the past. That is the reason that we are absolutely determined to reform the use of offsets in this country.</para>
<para>There is a misunderstanding by some people who have been observing this legislation that this nature repair market is being established to provide offsets for development proposals. It's not being established for that reason. It's being established to provide a transparent system with integrity that is publicly verifiable, trackable and traceable, with baseline and measured improvement, to facilitate both private sector investment and philanthropic investment in nature repair. If none of these projects are ever used for an offset, that's fine. That's not the primary reason for the establishment of this market.</para>
<para>The government has committed to a major overhaul of Commonwealth environmental laws, including the use of environmental offsets. The member for Clark has very sensibly asked, 'Why do this first when those laws are not ready?' The reason they're not ready is that this is a huge drafting task with extensive public consultation that we have to do. The reason we want to introduce these laws now is that we need a year to get the methodologies right and for the staff to be employed by the Clean Energy Regulator—all of the foundational work needs to be done before we can open the nature repair market for business.</para>
<para>We've made clear, in our response to the Samuel review into Commonwealth environmental laws, that offsets will only be used as a last resort and to deliver like-for-like benefits for the environment, as the member for Clark has said. The government will regulate these changes as part of its reform to Commonwealth environmental laws and will release those for public consultation later this year. The laws will include a new national environmental standard, including an offset standard, that will regulate the integrity of projects used to offset environmental impacts.</para>
<para>The government is hoping for the passage of that legislation in the first half of 2024, after there has been extensive opportunity for the member for Clark, his constituents and anybody else who has an interest to give us feedback on those laws and those environmental standards.</para>
<para>Once the Nature Repair Market Bill passes, however, project methodologies can begin to be developed. The expert committee can be appointed to assess whether the draft methods meet the requirements in the legislation. The Clean Energy Regulator can bring in new expertise and set up its systems. That will take 12 months. That's why the bill includes a clause that provides for me as the minister to make a legislative instrument that opens the scheme for business so the regulator can start receiving project applications later, not with the commencement of the bill.</para>
<para>The member for Clark also asked why the government won't regulate the use of offsets in this bill and then repeal those provisions as part of the new EPBC laws. The answer is that regulating the use of offsets interacts with the rules that are used for assessing the impacts of a development and whether everything was done in the first place to avoid and to mitigate any impacts on nature. We can't do that through this bill. We are absolutely determined to restrict when offsets can be used in the first place to reduce the reliance on offsets. I can't say clearly enough to the member for Clark and the member for Goldstein that I know the offset standard has to improve on what is being done at the moment.</para>
<para>The member for Clark and the member for Goldstein have talked about stakeholder support. If I had a bit more time I would go through some of the stakeholders that do strongly support this. Stakeholders like the Northern Land Council, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and Australian Ethical Investment see this as a great opportunity to draw more money to nature repair.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, picking up on your response, will you guarantee that the nature repair market will not be operational until the new offsets national environment standard is legally enforceable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just distinguish: when you say 'open for business', we want to employ the staff, we want to start to develop the methodologies and we want to set in place the frameworks that will be required, but we won't take projects until the offset standard has been passed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for her responses so far. In fact, the minister has brushed up against two very specific questions I have, but for the sake of absolute clarity for my community I'd like to ask these questions. I'll do them one at a time, if you don't mind, Speaker. First of all, through you, Speaker, to the minister, many people are concerned about the potential for offsets to be allowed under the nature repair market without sufficient protections to ensure their integrity. For absolute clarity, if you won't pass my amendments: can you guarantee that the reforms to the EPBC Act and related reforms to strengthen the integrity of offsets will be in place before any offsets are granted under the nature repair market?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, but I also need to remind the member for Clark that passing the reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, including the national environmental standards on offsets, will be determined by this parliament. They will have to pass through the House of Representatives and they will have to pass through the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. Again, for absolute clarity, even though we've touched on this point already: Minister, I understand that the government does not want to regulate offsets twice through the Nature Repair Market and through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. But, given that the reforms to the EPBC Act are not yet even out for consultation and certainly are not before the House, why not amend this bill to ensure integrity of offsets in the interim and then repeal these changes in consequential amendments in the EPBC Act reforms later on?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be super clear on the timing unfolding: as I said, the reason this bill needs to be passed soon is that we want to allow the Clean Energy Regulator adequate time to hire the expertise they need—because developing methodologies is highly specialised work—and adequate time to develop those methodologies. It's also to make sure that the IT that will be required for the public register is available and up and running.</para>
<para>This bill, I hope, will pass through the House of Representatives this week. It will then go to the Senate, and there will be an extensive Senate inquiry. It will take some time to go through the Senate. In the coming weeks, I will also be releasing the changes that we are proposing to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, including the first of the National Environmental Standards, for public consultation. So there will be an extensive opportunity for, first of all, the Senate to further examine this bill and, secondly, for members of the House of Representatives, senators and the broader public in the not-too-distant future to look at the national environmental standard on offsets.</para>
<para>Of course, this chamber and the Senate will have an opportunity to move amendments and to have their view on the National Environmental Standards and on the biodiversity conservation act amendments when those come before the parliament. So I hope I'm reassuring the member for Clark that there is both a substantial process to still be gone through on the nature repair market through the Senate investigation of the bill, and there will be extensive public opportunities for the member for Clark, the member for Goldstein, all of the crossbench, environmental organisations, scientists and anybody who has an interest in the offset standard to be able to examine first and then publicly comment on what we're proposing with the offset standard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While I appreciate the response from the minister, regrettably the minister didn't answer the substantive question which is: why not put in place what I'll call 'stopgap integrity measures' with the offsets in this bill to cover the time between now and the improvement to the EPBC Act? Then that stopgap in this bill can easily be removed in the consequential amendments later on.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The reason, Member for Clark, is that there won't be any projects before the changes to the EPBC Act go through this parliament. The projects will not be up and running by then. The nature repair market won't have its doors open for business for at least a year from when this legislation passes because the underpinning work will take at least that amount of time. There will be no projects to offer offsets in the time period that he is worried about.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>TINK () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name on the sheet revised on 19 June 2023:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (f) to promote the enhancement or protection of biodiversity against the urgent threat of climate change, drawing on the best available scientific knowledge.</para></quote>
<para>I rise today to move amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I do so very cognisant of the systemic failure of national environmental law we have witnessed to date. We've failed to adequately protect Australia's biodiversity and iconic places. Australia has the shameful distinction of having achieved greater mammal extinction than any other continent. We don't just top extinction leagues among countries; we trump entire continents. My community of North Sydney has made it very clear that comprehensive reform of our environmental laws is needed, including increased government regulation and investment. We recognise the size and scope of the reforms required to not only protect but also restore and repair our environment, and we are anxious to ensure this market based scheme is a positive step, not one which sets efforts back.</para>
<para>The Biodiversity Council survey released this week found a majority of people are concerned for Australia's biodiversity, with at least two-thirds 'very' or 'extremely' concerned about waste and pollution, land clearing, extinction of species, loss of pollinator species and loss of natural places. About three quarters said more money should be spent on the environment. Scientists have said we need at least $2 billion annually to recover Australia's full list of almost 2,000 threatened species.</para>
<para>Given the concern of many across my community and across the wider sector, my first amendment relates to delay in the commencement of the act. The truth is many in my community are confused as to why the government is introducing a market based solution as its first priority, given the size and scope of the new environmental reforms. I would like to reassure the chamber, though, that I have heard the minister, in terms of explaining her timing. I still move this amendment, though, because my community fears that, without these as a strong foundation for reform, the market based scheme that this bill establishes may well fail. Failure in biodiversity protection could lead to adverse outcomes and set all of our efforts back significantly.</para>
<para>It is my very clear view that this market should not be operational until after the new offsets National Environmental Standard is legally enforceable and the new environmental protection agency is legally established. The minister has indicated these reforms are on their way, with an exposure due in the second half of 2023. So my amendment allows for a 12-month period for the broader reforms, within which this repair market would sit, to be developed, debated and passed. I ask the minister, then, to outline to all in this place and to my community once again her rationale for proceeding with this market mechanism before we have the framework of solid environmental standards and a regulator to enforce them.</para>
<para>My second amendment would recognise that action on nature repair cannot happen in isolation from action on climate change. Overwhelmingly, my community of North Sydney have told me their No. 1 priority for the environment portfolio is to address the underlying causes of poor biodiversity, which are human impacts, invasive species impacts and climate related impacts. The impacts of climate change—including drought, bushfires, storms, ocean acidification, sea level rise and global warming—on our ecosystem are clear. We know many plants and animals cannot adapt to the effects of climate change, with 1,000 plant and animal species and ecological communities already at risk of extinction in New South Wales alone. For this reason, I am proposing to amend the objects of this act to ensure that climate change drivers and impacts are incorporated and integrated into every step of environmental and biodiversity protection.</para>
<para>The amendment adds to the objects of the act the objective:</para>
<quote><para class="block">to promote the enhancement or protection of biodiversity against the urgent threat of climate change, drawing on the best available scientific knowledge.</para></quote>
<para>This wording mirrors changes that were recently passed in the Climate Change Act. I understand the minister is not accepting these amendments because actions on climate change are being covered by other legislation, like the safeguard mechanism. However, I would appreciate confirmation from the minister that she recognises that action on nature repair cannot happen in isolation to action on climate change.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for North Sydney for her amendments and for the constructive way that we've been able to discuss them. The government won't be supporting these two amendments. The reason that we won't be supporting the first amendment, which relates to delaying the commencement of the nature repair market, is similar to the reasons I gave the member for Clark. We're not proposing to open the doors for business to have projects out there immediately, but we need the legislation to pass so that we can begin to employ staff, employ the specialists we need, begin to develop methodologies and establish the database and the capacity we need to monitor the projects once they're up and running. We need the legislation to pass so that we can allow the Clean Energy Regulator to grow the part of their organisation they need to regulate a whole new market. That's why I don't want to delay the commencement of the bill. But what I will say is that clause 11(2) prevents the Clean Energy Regulator opening its doors for project applications until a date set by the minister by legislative instrument. That is the opportunity I will have to say that we're not opening it until these things are all in place. So it's in there, in clause 11(2), and that will be at least 12 months after the legislation passes, while we put in place all of those measures that I've described.</para>
<para>On the objects of the bill including responding to climate change, I completely understand why the member for North Sydney is raising climate change. Obviously one of the biggest threats to nature, to biodiversity, is the impact of climate change—no question about that. As the member for North Sydney said, we've got the safeguard mechanism, along with our legislated pathway to net zero, the ozone bill that I passed, the methane pledge, the 82 per cent renewable energy and the vehicle emissions work we're doing. There are a bunch of things that the government is doing in relation to climate change. This is specifically about biodiversity, which is of course impacted by climate change, but there are projects that can have a really positive impact on biodiversity without having a particular impact on carbon emissions. One of the best examples would be projects that deal with feral or invasive species. If we get rid of cats from a national park, there is a huge biodiversity benefit and no real carbon benefit. So we need to give ourselves the flexibility to have projects that are just specifically about biodiversity. I will give another example of where biodiversity becomes important. We're going to be planting more trees—it's one of the most important things we can do to generate carbon credit units to deal with climate change. But any tree has a carbon benefit; if you also want a biodiversity benefit, you will be more selective about the types of trees that you plant, and you'll want trees that are also food sources or habitat for particular species. I'm very aware of the impact that climate change is having in relation to biodiversity. I respect the member's putting on the record that these two things are very closely linked, but the reason I don't want to put climate change into the objectives of the act is to give projects that are great environmental projects but don't have a carbon benefit the chance also to prosper.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (3) to (7), on the sheet revised on 19 June 2023, as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 172, page 192 (line 21), omit "publish on the Regulator's website", substitute "prepare".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 172, page 192 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Regulator must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give the report to the Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish the report on the Regulator's website;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">as soon as practicable after the report is prepared.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 175, page 194 (line 17), before "The Secretary", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 175, page 194 (line 17), omit "publish on the Department's website", substitute "prepare".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 175, page 195 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Secretary must give a report prepared under subsection (1) to the Minister as soon as practicable after the report is prepared.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Minister must cause a copy of a report received under subsection (2) to be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<para>My third amendment relates to the activity reports of the regulator and the purchase reports of the department. A dominant theme in the 30,000 or more contributions received by the Samuel review was that many in the community simply do not trust the EPBC Act to deliver for the environment and that institutional reform should promote, firstly, transparency, accountability and integrity in the administration of the act; and secondly, monitoring, evaluation and improvement in the delivery of the environmental outcomes.</para>
<para>I'll be moving amendments to ensure the Clean Energy Regulator activities reports and the secretary's reports on biodiversity certificates will not only be published on relevant websites but also tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days after the end of the financial year. Increasing public access to information about this untested scheme will ensure it runs smoothly and effectively. Importantly, tabling reports on the operation of regulatory schemes like the national repair market promotes transparency and accountability. As the Scrutiny of Bills Committee outlines, there should be appropriate justification for not requiring the documents to be tabled.</para>
<para>I am pleased to hear that the government will be accepting these amendments, and I commend them to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PLIBERSEK (—) (): I thank the member for North Sydney for these amendments. The government supports these amendments. The bill requires reports to be published by the Clean Energy Regulator and the secretary of the department of the environment to support the transparency of the scheme. These amendments would require these two sorts of reports to be also tabled in the parliament: an annual report on the activities of the regulator in relation to the nature repair market, and a report about any purchasing activity under the bill by the secretary of the environment department.</para>
<para>I thank the member for North Sydney for the amendment and I commend it to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), on the sheet revised on 14 June 2023, as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 7, page 11 (after line 3), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">engage in conduct</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">environmental offsetting purpose</inline>: a biodiversity certificate is used for an <inline font-style="italic">environmental offsetting purpose</inline> if it is used for the purpose of meeting an environmental offsetting requirement (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 68, page 94 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) The approved form of application must require the project proponent to indicate whether or not the biodiversity certificate can be used for an environmental offsetting purpose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 70, page 96 (lines 2 and 3), omit subclause (3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A biodiversity certificate must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the project proponent has indicated in the application that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose—include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) set out such other matters (if any) as are specified in the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Page 96 (after line 19), after clause 70A, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">70B Variation of biodiversity certificate in relation to envi ronmental offsetting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The project proponent of a registered biodiversity project in respect of which a biodiversity certificate has been issued may request that the Regulator vary the certificate to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) remove a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Regulator must vary the certificate in accordance with the request unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the request is to include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose and the Regulator is not satisfied that the certificate is not being used for an environmental offsetting purpose; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the project proponent is not the holder of the certificate and the holder has not consented, in writing, to the requested variation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The request must be in a form approved, in writing, by the Regulator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 71, page 96 (line 26), after "section 70A", insert "or 70B".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Page 99 (after line 15), at the end of Division 3, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">76A Limitation on use of biodiversity certificate for environmental offsetting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a biodiversity certificate includes a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose, the certificate must not be used for such a purpose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 164, page 186 (after line 11), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(da) whether the certificate includes a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(db) if the certificate does not include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose—the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) whether the certificate is being used for an environmental offsetting purpose;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the certificate is being used for such a purpose, the law that creates the relevant environmental offsetting requirement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Clause 212, page 233 (after line 19), after paragraph (f), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(fa) a decision under section 70B to refuse to vary a biodiversity certificate;</para></quote>
<para>Australia is blessed with an incredible natural environment, but nature is in crisis. We're the deforestation capital of the world, we're the mammal extinction capital of the world, and we are at risk of losing treasured species like the koala forever. The parliament has a responsibility and an imperative to act. I know the minister shares my passion for protecting and conserving our amazing natural environment, and I welcome the commitments the government made at COP 15 and as part of this nature positive plan. As part of this, the minister is right to point out that we need investment from more than just government to address the scale of challenges ahead.</para>
<para>The Nature Repair Market Bill has the potential to help mobilise the additional private sector investment that we need. That is a good thing, but there are ways in which this bill could be improved. The Samuel review made it clear that Australia's current system of biodiversity offsets is not about protecting our environment but is instead contributing to environmental decline. So the most critical improvement is clarifying how biodiversity offsets will be treated in the new market and ensuring that the nature repair market cannot become a vehicle for corporate greenwashing.</para>
<para>I welcome the minister's commitment to reforming our biodiversity offset laws, and I welcome her desire to ensure the standards in this new market will be even higher under the reformed EPBC. But because those EPBC reforms are not yet legislated, we need to put down some guardrails today. My amendment does this by allowing landholders to specify whether their projects can be used for offsetting or not. It has the support of the environmentalists who don't want their projects to be used to compensate for nature's destruction; it has support from investors, many of whom want to invest in conservation but are worried about being accused of greenwashing; and it allows for flexibility over time so that landholders can change their mind if circumstances evolve in the future.</para>
<para>This is a commonsense amendment. It empowers those who are engaged in conservation work, it provides additional clarity and assurances for business and it is aligned with the government's intention for the market. I want to thank the minister and her staff for engaging constructively with me and my team in drafting this amendment and for working with the crossbench to improve legislation before the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wentworth for these amendments. The government will be supporting all of these amendments. These amendments will enable the proponent to easily choose and control whether any project that they are involved in can be used as an environmental offset even after that project is onsold—if it's sold on to future owners. When applying for a biodiversity certificate, proponents will be asked to confirm whether the certificate can be used as an offset. That information will be included on the Nature Repair Market register so the public can very easily see the chosen purpose of the project.</para>
<para>I also say to the member for Wentworth and the crossbench that the design of the register will be maximum transparency. My intention is that members of the public will be part of the scheme, making sure that projects do what they say, do what they promised. One of the problems with the offsets that are used currently is that there is little oversight. Project proponents can commit to offsets that are very rarely checked over the years. This will give us the transparency and the searchable data that we need to make sure that projects continue to do what they promised in the first instance. The certificates' status would be able to be changed without the project proponents' agreement. That's very important if certificates are onsold. That'll apply even if the certificate has been sold to a third party.</para>
<para>I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the amendment and commend it to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ST</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>EGGALL () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 193 (after line 4), at the end of Division 2, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">173A Information about market for biodiversity certificates</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Secretary may publish information on the Department's website about the market for biodiversity certificates, including information about any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the development of the market;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) opportunities to participate in the market;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the way in which the market contributes, or could contribute, to the enhancement or protection of biodiversity in native species in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 219, page 237 (line 15), after "persons", insert "(including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals and small businesses)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 219, page 237 (line 17), after "applicants", insert "(including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals and small businesses)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 219, page 237 (after line 30), after paragraph (j), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ja) to advise and assist persons (including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals and small businesses) for the purpose of supporting participation in the market for biodiversity certificates;</para></quote>
<para>These amendments are important in that they seek to incorporate into the biodiversity credit market, which will be established by the Nature Repair Market Bill, the recommendations of the Chubb review into the operation of the carbon credit markets. I firstly thank the minister for her responses and clarifications to questions just provided, in particular in relation to the timing, essentially, of when the Nature Repair Market will commence trading and confirmation that it will not be trading prior to offsets standards being established and the EPBC Act amendments occurring. That is where reassurance is sought by so many in our communities, including in Warringah.</para>
<para>The amendments that I have proposed seek to increase participation into the biodiversity credit market by small landholders and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander landholders by increasing the level of awareness and education about the scheme. These landholders in particular can generate great dividends for biodiversity in Australia. First Nations people have been great custodians of Australia, our land and our waters, for over 65,000 years. We can and must do everything possible to incentivise their participation in the repair of nature as well. Education about the incentives available through the Nature Repair Market and their ability to participate in that market are the minimum we should be doing to develop their participation in this scheme.</para>
<para>Similarly, small landholders are often those who are more willing and able to participate in schemes such as this and can be vital to the development of consistent corridors for migration and rapid restoration of habitat. So these amendments, therefore, are critical to the overall success of biodiversity restoration in Australia.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank the Australian Land Conservation Alliance for their engagement, advocacy and advice and their incredible work in conservation in years to date—in fact, doing much of the work that we hope is now going to get supercharged from this nature repair market. I'd also like to thank the minister and her staff for their engagement on this issue and on these amendments in particular, and their willingness to proactively meet and discuss it. It is this place working at its best when the government proposes legislation that can be discussed, debated, amended and improved for the better of all.</para>
<para>Since the Samuels review, I've certainly passionately advocated for strong national environmental standards and amendments to the EPBC Act, so I do look forward to taking note of the comments of the minister, to working closely with the minister over the coming months on the development of lasting reforms through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and to working towards the establishment of a nature finance corporation, both of which I hope would be key to the ultimate success of this nature repair market. And I do pledge advocacy to getting that push for additional financial support to ensure there is that incentive and that collaboration from public and private finance.</para>
<para>As identified by so many members here, and acknowledged by the minister, the greatest threat to nature and biodiversity is ultimately climate change and global warming, and so I look forward to further opportunities to improve our response in that respect.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Warringah for her contribution and for this amendment. We absolutely support the amendment. It makes a very constructive improvement to the bill as proposed. The amendment will ensure that First Nations people, small businesses and remote communities can directly participate in the nature repair market by firstly clarifying that the functions of the regulator include providing assistance and advice to Aboriginal persons, Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals, small businesses and others. It also empowers the secretary of the environment department to publish information that supports the development of the market, including information about opportunities to participate in the scheme.</para>
<para>The member for Warringah mentioned the Australian Land Conservation Alliance as one of the organisations that has been instrumental in doing nature repair without the support of this scheme, and who have welcomed the proposed scheme. They are doing excellent work.</para>
<para>The member for Warringah also mentioned in particular that we'd love to see First Nations communities participating in the scheme. I want to draw the attention of the House to the comments of the Northern Land Council on the scheme. The Northern Land Council has welcomed the scheme and the chair of the Northern Land Council, Dr Samuel Bush-Blanasi said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Aboriginal people have been caring for Country for tens of thousands of years. But so much damage has been done in the last two-hundred and fifty years. This new law will help Traditional Owners fix it.</para></quote>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Traditional Owners know their Country. Indigenous Rangers have also played a key role in using traditional knowledge to manage Country through land and sea management across the Territory. This new market is good news for Traditional Owners and Rangers.</para></quote>
<para>He added:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Making sure Traditional Owners agree to projects on Aboriginal land goes without saying. I want to see Aboriginal projects on Aboriginal land being run by Aboriginal people. This is our future.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Martin-Jard, also from the Northern Land Council, pointed out that the region covered by the Northern Land Council has:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a vast array of habitats representative of northern Australia which face major threats such as feral animals, weeds and saltwater intrusion into the vast wetland ecosystems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Without the incentives and interventions available through a nature repair market, there is a high risk these once pristine ecosystems will be further degraded and lost forever. We will be working hard to promote a suitable area in the NLC region for a potential pilot site and method development for the Nature Repair Market.</para></quote>
<para>That's what Mr Martin-Jard said. Can I reassure the member for Warringah once again that this is not a replacement for government investment. We have, in the most recent budget, doubled funding for our national parks, including incredible places such as Kakadu that have been really, I have to say, let go in recent years, with the intrusion of feral animals, the intrusion of weeds and declining infrastructure, even for tourism. We've doubled the funding for national parks. That comes on top of the $273 million—I'd have to check the number; it's more than $200 million—that we had previously promised to upgrade the tourism facilities in the park.</para>
<para>This is not a replacement for government spending; it is an additional opportunity—in this case, for First Nations communities—to draw in investment from businesses, companies and philanthropists that want to invest in nature. It is a great opportunity for traditional owners to manage their country in the way they want, with additional financial support to do it. I commend the amendment to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (2) and (3) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 224, page 240 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Despite subsection (1), the Secretary must not delegate any of the Secretary's functions or powers under Part 6 (purchase of biodiversity certificates by the Commonwealth) to a person who is an official of the Regulator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 236, page 243 (after line 24), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) the extent to which the Regulator has contributed to the achievement of the objects of this Act by performing the Regulator's functions, and exercising the Regulator's powers, under this Act; and</para></quote>
<para>These amendments serve to address integrity concerns with regulation of the Nature Repair Market. The Nature Repair Market is slated to unlock $137 billion in financial flows for biodiversity by 2050 and will no doubt reach across and impact a wide range of habitats and species. Therefore, it's crucial that we have public confidence that the regulator which will design and administer the methods through which biodiversity certificates are traded and purchased on the market is performing in a way that generates the best outcomes for biodiversity and nature.</para>
<para>The Clean Energy Regulator is the designated regulator of the market. I have expressed my concerns with this, especially given the findings of the Chubb review into the carbon market, which found that reforms are needed before the Clean Energy Regulator is fit for purpose. While I would not go so far as to refer to this as a perk of copying and pasting the model of the carbon market onto the Nature Repair Market, there is the benefit of foresight to learn from the mistakes of the carbon market.</para>
<para>One of the recommendations of the Chubb review was that it's a conflict of interest in the carbon market that the regulator can be delegated to purchase carbon credits on behalf of the government. Amendment (2) serves to remove this similar power from the Nature Repair Market Bill. The provision in the bill that allows the government's power to purchase biodiversity certificates to be delegated to the regulator—the same body in charge of ensuring the integrity of these certificates while simultaneously tasked with finding the best deal on behalf of the government to buy such certificates—is a conflict of interest if ever there was one.</para>
<para>Acknowledging the Chubb review's recommendations, and to ensure that the Nature Repair Market does not repeat the mistakes of the carbon market, this amendment removes the provision that allows the government to delegate the purchasing of biodiversity certificates to the regulator. This is a crucial change. Given that this legislation is to pass pending the implementation of the Chubb review's recommendations relating to the regulator, it's important, too, that the legislation includes an assessment of whether the regulator is performing as intended. Rather than it being left on trust that the regulator is doing its job, amendment (3) specifically requires that regular reviews of the Nature Repair Market assess the performance of the regulator in achieving the objects of the act, performing its functions and exercising its powers.</para>
<para>These amendments will go some way to improving the integrity and accountability of the regulation of the Nature Repair Market.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the member for Goldstein's amendment preventing the delegation of purchasing powers to the regulator, the government supports this amendment.</para>
<para>The amendment prevents the secretary from delegating the power to purchase biodiversity certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator. As the member for Goldstein has pointed out, that is consistent with the Chubb review, which recommended that purchasing under Australia's carbon crediting scheme should be separated from the Clean Energy Regulator to remove a potential conflict of interest.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Goldstein for proposing this amendment and for moving it, and I commend it to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1), (4) and (5), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 238 (after line 2), after clause 219, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">219A Qualifications of members of the Regulator</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, at least one member of the Regulator must have:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) substantial experience or knowledge; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) significant standing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">in at least one of the following fields:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) agriculture;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) biological or ecological science.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 236, page 244 (after line 4), after subclause (2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) A review under subsection (1) must consider:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the operation, administration and regulation of the nature repair market established by the Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the extent to which the Act has implemented, or contributed to implementing, recommendations set out in the Final Report of the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, published in December 2022; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) levels of compliance with the Act and the adequacy of enforcement powers in the Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any interaction between the nature repair market established by the Act and the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) whether the functions and powers of the Regulator should be transferred to a Commonwealth environment protection authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 236, page 245 (line 2), omit "5", substitute "3".</para></quote>
<para>The Clean Energy Regulator's primary business is focused on reducing carbon emissions, but it is now tasked with also regulating the Nature Repair Market. It's concerning that the regulator's membership may not possess skills necessary to make crucial decisions pertaining to biodiversity and nature. While the consequential amendments bill does introduce new fields of expertise that the members of the Clean Energy Regulator board may have—namely agriculture or biological or ecological science expertise—there is no requirement that any of these fields must be represented. Therefore, we may end up with a regulator that has the responsibility to administer the market but has no expertise to actually do so. Knowledge of and experience in areas most pertinent to the market are essential in a body tasked with designing methods and assessing projects in the Nature Repair Market. To this end, amendment (1) requires that at least one member of the Clean Energy Regulator board have expertise in agriculture or biological or ecological science. It serves to improve the capacity of the regulator for more effective decision-making and priorities.</para>
<para>My final two amendments build on my previously moved amendment (3), which requires the periodic review of the Nature Repair Market to consider how the regulator is performing. As I've said, this legislation precedes crucial environmental reforms, including amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the establishment of a federal environment protection authority. We're also yet to see the full implementation of the recommendations of the Chubb review of the carbon market, recommendations which the government has already accepted.</para>
<para>Amendment (4) provides important considerations for when the operation of the Nature Repair Market is reviewed. We're asked to take the government's word that, in time, as the environmental reforms are rolled out at the end of this year or early next year, the harmonious relationship with the Nature Repair Market will fall into place. The amendment stipulates that the review must consider the outcomes of environmental reforms and the market's interactions with new and improved environmental legislation. It also requires that the review assess how the regulator, in the context of the new market, has met or not met recommendations made by the Chubb review, and it stipulates that the review consider whether regulatory functions should be moved from the Clean Energy Regulator to the newly established EPA.</para>
<para>Finally, amendment (5) brings forward the reporting period for the review from five years to three. With Australia being a world leader in species extinction, there is no time to lose in waiting for a review on whether the Nature Repair Market is delivering. Three years strikes a reasonable balance. These amendments to improve the bill's thoroughness and timeliness serve to increase accountability and trust in the review process of the Nature Repair Market.</para>
<para>I'll finish by saying that I do very much appreciate the engagement of the minister and her team on this bill. It does remain cart before the horse in many ways though, with no EPA, with the Chubb recommendations not in place and with the high potential for it to become another low-integrity offset market. I understand that the government will not support these amendments, but I ask that the minister justify her position on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the amendments, and I commend the member on bringing them to the House. I'll be very brief because I know time is of the essence this evening. In particular, the amendment that at least one member of the regulator must have experience, knowledge and standing in the fields of agriculture or biological or ecological science, I think, adds a certain robustness to this legislation that will increase public confidence.</para>
<para>We also have to keep in mind that this bill is all about, to a large extent, agriculture—boosting the agricultural sector, making our agricultural land work better for farmers and also working for the environment at the same time. So I think to have the regulator with expertise in those fields makes a lot of sense. I commend the amendments to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Goldstein for proposing these amendments and the member for Calare for his contribution. The government will not be supporting amendments Nos (1), (4) and (5) as proposed by the member for Goldstein. The amendment suggests that there would be a requirement for at least one of the five statutory members of the Clean Energy Regulator to be an expert in agriculture or biological or ecological science. What we are doing instead of requiring that one of these must be a member is we are amending the Clean Energy Regulator Act so that members may have qualifications in agricultural, biological, ecological sciences and so on.</para>
<para>Really, the reason why we can't support a requirement that there be a person on the board of the regulator at all times, as this would require, is because a legal risk is created about the integrity of projects or validity of decisions if, for example, a member of the committee dies and we have not replaced that member. There is a legal risk about any decisions made about the scheme during that time. So I think it is perfectly right of the member for Goldstein to seek assurances about the expertise and performance of the Clean Energy Regulator. That is absolutely standard and absolutely fair. The regulator will need to build up its expertise and recruit staff who have additional skills to administer the scheme. This is a new area of operation for them, and they will need people who know how to do it.</para>
<para>The Clean Energy Regulator Act allows officials from other government agencies to support the Clean Energy Regulator in their functions, and the regulator has begun discussions about this with my environment department. We are supporting the separate amendment proposed by the member for Goldstein to include a specific requirement for the regular statutory reviews of the bill to include the performance of the regulator.</para>
<para>I just want to respond to the proposal that the reviews become more frequent. The bill already provides for a statutory review every five years. We are saying that the statutory review provision is already built in to the bill. In addition to that five-yearly regular review, the amendment expands the scope of that review to include the performance of the Clean Energy Regulator in administering the scheme. Already, the Clean Energy Regulator has a broad suite of skills and systems that can be efficiently adapted to the new scheme. This includes compliance processes, IT systems, deep knowledge of land and vegetation development and, of course, environmental markets. One of the reasons that we wanted to locate the new scheme side-by-side in the Clean Energy Regulator with the carbon credits is because we expect that a lot of the projects will have carbon plus biodiversity benefits. In the example we were using earlier about tree plantation, you will have an obvious carbon benefit. But if you choose the right types of trees you will get a better biodiversity benefit. Having those projects administered by one regulator rather than by separate regulators makes a lot of sense.</para>
<para>But I completely accept what the member for Goldstein has said about learning from the Chubb review about how to ensure that this scheme has integrity. I think it is absolutely vital that we take the lessons of some of the low-quality carbon credit units and how we fix that problem, make sure that we are taking those insights from the Chubb review and from other information available to us now, to make sure we don't repeat those mistakes.</para>
<para>I'm not proposing to agree to the amendment to reduce the review period to three years, in particular because, as I've said, it'll be a year before the scheme is opening its doors for the first projects; it would really be too short a period. But what I have said is that the statutory review period is at least every five years. That means there can also be an early review if there are any concerns. The review can be brought forward if concerns arise about the scheme.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 15), omit "or", substitute "and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), after "biodiversity", insert ", including the Biodiversity Convention".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 18), after paragraph (b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) to contribute to meeting Australia's domestic goal of no new extinctions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 7 (after line 30), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">biodiversity conservation purchasing process</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Biodiversity Convention</inline> means the Convention on Biological Diversity, done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, as in force for Australia from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 1993 No. 32 ([1993] ATS 32) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).</para></quote>
<para>These amendments are to the objects of the Nature Repair Market Bill, to ensure the market has a clear purpose. There's a review of the nature repair market built into the bill for every five years, under clause 236. This review looks at the operation of the nature repair market and assesses it against the act's objects. This means that it's vital that the objects set clearly measurable and definable policy goals, especially given the challenges in creating a market mechanism to deliver an outcome as complex as the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Objects provisions are also important because they not only provide general guidance for the interpretation of an act but can be used to resolve uncertainty and ambiguity.</para>
<para>I am proposing a few changes to the objects of the bill. Firstly, my amendment will change the object to promoting the enhancement and protection of biodiversity, not one or the other. This may seem like a minor change but threatened species and communities are already in a perilous state of decline, which means we need active management to ensure rehabilitation and recovery. Setting the purpose only to protect biodiversity would set the standard too low and not account for baseline decline. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity will lead to a positive outcome for nature beyond maintaining the status quo.</para>
<para>My second change to the objects include a specific reference to Australia's international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. This provides a measurable policy outcome and specifically refers to achieving Australia's commitment under the Kunming-Montreal global diversity framework, that being 30 per cent of terrestrial and marine ecosystems under protection and 30 per cent of degraded terrestrial and marine ecosystems under restoration by 2030.</para>
<para>Finally, I propose the objects of the bill include contributing to Australia's domestic goal of no new extinctions. The operation of the nature repair market should be measured against this goal as well insofar as it should not only encourage species recovery and protect critical habitat; it must also avoid exacerbating threats or contributing to species decline.</para>
<para>These amendments will strengthen the objects clause, providing a clear benchmark against which the operation of the act will be measured in the future. Strengthening the objects clause is particularly important when dealing with a new type of framework like the nature repair market, with many aspects of the market to be determined in related legislation or regulation.</para>
<para>I thank the minister, and her staff, for her constructive and collaborative engagement on this bill and for her sincere consideration of reasonable suggestions for the improvement of the bill from myself and from other members of the crossbench. I look forward to working with the minister on the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to implement important changes the minister has acknowledged tonight are needed, such as the new offset standard and a clear hierarchy showing that offsets are a last resort.</para>
<para>These changes will improve the likelihood of this bill and the EPBC Act making a real difference to the protection of nature in Australia. I commend these amendments to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support these amendments and I commend the member for Curtin for bringing them forward. They are practical; they are also commonsense amendments. You've got to keep in mind, and it's the reason I'm supporting this bill, that it's a win-win. It's a win for farmers, so it allows the farmers in the central west of New South Wales and, indeed, all around Australia to get an income stream to supplement their farming income, which can be very handy in a dry time. But it's also a win for the environment, and I think these amendments, these commonsense and practical amendments to the objects, enhance the effectiveness of the bill now but also into the future.</para>
<para>I note the member for Curtin has moved the amendment that the bill protects and enhances biodiversity so that's not an optional extra. It's not either/or; it's got to be both. It ensures that the bill specifically helps to achieve Australia's domestic goal of no new extinctions, which I think the community would wholeheartedly support. And it also ensures that the bill refers to achieving Australia's commitments under the convention on biodiversity.</para>
<para>I think the outcome of all of these practical and commonsense amendments is it that you'll get a more effective bill, and you'll get measurable outcomes, which is what the Australian public want to see from a bill like this. They want farmers and other landholders to get the benefits. They want the environment to get the benefits. And they want this bill to be as effective as possible. So, again, I commend the member for Curtin for bringing forward these amendments. I commend these amendments to the government, and I also urge the opposition, who in many ways were the architects of the principle of this bill, to get behind these amendments. They didn't get behind the bill, but they can still get behind these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Curtin for these amendments. I think they improve the bill. And I thank her for the very constructive way that she has negotiated the amendments. And I want to thank the member for Calare for his comments as well.</para>
<para>This set of amendments enhance the objectives of the Nature Repair Market Bill, and they will clarify what the bill is trying to achieve. It's important because those objectives are what we will measure the success of the nature repair market against when it's reviewed every five years. I thank the member for Curtin and commend the amendments to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>98</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7013" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Service Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7044" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Service Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Public Service is one of the great institutions of our national life. It's values are basic to our national wellbeing. Our government recognises this, and we understand that the quality of our system of governance depends heavily on the integrity, professionalism and dedication of our public service. That's why I rise today to support the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which aims to make crucial amendments to the Public Service Act 1999 and forms a vital component of the Albanese government's ABS reform agenda.</para>
<para>Much of our government's agenda in this space is driven by the recent Independent Review Of The Australian Public Service. Spearheaded by David Thodey, the review highlighted significant issues with the APS. The review revealed a lack of unified purpose, excessive internal focus and a decline in important areas of capability. To address these concerns, the review called for a trusted, future-ready, responsive and agile APS that will cater to the evolving needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity.</para>
<para>We know that every single day countless Australians find our lives changed for the better thanks to our Australian Public Service. From the cafe owner who turns to Services Australia after their business has been swept away by devastating floods to a student immersed in a research project chasing up a book from the National Library, the APS steps in to support them. Consider a new parent, eager to ensure their parental leave payment is secure through myGov. They rely on the APS to provide advice and assistance. Think of a teenager, brimming with excitement about their first new job, who needs a tax file number. The APS guides them through the process, making it easier to kickstart their career. And what about retirees? The APS ensures they receive their Medicare rebate when they visit the doctor, offering them peace of mind in their golden years. Regardless of who you are or where you come from, the APS strives to make your dealings with government simple, straightforward and meaningful.</para>
<para>But, as the Thodey review made very clear, we need to restore our Public Service after a decade of jobs losses, funding cuts and privatisation of the sector. That is why this bill encompasses seven key recommendations of the Thodey review. These recommendations are addressed in four key priorities. Firstly, we seek an APS that exemplifies integrity in all its endeavours. Secondly, we aim to create a APS that prioritises people and businesses in policy and service delivery. Thirdly, we strive to establish an APS that serves as a model employer. Fourthly, we endeavour to build the capability required for the APS to perform its duties effectively.</para>
<para>This bill aligns with each of these priorities and serves as an important step towards restoring the public's trust and confidence in the government and its institutions. Importantly, the reforms proposed in this bill will reinforce the core purpose and values of the APS, enhancing its capacity and expertise, promoting good governance, accountability and transparency.</para>
<para>To ensure a cohesive and unified APS, the Thodey review emphasised the need to strengthen the APS's purpose and values, fostering a shared understanding of its role. The amendments in this bill fulfil this intent and support the government's priority of creating an APS that operates with integrity in all its actions. One significant addition is the inclusion of the APS value of stewardship. The APS values reflect the culture and ethos of the APS and outline the expectations for the relationships between public servants, the government, the parliament and the Australian community. The new value of stewardship, developed through extensive consultation with over 1,500 APS staff members across the country, represents a commitment to building capability, institutional knowledge and supporting the public interest in the long term. By mandating that all APS employees uphold stewardship, this bill strengthens the important role played by public servants as stewards who learn from the past, look to the future and preserve public trust while promoting the common good.</para>
<para>In combination with the inclusion of stewardship, this bill requires the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a unified purpose statement for the APS. This purpose statement will provide a shared foundation for collaborative leadership, aligned services and coordinated delivery across the various departments and agencies of the APS. It will foster a sense of purpose in tens of thousands of APS employees, promoting a unified approach. This purpose statement will be subject to regular consultation and refreshment every five years to account for the evolving role of the APS.</para>
<para>Preserving the impartiality of the APS is vital to its effective functioning and to the maintenance of public trust. We know that political interference in APS employment matters would undermine this impartiality. To safeguard an apolitical approach to APS employment, this bill reinforces the provision in the Public Service Act that prohibits ministers from directly speaking with agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This reaffirms the apolitical role of the APS and empowers agency heads to execute their duties and powers with integrity.</para>
<para>Building the capability and expertise of the APS is crucial for its long-term effectiveness. The APS relies on talented and committed individuals as its foundation. To ensure its future readiness, the APS must continually enhance the capabilities of its staff, fostering a skilled and confident workforce that can deliver modern policy and service solutions for years to come. Collaboration with the Australian public is essential for problem-solving and co-designing effective solutions. The bill addresses the erosion of the APS capability by mandating continuous self-assessment, engagement with the public and remedial action. These reforms uphold the APS reform priorities of capability and a people-centred approach to policy and service.</para>
<para>The bill also introduces regular, independent and transparent capability reviews as a mandatory requirement every five years by each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These reviews will evaluate strengths and areas for development, based on the agency's operating environment. Capability review reports and the subsequent action plans will be made publicly available, ensuring a culture of transparent and continuous improvement within the APS.</para>
<para>Recognising the need for long-term policy foresight, the bill obligates the Secretaries Board to commission regular evidence-based long-term insight reports through public consultation.</para>
<para>These reports will explore medium- and long-term trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia. By engaging with academia, experts and the broader Australian community, the APS can foster trust in its expertise and understanding of critical issues that impact Australians. Good governance, accountability and transparency are fundamental to the APS' functioning. Transparency sheds light on the APS culture and composition, prompting necessary changes to maintain an inclusive and supportive work environment for individuals from all works of life. Effective governance ensures the APS employees are empowered and supported in their roles, with opportunities for skills application and development. This bill addresses these objectives by requiring agencies to publish their aggregate APS employee census results along with action plans to respond to their findings. This fosters a culture of transparency and accountability, allowing agencies to listen and respond to the thoughts, concerns and ideas of employees.</para>
<para>To cultivate a culture of trust and support, the bill includes provisions to enable decision-making to occur at the lowest appropriate classification level. This measure seeks to reduce unnecessary hierarchy, empowering APS employees to make decisions, while ensuring that they are not escalated to a higher level unnecessarily. The aim is to improve decision-making processes, reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks, empower staff and foster professional development.</para>
<para>In closing, the challenges that Australia faces in the coming decade are immense. The APS will continue to play an integral role in meeting the evolving needs of the government and the community while upholding professionalism and integrity. The Thodey review provided a blueprint for ongoing transformation within the public sector, adapting to changing needs and circumstances. The Albanese government has responded with its ambitious APS reform agenda, and this bill represents a significant step towards enshrining important reforms. Through these measures, we can enhance and reinforce the public's trust and faith in government and in one of its most critical institutions, the Australian Public Service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a longstanding minister in the Queensland government, I could point out to you 100,000 things we were doing wrong. When the government fell in 1990, I came in for an extremely rude shock because I saw what governments were like in Australia. Governments in the rest of Australia comprise what we now call 'wokes'—I call them 'double-degree done nothing in their lives'—and that group of people took over Queensland. I just want to speak from a point of view of my cousin brothers, my first Australian cousin brothers. I come from a town where we call ourselves 'Murri from the Curry' and we have great loyalty to each other. I identify very strongly with the Kalkadoon tribes that held European settlement at bay for 40 years—not a bad effort. I won't compare us to other people, but not a bad effort.</para>
<para>I went to a funeral on the weekend of one of the three great first Australian leaders. When I went to Yarrabah, the biggest community in Australia, of the public servants, there were 28 positions and 26 were held by whitefellas in a totally blackfella community of 4,000 people. As a result of this very great man, only three of them had the courage to stand up: Tommy Dyer, who died two weeks ago; Alfred Neal, who I am referring to here, who died last week; and the great George Mye in the Torres Strait. The rest of them were scared of the whitefellas and they were subservient to the whitefella public servants. They were very much a race under the control, direction and orders given by the whitefellas.</para>
<para>For those that want to argue that it's not as good now as then because we're getting pushed backwards again, when I came to this place, of the 28 public service positions that ran this community, 26 were whitefellas and two were blackfellas. Now it's the other way around, so don't tell me we haven't made progress. The Rosendale family are very famous. I think everyone in this place is heard of Noel Pearson. He's a Rosendale. The first First Australian, Aboriginal Australian, if you want to use that expression, to be elected to a parliament was a Rosendale from Hopevale. The deputy head of the department that I had was Lester Rosendale.</para>
<para>This is Greg Wallace, who was on <inline font-style="italic">60 </inline><inline font-style="italic">Minutes</inline> twice because he instituted Work for the Dole in Australia. We approached him to have run for us in the Senate, and I said, 'Look, we've got little chance of winning, but it will give you a platform.' This is what he said when he had the Australian press there at his press conference—we're talking about the Public Service here—'When I was CEO at Napranum, all the CEOs in Cape York were blackfellas. Now they're are all whitefellas. We had 36,000 head of cattle with blackfellas in the Cape York. Now we've got none. When I was CEO at Napranum, we could walk into the council chambers, fill out a form and get an inalienable freehold title.' I personally would walk in and I could get a two-acre allotment or a 10,000 acre allotment so long as no-one objected, and then there was a process. But I think there were a thousand leases that went out, and I get very embarrassed because they call them 'Katter leases'. I'm embarrassed because I had nothing to do with that. Not at any stage did I have anything to do with it.</para>
<para>This brings me back to the concept that we are going to have a Voice, and what are we talking about here? Obviously we're talking about a governmental type department based, presumably, in Canberra. If it's going to be a Voice in Canberra, presumably it will be based in Canberra. When I went out and asked people what they wanted, they wanted self-management. They didn't want anyone telling them what to do in Yarrabah. They wanted to have their own government there. The committee comprised people that had played rugby league, had mustered cattle or had cut cane, so I knew they'd all consider a blackfella the same as whitefella. They'd have no racial difference in their heads. They voted unanimously to give the people self-management. The duly elected community council in Yarrabah had the powers, really, to pass any laws they wanted to pass, because there were no regulatory provisions in the act. It just said, 'You've got a responsibility to deliver four services: roads and pathways; water; sewerage; and rubbish. That's it. You've got those responsibilities. What you do after that is up to you. If you want to pass a law saying people walk backwards in Yarrabah, go right ahead. That's what self-management is about.' We're not talking about a faraway group of people who, I just think, will be what we have here. I'm sorry to tell you. What we have here are a bunch of wokes—double-degree, done nothing in their lives.</para>
<para>If I go through the Queensland cabinet, Bjelke-Petersen was the biggest contractor. He was as big as Theiss before he went into parliament. He built the third peanut thresher in Queensland. He created the town of Hopevale. Pastor George Rosendale and the Bjelke-Petersen were missionaries in the Lutheran Church, and, of course, they'd all been rounded up and put in jail during the war, so when they got out, they wanted a home. So they went to Hopevale, which was created by him. So I thought, 'This bloke. Wait on. He's as big a contractor as Theiss. He's a pioneer in peanut processing in Australia. He pioneered the clearing of timber to make way for food production and profitability. He pioneered a dozen areas and, when he was on the council there, he performed.'</para>
<para>Bill Gunn started with nothing and ended up with three small holdings and two butcher shops. He was a very successful man. His daughter was married to one of the Bowies up in the Torres Strait. If ever there was a good fighter for the Torres Strait it was my deputy premier, Bill Gunn.</para>
<para>I could go through the whole cabinet, but 13 of them had cut cane by hand as young men—13 of the 30! How many people in here have ever done a day's work with their hands? How many of you have ever done that? It was a different group of people altogether. Those people gave to Queensland, and probably the towering figure, outside of Bjelke-Peterson—maybe as good as Bjelke-Peterson—was Sir Leo Hielscher, the head of the Public Service. We come in here talking about public servants, but this was a man who, along with the Premier, created the coal industry of Australia. This country only has two sources of income now: coal and iron ore. They're worth $120 billion. The next thing down is probably aluminium, cattle or gold, at about $15 billion. Our country has staggered to a point where we are so lacking in 'Australianism', in patriotism, in self-reliance and self-belief, that we can't even see which way we should be travelling. To give all of your gas away for 6c a unit and then buy it back for $49 a unit—a $120 billion-a-year industry and you gave it away! You people in this place gave it away—you people, the Queensland parliament and the New South Wales parliament. I tell you what: you wouldn't have got it from the chief public servant of Queensland, Leo Hielscher. They went to him because they wanted to export bauxite, and Leo was said to kill himself laughing at the concept that they would mine bauxite. He informed them: 'We don't export or mine bauxite; we produce aluminium. And if you're not going to process it here in Queensland, well, you won't dig it out of the ground in Queensland.'</para>
<para>This was the Public Service—an honourable group of people led by a very great leader, Sir Leo Hielscher. They created the tourism industry, and I'm not going to go into the detail of how they did it. They created the coal industry. They doubled and trebled the size of the cattle industry. They doubled the size of the cane industry. If you love your environment and trees and all of that sort of thing, well, we did some truly wonderful things there. One of them was that we created the prawn and fish farming industry of Australia. Joe Baker, at the Australian Institute of Marine Science—some would describe him as a raving greenie, but he was a very close friend of mine and a very great rugby league player. Joe wanted us to cut back on fishing in the sea, so he instituted the prawn and fish farming industry. Yes, alright, there may have been benefits to the ocean—I disagreed with him on that, but maybe there were. In any event, we instituted the industry. There wasn't a single farm in Australia and now there's $2,000 million a year coming in from prawn and fish farming. The point I'm making is that it wasn't just the members of parliament; the Public Service reflected the same attitudes and values as the members of parliament.</para>
<para>I'll return to the First Australians, as I start to conclude. Greg Wallace said: 'When I was CEO at Napranum, all of the CEOs were blackfellas. Now, under the Labor Party'—he didn't say that, but of course that's what he meant; he's running for us in parliament!—'the CEOs are whitefellas again. We're back where we started from.' Every single community had a market garden so we could combat malnutrition. The much-maligned Christians—a lot of people in this place hate the word 'Christianity': 'Oh, terrible! Love your neighbour and do good to other people—isn't it shocking!' A profound idea, that one! It's unfortunately true—and as a published historian I can say this, and as a person who lived out in the bush with my partner, whose mother was one of the few piccaninny survivors from the battle on Battle Camp Range. Some may call it a massacre. I know what I'm talking about here.</para>
<para>The First Australians would have been all but annihilated if it hadn't been for Christian missionaries coming in—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Kennedy might refer to the bill at hand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and saying: 'No, you're not going to do this. We're setting up protected areas and you're not going to set foot inside them.'</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Public Service is one of Australia's biggest employers. It has careers to suit just about anyone at all stages of life, from school leavers and graduates looking to start in the workforce through to senior executives and professionals who shape the future of Australia. The APS is governed by a legislative framework that includes the Public Service Act 1999, the APS Values and the APS Code of Conduct. This framework and its policies set the standards and obligations for conduct, performance and behaviour of APS employees and agencies and the APS as a whole. It helps them identify and manage risks, make ethical decisions, and work with integrity, which in turn helps to maintain public trust in APS agencies and its employees.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is taking the next steps in rebuilding the Australian Public Service by introducing a bill to amend the Public Service Act 1999. This bill and the Albanese Labor government's broader APS reform agenda are about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 will strengthen the APS core purpose and values, build the capacity and expertise of the APS, and support good governance, accountability and transparency. The bill will: add a new APS value of stewardship; require an APS purpose statement; make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters; encourage decision-making at the lowest appropriate level; make regular capability reviews a requirement; require annual APS employee census results to be published along with an action plan responding to the results; and establish at least one long-term insight briefing each year. Many of the proposed changes align with recommendations from the 2019 Thodey review. Since the Thodey review was released, Australia has faced a COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical and economic disruption, and we have gained new insight on integrity issues affecting the Public Service. The bill advances the Albanese Labor government's APS reform agenda, which is designed to address the challenges facing the APS now and into the future. It will amend the Public Service Act 1999 to deliver enduring transformational change and ensure the APS is well placed to serve the Australian government, the parliament and the Australian public into the future.</para>
<para>To strengthen the APS core purpose and values, the bill will add a new APS value of stewardship that all APS employees must uphold. Stewardship will be defined as the APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and will support the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does. The bill will require the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a single, unifying APS purpose statement, and review it once every five years. All agency heads will be required to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement in addition to the APS Values and APS Employment Principles. The bill will clarify and strengthen provisions in the act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct the agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This will reaffirm the APS's apolitical nature.</para>
<para>To build the capability and expertise of the APS, the bill will make regular, independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement. Capability reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with reports and action plans responding to findings required to be publicly released. It will require the Secretaries Board to commission regular long-term insight reports to explore medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia. These reports will ensure the APS can build trust in its expertise and an understanding of cross-cutting issues that matter to all Australians.</para>
<para>To support good governance, accountability and transparency, the bill will require publication of agencies' APS employee census results and an action plan that responds to results. This will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies. It will require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest appropriate classification for these decisions. This will ensure decision-making is not raised to a higher level than is necessary, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees.</para>
<para>Many of the proposed amendments were recommendations of the 2019 independent review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review, or go to its intent. Specifically, it speaks to recommendation 5, which, as the explanatory memorandum says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… called for the core principles and APS Values to be strengthened, by reaffirming the important and enduring role that all APS employees play in serving successive Governments, the Parliament and the Australian public.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 6 was to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… develop and embed an inspiring purpose and vision to unite the APS in serving the nation.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 32:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… called for the APS to adopt best-practice ways of working and improving decision-making, by ensuring Agency Heads empower APS employees to make decisions appropriate to their classification.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 2a:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… called for regular, future-focused capability reviews to build organisational capacity and accountability, by establishing the power for the Commissioner to cause a capability review …</para></quote>
<para>The review also called for the need to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… strike a better balance between short-term responsiveness and investing in the deep expertise required to grapple with long-term, strategic policy challenges.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 2b, 'fostering a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies', is being addressed through the publication of the APS employee census results.</para>
<para>Other amendments have drawn on observations about public administration from governments at the state level or from overseas. The government will continue to consider and progress the recommendations of the Thodey review as part of its ongoing APS reform agenda.</para>
<para>We all have something to contribute to ensure enduring reform. In particular, I would like to highlight the Western Australian government's <inline font-style="italic">Future</inline><inline font-style="italic"> enable</inline><inline font-style="italic">d: a </inline><inline font-style="italic">strategic narrative of professionalism, purpose and pride in the Western Australia</inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline><inline font-style="italic"> public sector.</inline> This narrative recognises the need for the public sector to not only be consistent and reliable but also be innovative, transformative and adaptable to meet new and rising challenges. Likewise, the WA government's Agency Capability Review program drives excellence and continuous improvement in the public sector. These reviews provide the agency with a clear understanding of its current capabilities including both strengths and areas for improvement.</para>
<para>What I would like to leave you all with is this: reforming such a large and complex organisation takes time and sustained effort, and we all have a very important role to play. This bill seeks to support the many public servants who work incredibly hard to provide the best service that they possibly can—in particular, the many who worked through the COVID pandemic and back-to-back natural disasters, who, as a result, have seen grief, distress, anxiety and upset. They have borne witness to people struggling with these challenges, who often think their challenges are insurmountable and who feel helpless.</para>
<para>We acknowledge the dedication and the commitment of all those who work in the Australian Public Service. They deserve an agile and responsive system, one that will enable them to support others. They deserve a strong, robust framework of support as they continue to work in our cities, in our towns and in our regions right around Australia. It is on this basis that I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the proposed Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. This bill offers small steps to improve the Australian Public Service at a time when we have a crisis of confidence in its governance.</para>
<para>The Australian Public Service includes all entities employing staff under the Public Service Act 1999—currently about 160,000 individuals. They administer the services which collect our tax, monitor our borders, procure and distribute our medications, administer our health systems, care for our elderly, monitor our schools and our universities and look after the disabled and the unemployed. We need them. We should respect them. We need to be able to trust them.</para>
<para>A number of recent studies have found that APS capability is no longer fit for purpose, that it needs renewal of its fundamental structure, hierarchies and practices. To that end, a report was commissioned in 2018 by the Turnbull government to consider reform of the Australian Public Service. When presented in 2019 by David Thodey, that report noted a weakened Public Service resulting in weakened service delivery for Australians, and it called for service-wide transformation. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To achieve this aspiration, the APS will need to undergo a significant transformation, guided by the recommendations in this review — uniting through a clear purpose, building its professionalism and expertise, embracing data and digital, looking out and working with partners to solve problems, getting rid of the excessive silos and hierarchy, and strengthening service-wide leadership and governance.</para></quote>
<para>The report made 40 key recommendations, which it suggested would trigger and sustain far-reaching change when implemented. It identified strong support for change, but it also forecast the need for a deep commitment from the APS and from its leaders, with strong endorsement from the government, for that reform to succeed. Further, the report suggested that very significant financial investment was needed: $100 million to kickstart the transformation and then $1 billion a year to supply better service outcomes through digital transformation and other public capital.</para>
<para>During the 2022 election campaign, the Australian Labor Party did commit to improving the APS. That commitment has led to this bill. The reform agenda is informed by the 40 recommendations of the Thodey report, but this proposed legislation directly addresses only six of those 40 recommendations. The government budgeted in October 2022 only $72 million over three years to strengthen the capability of the APS and then a further $18.5 million over two years in May 2023.</para>
<para>The Thodey report called for service-wide transformational change, but this is not delivered by this bill. With this bill, the government is outlining plans and budget support for only very modest improvements to the capability of the Australian Public Service. Four key reforms of the Thodey report are missing from the bill: measures to strengthen the power of the APS Commissioner, legislation clarifying the distinct rules of the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as opposed to the APS Commissioner, measures to strengthen the merit based process for secretary appointments and constrain the capacity of the Prime Minister to terminate employments, and a measure requiring consultation of the Leader of the Opposition before appointment of the APS Commissioner.</para>
<para>The employees and officers of the Australian Public Service are obliged to serve the government of the day with integrity. They have to provide frank and fearless advice on matters of public policy, from national security to fiscal policy to social security, across all of the machinery-of-government arrangements. They are a vital part of our government, and yet, in a recent study, we found that only three out of 10 people trust their government's systems.</para>
<para>In essence, the Thodey report identified two principal concerns with the Australian Public Service: firstly, the increasing trend of outsourcing core Public Service work to contractors; and, secondly, the increasing politicisation of the Australian Public Service. Last year, one in four people employed by the Australian government was an external contractor. The Morrison government spent an appalling $20.8 billion on external contractors last year. Rather than incremental change as we have with this bill, we need transformational change to our Public Service. Recent research confirmed 'citizen satisfaction with service delivery experienced is directly related to the level of trust and advocacy in government.'</para>
<para>Paradoxically and quixotically, that report was undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Most people in this House and in this country know of the recent allegations regarding PwC's breaching of confidentiality agreements around government plans for multinational tax laws. Four of every five Australians now want PwC banned from further government contracts. This bill will do nothing towards that end.</para>
<para>Last week we heard from the Australian National Audit Office of the subversion of the Morrison government's Community Health and Hospitals Program. It reported that the public servants of the Department of Health acted unethically and unlawfully in that they consciously and deliberately decided not to develop opportunity guidelines for government grants. Further, despite the absence of legislation that could reasonably be relied on to authorise expenditure on some grant proposals, the Public Service intended to, and did, execute grants despite the absence of a legislative authority to do so. This bill will do nothing to address the Public Service deficiencies identified in that report.</para>
<para>Finally, and most egregiously, we've recently heard of the failures of robodebt, an unlawful method of automated debt assessment and recovery employed by Services Australia as part of its Centrelink payment compliance program. Robodebt was a case study in bad government and Public Service failure. We have to learn from the lessons of robodebt, but this bill will do nothing to facilitate that. It's premature that we're seeing this limited and uninspired legislation before we see the report of the robodebt royal commission. I support my colleague the member for Curtin in her suggestion that we should delay this legislation until we have that report.</para>
<para>The Grattan Institute reported last year that one in five federal board positions are handed to politically connected individuals. That includes 22 per cent of the 320 members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For many years we have seen successive governments hand out powerful, well-paid positions to friends, supporters and party loyalists—indeed, to the victors have gone the spoils. At a state level this reached new heights when John Barilaro invented his own cushy job—a new nadir, or peak, depending on how you see it, of creative corruption. I wholeheartedly support my colleague the member for Mackellar on her separate private member's bill regarding the importance of independent, nonpartisan scrutiny of senior Public Service appointments. Again, this bill does nothing to address that issue.</para>
<para>In 2019, Prime Minister Morrison told this country that ministers determined policy for public servants to deliver. He discounted, he did not value, the frank and fearless advice and the competence and integrity which a well-staffed, well-funded and independent public service can and should provide. We shouldn't be debating this legislation today; we should be debating a much bigger and much more imaginative piece of legislation with the ability to guarantee for us real change and real independence for our Public Service so that we can rebuild trust in our systems and in our government. It's a great shame that this bill will not do that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUM</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ANN () (): I'm pleased to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. It's quite sad that we have to do this, but the previous government under prime ministers Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott simply degraded the Public Service. We saw the arbitrary staffing cap imposed in 2015, and labour hiring and privatising and outsourcing in the Public Service. The Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Defence—tens of thousands of people being engaged, with billions in contracts being engaged by the former government in labour hiring. Many of the people assessing claims for Veterans' Affairs under VEA or DRCA, and many people dealing with Centrelink claims, Medicare rebates or indeed applications for visas, were not experienced public servants; they were outsourced through multinational labour hire companies. And this continued to grow and grow and grow.</para>
<para>The previous government ignored David Thodey's review back in 2019, so we are left with the situation where the recommendations of the Thodey review are being implemented by this government. A change of government was necessary. We saw its various stages. The Department of Veterans' Affairs was in a position where 50 per cent of the people that were dealing with claims were labour hire. The evidence that was given to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide of the impact on people's lives is troubling—it's really disturbing. If you get the Public Service wrong and you treat public servants poorly, if you don't listen to impartial, honest, fearless and frank advice, if you degrade the Public Service, if you labour hire and outsource it, there are consequences for people's lives, and the royal commission that's currently looking into veterans and defence issues, mental health, suicidal ideation and the tragic suicides of defence personnel and those who have served our country in uniform is clear evidence that government decision-making and the votes that we cast in this place and in the other chamber have an impact on people's lives.</para>
<para>This bill, in and of itself, may look a bit sterile. It may look like it's not something that's very interesting. It's not a page turner, if I can put it like that, having read the bill and the explanatory memorandum and everything I can about it. But it has a real difference to make for people—the people engaged with government, the people who go to that portal each and every day, the people whom we deal with in our electorate offices who have challenges working with government, the people who had delays in citizenship applications that we're now addressing, the million people seeking the visas that failed to be processed under those opposite. The legislation before the chamber today has a real impact on people's lives, and that's why I'm pleased to speak about it. It's part of the necessary agenda of this government. It will make a difference. It is about rebuilding the Public Service.</para>
<para>The CPSU and the Services Union have been talking about this for years. I give them thanks and I praise them for their advocacy and the work they've done in this space. This particular legislation is a bill to amend the Public Service Act 1989. Millions of Australians interact with the Australian Public Service each and every day. They think that on many occasions they're dealing with a public servant, but they're not; they're dealing with someone who is not an experienced public servant and probably doesn't have the skills and the ability and the training and the expertise to deal with their claims. They deal with public servants on the phone for support. They receive subsidised medicine through the PBS. They apply for a passport.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is delivering on its promise to rebuild the Public Service. We have said that. We made commitments in the last campaign and we're doing it now. After a decade of neglect, we're cleaning up the mess left by those opposite, who gutted the Public Service, reduced its capability and outsourced billions of dollars of work to consultants and contractors. At its heart, this bill is about broad APS reform to restore the public's faith and trust in government, the Public Service and the institutions of government and make sure that the service delivery that I talked about before is delivered fairly, on time, with expedition and with expertise so that it strengthens the core purpose and the values of the Public Service and builds its capability and the skills necessary in the APS to provide the kind of good government that we think is necessary and that the public expects, and that's a government of honesty, transparency and accountability.</para>
<para>There's the provision for the new APS value of stewardship. There's a requirement for an APS purpose statement. There's strengthening of the relevant provisions in the Public Service Act to make sure that ministers can't direct agency heads on employment matters, and that's so important in terms of integrity. It's about making sure that those people who make decisions at lower levels can do so without fear of retribution.</para>
<para>It is making sure that we have capability reviews on a regular basis. It is making sure that we publish annual APS employment census results. It is ensuring that we have at least one long-term insights briefing each year.</para>
<para>The challenges we face are immense. Listen to those opposite. There are not many speakers from those opposite, but, when I listen to their speeches, I do wonder why some of them actually decided to engage in political representation, which is a form of public service, because some of them were ministers. They dealt with the Public Service. They know the value of the Public Service. They know the integrity of the Public Service. They know the competency of the Public Service. If you have served in any ministerial capacity, from an assistant minister to minister to cabinet or prime minister, you know how capable these people are and how competent they are.</para>
<para>It is very, very important that we have people who can deal with the public in this way. But those opposite constantly denigrate them. I cannot believe the way that some of those opposite have spoken on this bill, belittling the importance of the bill and belittling the importance of the Public Service, because that is what we are engaged in—public service. There are many people in this place who, if they were interested in financial security, would not have run for politics, but they are interested in public service, because we think that is an honourable profession—serving the public as a parliamentarian—and those opposite degraded public service generally.</para>
<para>We saw some egregious examples of failure under those opposite. Robodebt was a classic example, a massive failure of public administration with catastrophic consequences. I saw it day in day out in my electorate office, a scheme that, through the royal commission hearings, we have learned had shocking details, with three ministers and one former prime minister required to take the stand to explain their role about what they knew and what they did, showing the great power and value of these inquiries. We watched the public servants on the stand, with one official after another official not want to deliver bad news to the Morrison government—ministers were focused on delivering government service—but they were not able to give robust and competent legal advice. Ministers were not wanting to know. The former minister for government services, the former member for Fadden, invoked cabinet solidarity as an excuse for making false statements about the legality of the scheme.</para>
<para>So reform of the Public Service is absolutely critical. Robodebt might just be the worst example of everything that was rotten about the previous government and its arrogant minister who knew everything. It is an attitude of the Public Service we need to reform, and this bill is a step on the road to reform. Devaluing and debasing the APS was also about the politicisation of public appointments. We saw repeated audits from the Auditor-General in relation to a whole bunch of funding arrangements of those opposite—car parks, regional sports—in a whole range of areas where they were criticised by the Auditor-General in report after report. There are consequences for that. People lose faith in government when those things happen. You could not make that stuff up. It simply would not have happened in a professional and responsible government. So the legislation is critical.</para>
<para>We have lost a decade and we have seen the cost of those failures each and every day in health, in Medicare, in aged care, veterans' affairs, the NDIS, the NBN, energy and climate, the environment and Indigenous affairs, housing, arts, immigration, overseas assistance, and in areas of data and digital. Those are just a few areas. As MPs, we have borne the brunt of the previous government's failure, because our electorate officers were busier than they would otherwise have been if the previous government had not failed. Our officers were dealing with a huge volume of constituent inquiries relating to failures and delay from government agencies. If only those agencies, those public services, had been properly resourced and empowered to do their jobs, we would not have had to deal with quite so many matters. Never again can we allow those opposite to try and get away with the propaganda of being the superior economic managers—what nonsense, complete rubbish. Under those opposite, there was budgetary vandalism. They ignored the big challenges, thinking they could get away with it.</para>
<para>They kicked the can down the road for another government to deal with the cost of delay. We can't let this go on. That's why this legislation before the chamber is so important. I support it. I think it is absolutely crucial that we engage in Public Service reform. This is about the integrity, honesty and transparency of government. I support the legislation. I think it is absolutely crucial for the benefit of the Australian public.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Live Animal Exports, Western Australia: Biosecurity Levy, Western Australia: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As member for an electorate consisting of only regional, rural or remote areas I am greatly concerned over the Albanese Labor government's attack on our valued Western Australian farmers. It is truly perplexing to me that those opposite are seeking to decimate and destroy an industry that is an integral part of our heritage, ensures our food security and sustains our nation.</para>
<para>I will start by addressing the Labor government's proposed live sheep export ban, which is an anti Western Australia plan. The panel involved with phasing out live sheep exports has been conducting meetings throughout Western Australia with very short notice. I am deeply alarmed and dismayed by the lack of comprehensive advertising for these meetings, which have not reached our farmers and the wider community. It is shameful.</para>
<para>I must question the motives of those opposite and the minority active groups they are trying to appease. If they genuinely cared about animal welfare standards, they would support our industry, which is consistently ranked amongst the highest in the world. This industry generates significant economic contributions and its processes are subject to rigorous scrutiny and continuous improvement. Put clearly, Western Australian sheep producers could not have done any more than has been asked of them.</para>
<para>If Labor shuts down our live WA sheep export trade, the global demand for meat will not cease. It is important to note that many countries relying on live animal exports lack adequate refrigeration to store meat. If we fail to provide these countries with live animals, other countries with lower standards and less stringent procedures will simply fill the gap. The unfortunate consequence of this will be animals having to endure harsh conditions on board unregulated ships. I call on WA's new Premier, Roger Cook, to do everything he can to demonstrate his support for our Western Australian sheep producers and to put an end to this unjustifiable plan.</para>
<para>A further attack on Western Australian farmers is a new and unnecessary biosecurity levy being introduced by the Albanese government, which is vehemently opposed by industry. From July 2024, all producers in agriculture, forestry and fisheries will be burdened with an additional 10 per cent levy on top of their existing agricultural levies. The Albanese Labor government's budget has ignored practical solutions for a stronger and more vibrant agricultural sector. It falls short in crucial areas such as road funding, tax incentives and measures to alleviate worker shortages in regional areas, as noted by the National Farmers' Federation.</para>
<para>Adding to the concerns faced by our farmers, the impending implementation of WA state Labor's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act imposes substantial compliance obligations. This act will not only impact our farmers, but also pastoralists, small miners, prospectors, demolition and construction companies and various other small companies, including residential property owners. The WA Labor government has failed in its duty of consultation and is rushing through this process with only a handful of information sessions coinciding with the busiest time for our Western Australian farmers. A petition from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia calling on the state government to delay the implementation of the act by at least six months has already gathered close to 30,000 signatures. Again, it is a test for our new Western Australia Premier to show leadership, show that he supports regional Western Australia and delay implementation of this new compliance regime.</para>
<para>At the Australian local government association conference held last week here in Canberra, Mr Ross Foulkes-Taylor, President of the Shire of Murchison and also a very well-known pastoralist, raised with Chris Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the issue that was impacting the implementation of the Emissions Reduction Fund carbon farming projects on pastoral land in WA, subject to native title. According to Mr Ross Foulkes-Taylor and others, the native title approval process has become unwieldy. On that day, he asked the minister whether he had any intention to overhaul the process.</para>
<para>The minister gave a very unsatisfactory answer, and I believe an Indigenous family pastoral station representative who was present at the conference was deeply offended by the answer.</para>
<para>The excessive tape and bureaucracy being imposed by the state and federal Labor governments will exacerbate the challenges faced by our primary producers. The Labor government's multipronged attack on farmers is already having a catastrophic effect on regional, rural and remote Australia. We must recognise the social impact that this attack is having on our regional communities. Western Australian farmers deserve much better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parafield Airport</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Parafield Airport, located 18 kilometres north of the Adelaide CBD and a major landmark in the Makin electorate, is the principal general aviation and pilot training airport in South Australia. Established in 1927 and occupying 437 hectares, it was Adelaide's main airport until the opening of Adelaide Airport in 1955. The airport has four runways, varying in length between 992 and 1,350 metres. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adelaide Airport Ltd, which in 1998 leased both Adelaide and Parafield airports for 50 years with a further 49-year option.</para>
<para>Over recent decades, both Parafield Airport and the surrounding area have substantially changed. Originally located well outside of Adelaide's residential suburbs, today the airport is almost entirely surrounded by homes. Airport activities have also changed, with flight training, including helicopter flight training, dominating aviation use. Much of the airport land has now been sold off for housing or leased to commercial and retail businesses. Another section is used for water harvesting and recycling by the City of Salisbury. On average, the airport manages around 4,000 aircraft movements, mostly flight training, every week. It has a reported yearly capacity of around 450,000 movements, more than double the current usage.</para>
<para>Not surprisingly, flight training with noisy aircraft circulating above houses—or, even worse, the chuntering of helicopters—has over the years caused considerable angst amongst residents. For shift workers, young mothers with newborns, people recovering from illness or families hoping for a quiet sleep-in on a public holiday or weekend, the relentless droning of aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes overhead can be incredibly disruptive and stressful. The airport's Fly Friendly policy is not obligatory, merely a guide which operators are simply encouraged to adhere to. Nor do complaints to airport management or Airservices Australia reflect the extent of community angst that I detect as I speak with residents. It seems that many people grudgingly put up with the disruption, knowing that their complaints will be ignored. Furthermore, being on federal government land, the airport is exempt from SA Environment Protection Authority noise controls, which place greater restrictions on other noise-emitting industries in the area than the voluntary Fly Friendly airport code places on aircraft.</para>
<para>Whilst I don't have access to the figures, I expect that the airport's income and estimate of economic value to the region is derived overwhelmingly from the retail businesses which continue to expand into airport land. Those businesses are not the problem, and they are here to stay. In summary, over the years, the airport has changed from being a general aviation airport to a commercial business precinct, with flight training—predominantly for overseas students, who I understand account for around 90 per cent of student flight training—now left as its primary aviation use. That raises the question as to whether the economic benefits of flight training for overseas students justify the social disruption that thousands of local residents live with daily and the impact on house values.</para>
<para>The periodical review of the airport master plan is now underway and, I understand, must be submitted by 18 June 2024. I also note that an aviation white paper is being developed for the minister. I believe that the time has come for the long-term future of Parafield Airport to be considered. In particular, could the international flight training school be relocated to another general aviation airport? Alternatively, what measures, including the use of electric planes, could be taken to reduce noise impacts on residents? It has also been suggested that the entire airport could be relocated. If it were, what options for future land use that preserved the open-space nature of the airport might be possible, and how would existing airport aviation businesses be supported?</para>
<para>The airport lease is halfway through it's initial term, and the reliance on overseas students provides no long-term security. The current masterplan that's being reviewed should therefore consider all options about the long-term future of the airport, and they should all be explored.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This evening I call out the Labor Party's universal lack of attention to detail and how this is playing out both federally and in my home state of South Australia. The Prime Minister insists we can trust Labor on the detail of the Voice. In WA we were asked to trust state Labor back in 2021 when they gagged debate and rammed the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 through the WA parliament. With the act set to become law in 1 July, it is obvious that Labor cannot be trusted to support the WA landowners, farmers, property developers and miners on whose revenue the WA government is achieving record budget surpluses. This insidious law has been universally condemned, with concerned stakeholders calling for a minimum six-month deferral of the implementation date.</para>
<para>Few people would argue in the wake of the desecration of the Juukan Gorge in 2020 that an update to the WA state heritage law wasn't warranted. But, instead of limiting its act to areas where Aboriginal heritage is at greatest risk, WA Labor has ensured that almost every mining company, every farmer, every local government—indeed, every owner of a freehold block of land larger than 1,100 square metres—will pay for the actions of that single multinational mining company at Juukan Gorge.</para>
<para>In Labor's crosshairs are O'Connor householders, the miners and prospectors of WA's Goldfields region, and the food and fibre producers on the fertile farming lands of my electorate. Many O'Connor farmers are already doing it tough thanks to the devaluation of their flocks wrought by federal Labor's plan to ban live sheep exports. Like that ideological thought bubble, the WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act is overreach in the extreme. Under the act, landholders will need a permit for activities such as building a fence line and digging a footing or a farm dam. In fact, any disturbance of the soil deeper than 50 millimetres may be subject to heritage assessment, and approvals will not be granted until heritage permits have been processed. The property council of WA warns that shovel-ready projects will be affected. WA's biggest miners have held crisis talks, and a petition launched by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association attracted 29,000 signatures in less than two weeks. The PGA petition calls on the WA government to pause the law's rollout until state Labor gets its act together.</para>
<para>Much like the federal Labor's stakeholder consultations after committing to ban the live sheep export trade, the act information sessions arranged by the state have been an absolute shambles. Four sessions scheduled for O'Connor's largest regional centres quickly reached capacity after the bureaucrats selected venues too small to hold all the interested parties. Their solution was to stop advertising the workshops and to close RSVPs. I called for bigger venues, but in Albany the revised venue has already reached capacity for the 27 June workshop. Nonetheless, on June 12 in Esperance 550 residents flocked to the civic centre to voice their displeasure at the act, and more than 400 people attended the session in Merredin. At the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Racing Club attendees heard how the act could impact on mining companies and the prospectors of the Goldfields. Everyone was concerned that the state is yet to publish guidelines on how the law will be applied to their particular sector.</para>
<para>Perhaps the greatest indictment on the blanket of bureaucracy WA Labor has thrown over the state is that many Aboriginal people do not support the act. In the <inline font-style="italic">Kalgoorlie Miner</inline> this week, the founder of the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, my good friend Aubrey Lynch, has urged Labor to heed the Pastoralists and Graziers Association petition and to defer the act's implementation. Mr Lynch said that in the rush to ram the act through landowners, prospectors, pastoralists and Aboriginal people will be harmed. In the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline> the Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation said it had no desire to be bogged down in any government imposed compliance or permitting.</para>
<para>Of major concern to landholders, the act will hand considerable powers to a group known as local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services, which do not exist in many parts of my electorate. WA's Aboriginal affairs minister, Dr Tony Buti, says where this is the case existing native title bodies will be able to support the act's operation, yet Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation says it does not want to be involved in administering the act.</para>
<para>As with federal Labor's planned Voice to Parliament, WA Labor asked the general public to trust them on the details of the act only to be let down two years later. So I close by asking: why would the average Australian trust Labor on anything, let alone an amendment to our Constitution?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade: Investor-State Dispute Settlement</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've spoken in this place on numerous occasions about the risks to Australia posed by investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. ISDS clauses in trade and investment agreements allow companies to sue governments through a mechanism that I've described as dodgy, and it is dodgy in the well-established Australian meaning of the term because it's inconsistent, it lacks transparency and in many instances it displays a range of other judicial shortcomings—as many expert commentators has found. Indeed, the UN, the EU and a significant number of individual nations have acknowledged some of these problems and concerns. It's one of the reasons the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration came into being in 2014, and it's why in 2018 the Court of Justice of the European Union held that ISDS provisions in investment treaties between EU member states are incompatible with EU law.</para>
<para>The Australian community has good reason to be wary of ISDS mechanisms, because they're unnecessary and they're dangerous. They allow multinational companies to challenge the legitimate laws and policies of sovereign nations. They essentially allow companies to reject laws that might protect the environment, public health or the rights of workers, and sometimes to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. Here in Australia, we've had direct experience of a tobacco company, Philip Morris, using an ISDS clause to attack our plain-packaging reforms, which of course were a key part of reducing the awful health impacts and the massive health costs of smoking. It has been estimated that fighting that case cost the Australian taxpayer $40 million and was only won on a jurisdictional issue. Otherwise, plain packaging may well have been effectively blocked by a tobacco company that wanted to maintain its sales and profits from a product that causes death when used as the manufacturer intends.</para>
<para>Right now, Australia is subject to another ISDS claim, this time courtesy of one of Clive Palmer's companies, with a claim upon the Australian taxpayer of $300 billion. When I spoke about that issue back in March, I was a bit surprised when United Australia Party's Senator Ralph Babet got up in the other place to express concern that I would have the temerity to describe ISDS mechanisms as being dodgy. I have to say that's an odd hypersensitivity from a fellow who, in his first speech, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For strength of self-determination and the love of country, we must not allow unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable international groups of organisations to exert undue influence over the future of Australia. We must be the masters of our own destiny.</para></quote>
<para>In my view, that's an excellent argument against ISDS mechanisms right there.</para>
<para>But after the defence of ISDS from Senator Babet, whose party was formerly known as Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, I was even more surprised when I received a letter from Mr Palmer himself. In that letter Mr Palmer suggested I withdraw my comments and apologise, and he highly recommended that I make no further comment in future. Now whatever you think about Clive Palmer, most people wouldn't think of him as a bloke who generally favours keeping quiet or thinks people should keep their thoughts to themselves, especially when they're in a role as a parliamentary representative, as Clive Palmer himself once was. In any case, I can assure you I'm not going to be silent just because it suits Clive Palmer. Mr Palmer is free to pursue his interests and I'm free to express my views—indeed, I have a duty as a member of this place, as we all do, to speak up in the national interest.</para>
<para>In the past I've done that when Mr Palmer sought to undermine WA's nation-leading, and I dare say world-leading, management of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in WA we remember that Mr Palmer did that with the shameful assistance of the Morrison government. And I'll continue to speak up in relation to the risks posed by the unnecessary and dangerous ISDS system. Let me be clear: I have not made the argument about the ISDS system, which I have done on many occasions, by reflecting on any particular tribunal, its members or process. My criticism is of the system as a whole.</para>
<para>There's no reason for large multinational companies to be able to sue governments through an outside tribunal system when they can either make use of a country's judicial system in the normal way or make use of government-to-government dispute resolution processes that all trade and investment treaties include. As long as Australia is party to agreements that contain ISDS clauses, and as long as we don't act to exclude their operation, we will be at risk of the kind of enormously harmful outcome that was involved in the Philip Morris action all those years ago and is at risk from the action being taken by Mr Palmer's Singapore-based company now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: Advance Care Planning</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the co-convenor the Parliamentary Friends of Palliative Care and of Dementia I want to encourage every adult, no matter what age, to complete an advance care plan. Why? Because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one. Accidents and health emergencies happen every single day, and what happens if tomorrow you become seriously ill or totally unable to communicate or make your preferred treatment decisions? A friend of mine regained consciousness on her kitchen floor following a stroke, unable to speak or move. Decisions about her treatment and care had to be made by others.</para>
<para>As we age it's even more important to have end-of-life care plans. I remember a quote from Dr Sarah Winch from a 2014 National Palliative Care Week, where she said, 'We have not cured death and we're not likely to, so why don't we plan for one of life certainties?' Your advance care plan will make sure your loved ones and healthcare providers make sure your treatment and care preferences actually happen the way that you want. Effectively, you're still in charge. Most importantly, your family will know exactly what you do and don't want. It will save many family arguments and the emotional pressure and guilt for family members having to make tough decisions on your behalf. And why? Because I understand that almost 50 per cent of us will be unable to consent to medical decisions that are made at the ends of our lives—we won't be well enough to do so. So start the process at National Advance Care Planning Support Service on 1300208582, and have a look at the website for practical advice and an email starter pack. Make sure you look at the relevant information, given that each state and territory has slightly different laws and arrangements, and find out where you can get along to an advance care planning session.</para>
<para>Ideally, you should start planning when you are healthy and well, before there is actually a need for a plan. A Palliative Care Australia survey some years ago found that 88 per cent of people thought it was important to think and talk about their preferences for end-of-life care, but only 56 per cent of people had acted. In my state of WA the components of an advance care plan are: the enduring power of guardianship to appoint a substitute decision-maker; an advance health directive—a legal recording of your wishes regarding future medical care; and the advance care plan itself, the one that documents your wishes and instructions with your substitute decision-maker and doctor. Your enduring guardian is someone you elect to make decisions on your behalf regarding your care. It needs to be someone you trust implicitly, who will listen to your values and wishes for future care and do what you want. You also need to know which of these instruments has precedence over the other in each state and territory.</para>
<para>An advance health directive is a legal document which contains your decisions about future treatment and can be completed only while you have the capacity to communicate your decisions. Start the process by getting hold of the documents and then think about what life means to you. Write down what you consider a good death. Have a bucket list and do as much as you can while you can. Build your support crew and your enduring guardian. Create and sign an advance health directive and discuss your plan with your health professionals and personal support team. Write down a care wish list. Palliative care services—do you want them in hospital or at home? The majority of us want to die at home, but only 15 per cent of us actually do so. How will you plan and prepare for this if this is your preference? You can incorporate your cultural and religious beliefs as well.</para>
<para>Discuss everything with the people you love and have that tough conversation. It is a tough one to have and to start. Like in many things in our lives, our thoughts can change, and these documents can be updated to ensure that your needs are met. It's important that you have this discussion, no matter what age you are. I had a discussion with my own daughter about what was right for me, and then it was only a couple of years later when I was with her for 11 days in ICU when the view was that she was not going to survive. I had said to her, 'What do you want if it's you, not me?' She said, 'Gee, Mum!' I said, 'I need to know.' I can only say that I was so grateful that I'd that discussion with my daughter, who was just over 30 at the time, so I knew exactly what she wanted should it have become necessary.</para>
<para>I really encourage you to have these tough discussions. Start thinking about and planning for this yourself, and make sure that you take that pressure off your family members. Make sure it is a care delivery and setting that you really want—home versus hospital. There is a wealth of information on the Advance Care Planning Australia website. Please make sure you visit it and have a look at the wonderful Dementia Australia live the life you please as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pearce Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about a very welcome advancement in health care for my electorate of Pearce in Western Australia, which is one of the largest and fastest-growing areas in Australia. The member for Hindmarsh, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the honourable Mark Butler MP, has announced two very important health services being established in Pearce. They are the Edith Cowan University Health Centre to be located in Yanchep and the Medicare urgent care clinic to be located in Clarkson. Both will provide my community with convenient and more affordable health care.</para>
<para>This is a very welcome announcement, and I am very proud to say that I have been advocating for this local service for a number of years. It is a fact that the Edith Cowan University has focused on and realised the importance of health care in our community and has moved into that space. The new ECU Health Centre in Yanchep is a welcome community health service development and it will address the critical need for comprehensive health services. I have to say, as a community, such an announcement has been amazing. The facility will be a joint partnership between the Australian government, the Western Australian state government and Edith Cowan University. The centre will deliver a crucial health service to the community in Yanchep and surrounding areas by providing integrated multidisciplinary health services for the whole community. This will include much-needed access to GPs, nursing and allied health. It will also offer a range of free and low-cost community health and wellbeing programs.</para>
<para>This growth corridor in Pearce is one of the northern suburbs' fastest growing areas. It is something I reiterate and emphasise because it means a lot to the local community. They have been an outer metropolitan area for so long and are growing at such a pace, with 8,000 residents moving into those local areas—eight babies a day! The median age is 35, so you can see the pressures of those areas. Such an announcement is so incredibly well received and very much appreciated.</para>
<para>The community facility I have just spoken about will be located within walking distance of the Yanchep central shopping centre and be serviced by bus routes, so you won't need a car to get there. This has been a well-considered, thoroughly thought-out plan. The ECU Health Centre is anticipated to commence providing services next year, in 2024, with the west centre nearby anticipated to open 2026. I thank Edith Cowan University and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Cobie Rudd, for her dedication, her commitment and her tenacity in working on this important project along with the Western Australian government. I also thank Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson for her commitment to this project. It is the result of many years of advocacy of local, state and federal governments and private partners working together.</para>
<para>Professor Rudd has said that the project builds on ECU's years of expertise in delivering integrated community based primary health care such as the ECU Health Centre in Wanneroo. The new facilities will create new research, clinical training and work-integrated learning opportunities for ECU students, including those studying health, paramedicine, counselling, psychology, nursing and other students, and is something that the Albanese-Labor government is consistently advocating for in all of our states and territories.</para>
<para>The second important development in health care for Pearce is the establishment of the Ocean Keys Family Practice in Clarkson as a Medicare urgent care clinic to support the northern suburbs community. This is the third provider announcement for Medicare in Western Australia. As part of the 2023-24 May budget, the government has announced additional funding of $358.5 million over five years to support the establishment of 58 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia. From my perspective in Pearce, I am incredibly proud that we are one of those recipients. It will deliver on the commitment to make it easier for West Australians to get the treatment they need from highly qualified doctors and nurses. It will ease the pressure on hospitals and give Australian families more options to see a healthcare professional when they have an urgent but not life-threatening need for care. The urgent care clinic will be open for extended hours, seven days a week, and will offer walk-in care that is fully bulk-billed, and this is what our community has been asking for—more bulk-billing, more affordable health care—and we, as the Albanese Labor government, are delivering just that.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 21 June 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>114</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Health services in our community continue to be under pressure, with long waiting times for patients at our local hospital regularly exceeding the government's benchmark.</para>
<para>During my term in parliament, I'm proud to have delivered $158 million in federal funding towards the current expansion of Joondalup Health Campus, which is under construction. The multilevel car park was completed last October, while a long-awaited 102-bed mental health facility, costing $65 million, is about to open. Through ongoing advocacy, I'm pleased to inform the House that Ramsay Health Care has recently announced a private investment of $77 million to expand surgical services. Planning approval has been secured for a new seven-storey day surgery building.</para>
<para>However, population growth in our northern coastal suburbs continues to place further strain on our already overstretched hospital. Ambulances spent more than 5,000 hours waiting outside our hospitals across Western Australia last month—five times what Premier Roger Cook described as a 'horror story' when in opposition. At our hospital, I have heard concerns of local paramedics and patients about the long waiting times and unacceptable levels of ambulance ramping. Last month, in May, ambulance ramping at Joondalup reached over 500 hours, and reached a peak of over 1,000 hours last year. With more than 70,000 residents moving into our coastal suburbs by 2030, the Labor government must commit to a new hospital in Yanchep to alleviate the pressure on our hospital.</para>
<para>In addition, my constituents are concerned with Labor's broken promise to deliver an urgent care clinic in Joondalup within the first 12 months of government. After my calls for the Labor government to honour its promise, we have finally learned that the urgent care clinic destined for Joondalup is to be built in Clarkson, which is in the electorate of Pearce, and not even within the City of Joondalup's boundaries.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister and his Canberra based bureaucrats clearly have little idea about Western Australia and our needs. The people of Moore deserve better health care as a matter of priority. Instead, the Albanese government spends over $364 million on a referendum.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On education, Malcolm X once said, 'Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.' Truer words have rarely been said. I stand here as a product of the state education system, and I do so very proudly.</para>
<para>I am ever so grateful for the wonderful education provided to me, both at home by my parents and at school by my teachers. But much has changed in our schools since I walked the corridors of my local public and high school in Lurnea. Technology has changed, the curriculum has changed and teaching methodologies have changed. Classroom management styles and techniques have changed, and so much more, but what hasn't changed is the commitment to giving our kids the best chance and start in life, and the commitment of our principals, teachers and support staff to their vocation and to our children.</para>
<para>That's why I'm delighted to have recently announced a number of funding grants to some of my local schools. These grants were provided under the open round of the Schools Upgrade Fund—a $250 million fund by the Albanese government to improve school infrastructure. Schools that will be receiving funding to upgrade or build outdoor learning centres include Lurnea Public School, Hoxton Park High School, Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School, Clancy Catholic College and Eden College.</para>
<para>Other schools, such as Bellfield College and Al-Faisal College at Liverpool, will be receiving funds to purchase and install air purifiers. Heckenberg Public School received funding to purchase and upgrade ICT equipment. Those are nine local schools in my community that will be able to provide a better learning environment for local students. All of the schools will be receiving grant funding of between $9,000 and $25,000—not huge amounts by any means, but I know how much of a difference they will make. They are yet another example of the Albanese government investing in a better and fairer education system.</para>
<para>From early childhood education all the way to tertiary and vocational education, the Albanese government is investing in the path that all Australians take as they grow. We know the difference it can make in the lives of Australians, and we're committed to lifting the barriers that stand in the way of Australians who pursue their education through to TAFE and university. The drive and passion for education begins not at the end of education but all the way through from child care.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's investment in education has already benefited our community, and I'm looking forward to seeing the long-term benefits of proper funding for the education system.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Richardson, Mrs Wendy</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today with a very heavy heart to speak on the passing of Wendy Richardson, a much loved and devoted speech and language pathologist who has left a very indelible mark on our community.</para>
<para>The sting of this tragedy is not only the profound sense of loss but the stark realisation that Wendy's untimely demise could have been, and, indeed, should have been avoided. Wendy Richardson was lost at sea following a boating accident in the Torres Strait. It was a journey she undertook out of necessity because civil aviation authorities suspended flights from landing on some of the remote islands in the Torres Strait. It is an ill-advised decision, and one that I and the airline operations in the region, like Skytrans, have been calling for a reversal of since its implementation. The move by CASA has left the community and its visitors with little choice but to travel by boat—a far riskier option. Wendy was simply trying to do her job, reaching out to children who needed her help on Mubuiag Island. But this regulatory decision forced her to undertake a journey that ultimately ended in tragedy.</para>
<para>Wendy's heart was boundless, as was her commitment to the people that she served. She offered her time and skills to innumerable organisations across our region. Her selflessness, dedication and tireless service over many years will be sorely missed. The pride of Wendy's life was her four children, Mike, Brad, Nathalie and Trent. Wendy will be greatly missed by her family, as well as her dear friends and her sisters, Lindy Shepherd and Julie Ryan.</para>
<para>After growing up in Cairns, Wendy studied at UQ in Brisbane, qualifying as a Bachelor of Speech Therapy Speech-Language Pathology. Her early career took her to Hobart, on to Perth and back to Cairns with her speech pathology business. Wendy settled in her own slice of paradise up at the Atherton Tablelands, and her work saw her travel across wide areas of Far North Queensland. Her commitment to others is seen in her volunteering efforts for organisations including Anglicare North Queensland, the Mayoress of Cairns community trust, the national literacy advisory group and the Bravehearts Foundation.</para>
<para>I'd like to extend my deepest condolences to all of Wendy's extended family. I just can't imagine the sorrow you must be feeling. Wendy will be forever missed and forever remembered as the remarkable woman that she was.</para>
<para>We cannot allow Wendy's death to be in vain. We don't need another of these accidents to occur. CASA has to review its decision. It has to do that before we see another accident.</para>
<para>Rest in peace, Wendy. You've been an outstanding and wonderful friend, and a great citizen of our community. You will be missed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Seccombe, Mr Geoff</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to pay tribute and give thanks for the career of a great man in our Hunter region: a person I consider a friend, a mentor and a true pillar of the Maitland and, more broadly, Hunter region. Mr Geoff Seccombe is the outgoing chief executive officer of the Mutual Bank, a member-owned bank that has been around for 134 years.</para>
<para>Geoff is only the seventh CEO in its history.</para>
<para>Late last year, Geoff announced his well-deserved retirement after 34 years service at the Mutual. He has truly dedicated his life to the finance industry and the people who not only make it up but benefit from it. His remarkable tenure is undoubtedly a record, a testament to his unwavering commitment and exemplary leadership.</para>
<para>Geoff's journey with the Mutual began in 1989, when he joined the then Maitland Mutual Building Society, as we then affectionately knew it, as one of only nine employees. His career path in the Mutual took shape and he rose through the ranks, ultimately assuming the role of CEO in 1994. Geoff's deep understanding of the banking industry, honed by his training at the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney, now known as the NAB, has been instrumental in driving the bank's success.</para>
<para>When a young Geoff started in the bank as a junior employee, the loan book was valued at around $20 million. As he collects his hat, coat and brief case to say goodbye and go and work on the farm a little bit more, he's leaving the bank with assets surpassing the $1 billion mark as of last year. That is a true feat.</para>
<para>Throughout his tenure, Geoff has successfully adhered to the member-first ethos that defines The Mutual Bank. He has guided the institution to stay true to the core market in New South Wales Hunter Valley, serving our community with unwavering dedication. Geoff has many great philosophies for life, work and investment, but among them is a deeply ingrained view that you should continually re-invest in your people and your community. Under his leadership, the Mutual now supports more than 50 local charitable, sporting and cultural organisations across our community through their sponsorship programs.</para>
<para>The bank's financial results for the year ending June 2022 are a testament to Geoff's strategic acumen, although he wouldn't like me to give him all the credit because he always says, 'Meryl, it takes a village to run a bank.' With a sharp reduction in interest expenses, net interest income and the bottom line has witnessed a substantial boost. They're now a BBB with a positive outlook. Geoff, you and Marilyn deserve to have the most magnificent time on that beautiful lucerne farm time with those cattle. Happy retirement, and thank you, mate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyne Electorate: King's Birthday Honours</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Congratulations go to Dr Paul Collett of Gloucester, who's been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the King's Birthday Honours. This award recognises his lifetime of service to the healthcare sector. He graduated from the University of New South Wales, trained at St George Hospital and came to Gloucester originally as part of a New South Wales rotation component of his Royal Australian College of General Practitioners training program. He's dedicated himself to the provision of invaluable medical care and services to those in regional and remote locations. Well done, Paul.</para>
<para>Congratulations are also in order for Wingham's Jacqueline Hyde, who's been awarded an OAM in the 2023 King's Birthday Honours list. In 1954, Jacqueline joined the Pilliga branch of the CWA. Since then, she has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of rural women and children around regional New South Wales, and now, at age 93, her efforts have been finally recognised.</para>
<para>Also, a shout out and congratulations to Forster local Jan Irvine, who's also been recognised in this year's King's Birthday Honours. Her OAM is the culmination of decades of volunteer work and incredible community contributions through her long-time membership and activity in Quota International. One of her many accomplishments in a very lengthy list is mobilising a tele-thrombolysis service in the Manning Base hospital. As Jan and her fellow members already know, we notice that you were instrumental in getting the life-saving service for stroke patients into the community.</para>
<para>Cheyne Flanagan received an OAM for wildlife preservation and conservation. Over many years she's been an active biologist and volunteer trainer involved in wildlife rehabilitation after becoming involved in conservation in 1973. She has many accomplishments. The best known being her 23 years involvement with the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital. Well done, Cheyne and all of your other volunteers.</para>
<para>Congratulations also to Wauchope's Jaci Fisher, who has been awarded an OAM for her contribution to public administration. She's been involved in many volunteer pursuits over the years, including as an assistant coach for Wauchope/Port Macquarie Riding for the Disabled. That group has done so much for the disabled. It has really liberated them.</para>
<para>Finally, congratulations go to Stephen Rae on being awarded an APM for his significant service as a police officer and a police prosecutor.</para>
<para>All these people have done an amazing job for their communities. Best wishes and well done!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macquarie Electorate: Stronger Communities Program</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the member for Macquarie, I use every opportunity I can to help community groups in my electorate with small grant funding, and I want to give a shout-out to some of those it's been a pleasure to recommend and support in the last year or so. These organisations stretch the funds they get with volunteer labour and in-kind generosity. Whether they're sporting clubs or the arts, community services or hobby and social groups, they all play a really vital role in connecting our community.</para>
<para>I've been very pleased to support, in the upper part of the mountains, Blackheath Men's Shed with a very practical box trailer. It's something you don't need often but is vital when you do, and this one can be used by members and to help the community. The Robyn Yates wellness centre is receiving $20,000 to revitalise and make improvements to its Leura premises so it can better support the people it helps as they're being treated for cancer. Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service now has a lovely new website. You should check it out, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see what's available. Again, it's a volunteer-run organisation.</para>
<para>As we move down the mountains, I was pleased to support Winmalee Neighbourhood Centre in keeping their place cooler. And Winmalee Rural Fire Brigade has been able to upgrade its IT. Springwood Community Garden has received funding for new gardening equipment and to repair and enlarge enclosures. Over the last six years, they've grown from a few beds to a very large productive garden, but no doubt, like at my garden a few streets away, the wallabies, possums and bandicoots need to be kept out. The Lower Mountains Junior Rugby League Club have received $20,000 for seating at their Warrimoo field. And those clever kids at Springwood & District Citizens, Boys and Girls Club have received almost $10,000 to replace their parallel bars. I'm looking forward to seeing them in action but I will decline the chance to try them myself!</para>
<para>The Hawkesbury has had an equal share of grants. Bilpin Public School, one of several schools badly bushfire affected in that community, has been funded for new play equipment, to be used by students and the community. The permanent community radio licence holder for the Hawkesbury, Pulse FM, have received just over $10,000 funding to support their broadcasts. The North West Magpies have been able to purchase new sporting equipment, while the Oakville Raiders Baseball Club has received $15,000 for spectator seating. The Jeremiah Project were able to buy really necessary tables and chairs for their important Hawkesbury Community Kitchen meals services, and the Kingsford Smith Village Community Shed, in North Richmond, now has a lathe and a whole bunch of other tools.</para>
<para>These are a sample of Stronger Communities grants across all ages and all parts of the electorate. It is a delight to be able to support these organisations in a small way to do the work they're doing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackellar Electorate: Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For over 20 years, the Cottage Point community in Mackellar have pleaded for reliable mobile phone coverage and internet access, yet they are still waiting. This is despite the death of resident David Berry in 2019, after his wife was unable to call an ambulance because their landline was down and there was no mobile signal. With the awarding of federal funding in March 2020 for the installation of a mobile phone base station, through the Mobile Black Spot Program, the community was relieved that a solution was imminent; however, over three years later, this is yet to be installed.</para>
<para>Poor mobile phone reception poses a great risk to residents and the many visitors to the area every year. Cottage Point is one of Sydney's most at-risk communities when it comes to bushfires, with a single narrow road in and out of the community through the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park.</para>
<para>The ability of Cottage Point Rural Fire Brigade and Cottage Point Marine Rescue to provide help during emergencies is impacted due to the lack of mobile coverage. Cottage Point Kiosk & Boat Hire is impacted daily due to dropouts, unable to pay bills or accept payments from customers.</para>
<para>While I understand installing a mobile phone base station requires much work with various stakeholders, there has been no accountability on Optus regarding the millions of dollars of taxpayer money being utilised, or a project timeline. No firm deadlines have ever been established, and the community is constantly told that work will soon begin, yet this never eventuates. It is unbelievable that in 2023 Cottage Point residents rely on an antiquated 1970s Telstra exchange that doesn't work during storms and only provides a limited number of fixed landlines with unreliable ADSL or dial-up internet. Only last month there was a major fault in transmission, and all phone contact out of Cottage Point was lost for an entire weekend, including the ability to call 000.</para>
<para>It's no wonder the Cottage Point community are completely fed up and frustrated. All stakeholders involved, including Optus, Telstra, Ausgrid, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and local councils, have a duty of care to ensure this mobile base station is installed urgently—in particular, prior to the upcoming bushfire season. I thank the Minister for Communications and her team for taking on the oversight of this project. Without effective mobile coverage, lives are at risk, and the Cottage Point community can wait no longer.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing, Kingsford Smith Electorate: Good Morning Bangladesh</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens and the Liberals have shamefully teamed up to block 30,000 desperately needed homes. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a $10 billion investment in 30,000 new social and affordable homes and homes for veterans. It has the backing of housing experts, community housing providers, housing ministers from across the country and numerous crossbenchers in the parliament. The government wants to allocate this funding so it can start building, but we're being blocked by the Greens and the Liberals for political aims.</para>
<para>But this won't deter the government from pushing forward on our efforts to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. Over the weekend, we've introduced a new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, set to provide thousands of new social homes across the country and upgrade existing ones. We're also increasing rent assistance for the most vulnerable renters across Australia. This investment will enable the construction of more housing for more Australians in more parts of our nation. We've got an ambitious reform agenda to which we've been adding at every opportunity.</para>
<para>Despite the Greens and the Liberals blocking this bill, our commitment remains unshaken. It now is their responsibility to explain why they don't support more homes that are desperately needed. They should stop blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>On Sunday I was delighted to join our local Bangladeshi community for the Good Morning Bangladesh event at Mascot Public School. The event is part of the Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea, an initiative dedicated to raising funds for cancer research and treatment. It's now in its 10th year at Mascot Public School, and the Good Morning Bangladesh event is a fundraiser that's raised more than $60,000 for the Cancer Council over the decade. It's not merely about raising funds; it's also a celebration of multiculturalism and Bangladeshi culture. Some traditional dishes such parata, beef curry, piazu and haleem were served, and our community savoured these delicacies as we sipped warming masala tea.</para>
<para>I want to thank all those who've devoted their time and skills to preparing the meals and the treats. I commend all of the young volunteers under Azad Alam's leadership. The passion with which the next generation contributes to the community is really inspiring. I'm very proud to represent a thriving Bangladeshi community in Kingsford Smith. I want to thank them for their philanthropy and their contribution to our wonderful community. The Good Morning Bangladesh event makes a real difference to Australians that are impacted by cancer. It's an event that I'm very proud to support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Groom Electorate: iLAuNCH Program, Toowoomba</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very sad that I can't attend the opening of the iLAuNCH program in Toowoomba; parliamentary duties call me away. However, this is one of the most important programs, one of the most important steps forward, in Toowoomba's long history. I think it will even come to surpass inland rail and Wellcamp Airport itself: $180 million of UniSQ-led collaboration, over 20 industry organisations and three universities. I'm very proud that $50 million of federal funding was secured under the last coalition government. To have played some small part in that is something I'm going to reflect on with pride for many years to come.</para>
<para>I first heard about this project after being out of the office. When I came back there was a slew of messages on my phone from Geraldine Mackenzie, Trevor Watts and Scott Buchholz. Trevor Watts's message was, 'Mate, you need to get in touch with Geraldine'; the message from Scott Buchholz, the member for Wright, was, 'Brother'—that's how it started, of course, for anyone who knows him—'you need to call Geraldine.' And what Geraldine laid out was a masterclass of how to inspire someone to get behind a project. What she laid out wasn't just a vision for UniSQ; it was a vision for Toowoomba and for Australia. This was about bringing a new field of research to Toowoomba, new careers for Toowoomba kids and new opportunities for businesses in Toowoomba to get involved in space engineering.</para>
<para>The idea of Australia establishing our sovereign rocket launch capability and for this to be based in Toowoomba is something that 20 years ago we would never have thought of. But Geraldine sold it as if it were inevitable—this power that she is, getting people to get behind her. She deserves recognition. And I'd like to thank Peter Schubel for his part in laying out that vision. I think Peter identified very early that I am at heart a classic engineering nerd. Peter did a great job in laying out the opportunities that engineering can provide to the next generation of Toowoomba kids—the projects they can work on, the travel they can do, the ability to throw themselves into complex challenges—and the idea that this is all in front of them. I thank him for his work. I also thank the new executive director, Darin Lovett, for his continued leadership, and I thank John Bell and his team, who did so much hard work in pulling this project together, putting the application together and getting that funding.</para>
<para>This is the right time for a project like this to be hitting Toowoomba. We're growing. We've got so many exciting things happening, and the linkage with our defence industry in the area is going to be so crucial. We've seen the Wellcamp Defence Precinct draw Boeing in to Toowoomba. We've seen companies like JRS—local companies—get involved with that. We're growing our manufacturing capabilities. And I just want to thank John Dornbusch. I want to thank the current government for their continued support of this great program, and everybody involved, and I wish them all the best for a successful future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jagajaga Electorate: Child Care</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, 1 July is an exciting milestone for Australian families and for families in my electorate of Jagajaga as we make child care cheaper. As someone who has two small children myself, I know just how essential a service child care is and, in these times when families are facing very real cost-of-living pressures, how important it is that child care is affordable. We know that, particularly for many working women, being able to afford that extra day of child care in a way that makes your going back to work worthwhile and in a way that means you're not just working an extra day to pay the fees makes a huge difference in being able to take up that care and makes a difference in your career and other opportunities throughout your life.</para>
<para>So, this is a landmark moment for our country. It is a landmark moment where our government shows that we get it: we understand modern working families, we understand the pressures Australian families face and we understand the pressures working women face. And we want to support families with that, and we of course want to support children with access to the best-quality early education that is out there. I again take the opportunity to thank all our early educators, particularly the early educators in Jagajaga and particularly the early educators who take care of my son every day. I get to see every day what amazing work you do and how you help shape our next generation. So thank you for all you do, and I look forward to families in my community benefitting from cheaper child care from 1 July.</para>
<para>It's not just in child care that our government is investing in the future of our children and in education. There are quality schools in Jagajaga, as there are right around the country. I'm really pleased that we're able to have schools that cater to all different types of learning and all different types of children.</para>
<para>I had the privilege recently of visiting several local schools that have been recipients of grants through our government's Schools Upgrade Fund. They included Briar Hill Primary School, Mary Immaculate Primary School in Ivanhoe and Montmorency South Primary School. I hope to be able to visit Parade College in Bundoora soon to share in person the good news of the investment that we're making in that school too.</para>
<para>This fund is just one example of our government's commitment to education. It's supporting enhanced learning environments and providing updated technology, helping to foster an enriched educational experience for students. It was clear to me from my visits that the students and teachers at these schools are really looking forward to the opportunities that will come from these upgrades, particularly in some of the new outdoor-learning spaces that I know they're investing in. I really look forward to returning to see all the projects once they're completed and to see the students benefitting from these new spaces. Our government gets investment in the youngest people in our community. We want to help them have the best possible start in life and education throughout their lives.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to start by thanking all those involved in this inquiry into community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. I say a particular thank you to the chair, Senator Pat Dodson. This was a difficult inquiry to navigate, with many often conflicting agendas, a challenging local political environment and confronting stories of crime, alcohol abuse and, in particular, violence. The chair charted this inquiry with great respect and was able to provide tangible recommendations.</para>
<para>In my first speech to parliament, I spoke urgently of the need for both governments to look at ending the Stronger Futures legislation in the Northern Territory. Primarily, this was a job for the Northern Territory government. Alcohol restrictions, as we know, can be contentious, yet the results we are seeing in Alice Springs in recent times speak to their efficacy. We have seen marked declines in police reporting of alcohol fuelled violence, particularly of alcohol as a contributor to family and domestic violence. Giving our families and frontline agencies a reprieve through the reduction in the availability of alcohol is a good thing.</para>
<para>It is my view, after speaking with our health services, tourism sector and community members, that the current alcohol restrictions in place should continue. But alcohol abuse and alcoholism in general is a symptom of a fractured community and families. There is a huge amount of work to be done to address the underlying issues. The recommendations provided in this inquiry represent a solid starting point on overarching recommendations for the Northern Territory government and the federal government, through the National Indigenous Australians Agency, to review the end of Stronger Futures, to analyse why the lapsing of this legislation happened in such a disjointed manner. However, the recommendations of particular interest to me are recommendation 4.43 and recommendation 6.</para>
<para>Recommendation 4.43 calls on the federal and territory governments to review contractual arrangements to focus on outcomes. There is a lot of money being made from Aboriginal poverty. The former government's privatised Community Development Program, which was meant to provide employment for people but instead lined the pockets of private companies, is an example of that. Taxpayers expect their money to go towards tangible outcomes, and frontline service organisations must be held accountable for every dollar of government funding they receive. It was evident during the inquiry that there is a swathe of well-meaning and often extremely effective organisations doing very good work on the front line, yet it was also evident that there is a strong need for accountability and coordination of services.</para>
<para>Another critical element of this inquiry was the need to drive strong employment pathways for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>Many of the social woes we face are because there is a critical lack of meaningful employment. Good work, but particularly work that utilises the innate strengths and knowledge of Aboriginal people, can provide a sense of purpose, value and self-esteem. What it also does is empower families to look after themselves, enabling financial autonomy away from the welfare system and the opportunity to grow intergenerational wealth.</para>
<para>Recommendation 6 calls on CDP providers to actively engage with Aboriginal communities. This would seem an obvious practice but it is unfortunately not. I was recently out in the Utopia region in my electorate, a region that has been deeply neglected. It is hard to imagine a more disadvantaged part of the country, and yet people throughout the region, from Ampilatwatja to Arlparra, were telling me that they wanted to work. They want to be employed. They want to create a better life for their children. The current model is thoroughly broken, with the former government absolutely undermining our remote employment program and instead, as I said before, lining the pockets of private providers. I cannot tell you how important it is for us to rebuild the old CDEP. It is an essential part of rebuilding our bush communities and providing pathways for our young people.</para>
<para>It would also be remiss of me not to mention the Albanese government's Central Australian plan when talking about social challenges in central Australia. This $250 million plan is empowering our local Aboriginal leadership to effect change. The Lhere Artepe traditional owner patrols funded by NIAA are having a huge impact. Our businesses and local communities are speaking to my office every day about the changes these patrols are particularly having with those businesses.</para>
<para>In addition to the $250 million is the $40.4 million education funding injection, which is enabling local schools to provide much-needed services and to expand programs to engage our young ones and their families in the education system. I want to thank the Minister for Education for this funding and also for his recent visit to Alice Springs and sitting down with all of those principals throughout Central Australia. Those schools simply did not have the resources to properly engage our young people. It's a bit hard to believe, but prior to this funding it would have taken 26 years for schools in the Northern Territory, particularly in Central Australia, to reach the Gonski recommended levels of funding for our schools. On the eastern seaboard, that would have been unheard of, but in the Northern Territory, it would have taken 26 years to actually bring those schools on par. So I applaud the government and the Minister for Education, because the difference this funding will make is enormous. All of the principals and teachers I have spoken to throughout Central Australia have certainly welcomed the $40.4 million for those schools to address some of the disadvantage.</para>
<para>Our $10 million justice reinvestment package will bring together a community coalition to prevent our people from entering the justice system, an absolutely essential piece of government policy in Central Australia. Our $50 million infrastructure component of Central Australia will mean that communities get the vital infrastructure they need to provide services and support to the community. On top of all of this, we have an ambitious remote housing program as well as significant funding for homelands. For too long, housing in the bush has been left to languish, but that won't be happening under this government. For the first time in a long time, the people of the Territory have a federal government that is absolutely committed to addressing the social changes we face in our communities.</para>
<para>So while this inquiry unpacked a number of policy failures and neglect under the former government, the Albanese government won't be heading down the same track. I look forward to following the implementation of this report. Again I want to reiterate my thanks to all of my colleagues but also particular thanks to the chair of this inquiry, Senator Pat Dodson. I certainly want to thank the staff that travelled and worked with the committee to come to the point of the report that was tabled.</para>
<para>It is a testament to the committee that we were able to engage in this inquiry in a respectful manner. Although many of us share different views we were able to come up with a strong report, and that comes down to the chair but also to the deputy chair. I want also to acknowledge the member for Durack and the role that she played in the absence of Senator Dodson in making sure that all members were able to focus on the recommendations and the report that we finally tabled.</para>
<para>It is a strong report. It provides a blueprint for government to move forward. I hope that we can all work together to try and end what is a fraught issue in the Northern Territory and end some of the disadvantage that we see impact on Aboriginal people not just in Central Australia but right throughout the Northern Territory.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GO</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SLING () (): From the outset, I acknowledge the member for Lingiari and her leadership in the Northern Territory. Together, as the members of the House of Representatives representing Territorians, with our colleague Senator McCarthy, we are united and committed to working together on improving community safety, support services and job opportunities throughout the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>I welcome this report on the inquiry into those very issues—community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. It's incredibly important. I acknowledge the chair, Senator Pat Dodson, and the deputy chair, as the member for Lingiari did. Senator Pat Dodson, from Western Australia, with a long connection to the Northern Territory, noted that Aboriginal communities in the NT have been leaders in advocating for the rights of First Nations people for many decades. From my own electorate, the Larrakia people, of course, petitioned in the seventies, but members would be aware of the Yirrkala declarations, the Barunga statement that went to Prime Minister Bob Hawke at the time and leadership on issues that brought us to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.</para>
<para>But even with leadership from First Nations people from the Northern Territory over the past 15 years, their right to self-determination has been deliberately denied by governments. Many Australians would be shocked to hear that, but it is the truth. In previous policy regimes governments have destabilised, disempowered and disorientated Aboriginal communities. Governments have taken away power and, instead, made them dependent on government for survival. Governments have done very little and have actually had very little accountability. These actions occurred under the guise of a failure of Aboriginal communities to run their own affairs, and throughout the inquiry, from speaking to members of it, the committee heard repeatedly about the failure of those top-down approaches and it heard the pleas for government to invest in communities and in community led solutions.</para>
<para>That is the alternative, to create economic opportunity by employing local Aboriginal people and by investing in genuinely Aboriginal controlled organisations. There is some investment in community led health organisations, and they show real benefits, but there are so many other ways in which community and Aboriginal controlled organisations can improve the lives of First Nations people living in the communities of the Northern Territory. But it requires listening to and acting on what communities say will work best. Incidentally, it may not have escaped the attention of honourable members listening that that is exactly what is proposed with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. That's what it's all about, listening to what will work best.</para>
<para>Though the committee could not get to all of the communities across the Territory, Aboriginal organisations and frontline community service providers from Darwin, Alice Springs and Maningrida spoke to this point during the inquiry.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker, as you know, Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are very resilient. For those of us not from a First Nations community, it's hard to get your head around how disconnected they can be from power and opportunity, but they are incredibly resilient to still be leading and working within their communities to solve the challenges that they face. But we've got to do our bit as government to support them in the community-led programs. I think it is true—and it's not a partisan point—that they've been let down by governments of all stripes over the years. But they continue to show up with solutions and work with governments in good faith, despite the history of their right to self-determination often being denied. In response to the resilience that these communities show, this report makes recommendations that seek to address the disempowering legacy from those top-down approaches, particularly over the last 15 years or so.</para>
<para>Many of these solutions are place based initiatives, and that's important. They recognise that past attempts through the Northern Territory National Emergency Response, which people would remember as being called the Intervention in the Northern Territory, and the following Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act were largely ineffective. Some good things were done, but, on the whole, they were ineffective. The acts largely did not work and have left us in the situation we are now in, where children who were born in that period from 2007 to 2008, during the height of the Intervention—and I worked in the communities in the Northern Territory at that time, so I understand the context in which this was occurring—are the children that are at risk of causing harm today. That's why the committee recommended that the NDIA and the NT government review the inadequate preparations for the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act.</para>
<para>I was speaking with the Northern Territory government during the period of this transition, and it's why the committee recommended that the NT government needed to provide adequate support and resources to communities to assist them in the development of community alcohol plans. Again, the idea is to empower communities to lead in creating bottom-up solutions. For example, the report recommended that the NT government formalise how the community can ask the minister to exercise their temporary emergency powers in its Northern Territory Liquor Act 2019 and that the Commonwealth ensure that large businesses operating in remote regions employ local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It shouldn't need to be said, but it does, and that's why it's recommended. It also recommends that the Commonwealth implement community-led justice reinvestment initiatives, particularly in Alice Springs and Katherine, as soon as possible. But, to that, our government has added Darwin, and I'm appreciative that that has occurred. It is appropriate, and I've met with the Attorney-General to discuss this. Community-led justice reinvestment initiatives do work, as we've seen in Bourke in New South Wales, and it's also been great to speak with Tom Calma about this, with him knowing the NT and Darwin as well as he does. These are some of the very important recommendations made in this report, which was a consensus report, and I commend it to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>122</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to speak on this thorough and considered report of the committee chaired by the member for Bruce because, like many people in this chamber, I have constituents whose experience with ParentsNext was terrible—not just unsatisfactory but terrible. I want to start by quoting from the foreword by the member for Bruce, where he says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government has a responsibility to support and empower parents to achieve full social and economic participation. This is not merely a moral imperative, but an economic priority. ParentsNext grew out of earlier efforts to help young teenage parents, and then highly disadvantaged single mums with positive net outcomes. The Committee's conclusion is that the continuation of a 'program' (we say pre-vocational service) to support vulnerable parents is essential.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ParentsNext, however, is now locked into a punitive frame and does too much harm for the good it also does. Unfortunately, the positive experiences were overshadowed by evidence of harms caused by onerous participation requirements and a harsh compliance regime. The Committee also heard that the program has an undue focus on paid employment, which may not be appropriate for many parents who have made the reasonable choice to focus on caring for their young children.</para></quote>
<para>I read out those two paragraphs because I couldn't agree with them more. In my opinion, they sum up the problems with the ParentsNext program, although I would add to that last sentence, where it says, 'the undue focus on paid employment … may not be appropriate for many parents who have made the reasonable choice to focus on caring for their young children', that it's also not appropriate for young parents who made the decision to focus on their education.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Dunkley, we're very proud of a program that I've previously spoken about in this place, called the Young Parents Program, which started in February 2013. It started as a community partnership co-funded by Anglicare's Communities for Children and Chisholm Institute, and it now also has federal funding. It's delivered by the Frankston Mornington Peninsula Local Learning & Employment Network as the lead agency, which is where the federal funding comes from.</para>
<para>The Young Parents Program is tailored to meet the needs of young parents, young mothers and young women between 15 and 25 years of age who have disengaged from secondary education and have done so not entirely because but predominantly because they've got pregnant and had a child, often at the tender age of 15 or 16. The young people who are involved either have a child up to four years of age or are expecting a child. I've been there many times. Some of them have two children. But what the Young Parents Program does is allow the parents and the children to share the same space—it has child care there—with the support of three program staff: an educator, an early childhood educator and a family support worker. The participants are funded for two years of attendance in the program, where they are able to complete their VCE with a vocational major, the qualification at either year 11 or year 12 level.</para>
<para>That is a commitment to their future and their children's future by re-engaging in education. We know that there's almost nothing more important for a young person's future than engagement in education, and that's the same if you're a young person who also happens to be a mother. I know a number of the young women who are part of this program and who have graduated, and it has given them confidence. It has empowered them to know that they can be good mothers as well as learn, get jobs, and succeed in their own right.</para>
<para>Just a few weeks ago, I went to the open day. A number of the young women there have become nurses. They have finished TAFE courses to become enrolled nurses, which, when you think of where they were when they were 15 or 16, is an extraordinary achievement.</para>
<para>What I've also had to do, though, for some of the young women in that program is negotiate with ParentsNext on their behalf. There was a particular young woman who was exited from the ParentsNext program—and exited from all of her support payments—because she was at the Young Parents Program getting her education and missed appointments with ParentsNext. So, as a result of taking the decision to further her education and further herself and the life of her young child, she was exited from ParentsNext. It was extraordinary. Finally, she had to come to my office with the help of the Young Parents Program because she was desperate for that financial support that had been taken away from her in a completely punitive way. How was she to survive? For me, that is an example of what the committee chair talked about in his foreword to the interim report, in which he said that ParentsNext is 'locked into a punitive frame and does too much harm for the good it also does'.</para>
<para>Undoubtedly, there have been participants for whom ParentsNext has been a godsend, and there is no doubt that programs to assist young parents, particularly young mothers, to get education or training and to be in the workforce are important. It's just about how they're designed and how they're implemented. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that not only did the parliamentary committee recommend getting rid of ParentsNext and replacing it but that the economic inclusion committee also recommended that the government abolish the ParentsNext program and send its resources 'to a co-designed set of voluntary support programs for vulnerable families, particularly low-income parents with young children who want to re-enter the workforce or access more financially secure employment'. It further recommended that voluntary support programs 'should be designed with a fully funded evaluation strategy, to inform ongoing service improvements'. Those recommendations are pretty redolent of the recommendations in the committee's report. The women's equality task force also recommended abolishing the ParentsNext program.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased to say that that is absolutely what the Albanese Labor government—through Senator Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, and Tony Burke, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—have committed to do. That's because women around the country have stories similar to the one that I've just told about the program being punitive, counterproductive and causing harm. I'm very proud to be part of a government that committed to listening to women's experiences, committed to making decisions that make women's lives better and fairer and that empower women to have opportunities—a government that is not only listening but is then taking the next step and introducing policies to allow that to happen and getting rid of programs that stop it.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2024, ParentsNext will be no longer, and, from 5 May this year, all compulsory requirements for participants in ParentsNext were paused. This is a government that listens, cares and acts, and I'm confident that, with a properly designed replacement for ParentsNext and with a government that listens, cares and acts, never again will a young woman who is doing all that she can to get her education, while also looking after her young child, be exited from support programs that should help her do that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a member of the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services, I thank the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for this referral and the member for Bruce for chairing the committee.</para>
<para>ParentsNext grew from good beginnings. Its initial aim, when it was trialled in specific local government areas, was focused on young parents who had not completed high school to help them complete Year 12 and young parents under the age of 23 who had been in receipt of income support for more than two years and weren't working or studying. These were the Helping Young Parents program and Supporting Jobless Families program, which grew into ParentsNext.</para>
<para>We know that people who have not finished high school find getting employment much more difficult and then getting well-paid employment with a career path even more difficult. We also know that children growing up in poverty are much more likely to live in poverty themselves as adults. We know that children growing up in jobless families not only experience poverty but are more likely to be unemployed themselves as adults. So the initial ParentsNext, when it began, really focused primarily on young mums, since 95 per cent of those in ParentsNext are women, with an aim to addressing some of the drivers of poverty for women, for single parent families and young families on parent support more broadly. And it grew from there.</para>
<para>The program, as we examined it last year and earlier this year, is a targeted pre-employment program that aims to help parents in receipt of parenting payment to plan and prepare for employment before their youngest child begins school. As its targeted cohort grew from the targeted LGAs, its focus also grew and, again, with good intentions.</para>
<para>Evidence shows that prolonged disconnection from the workforce can lead to a loss of job specific skills, currency of experience and currency of qualifications. It can also lead to a lack of confidence to re-enter the workforce. So the key policy drivers for ParentsNext were about reducing joblessness, welfare reliance and intergenerational welfare dependency, increasing female labour force participation and closing the gap for First Nations people's employment. It aimed to do this by targeting early intervention and assistance to parents at risk of long-term welfare dependency, helping parents identify and reach education employment goals through participation in activities, noting this was a pre-employment program, so there was no expectation that participants would actually achieve a job during this period. However, if they wished to do so, that could certainly be part of their plan. And finally, the program aimed to connect parents with local services to help them find employment.</para>
<para>It was an absolute honour to meet with so many participants and hear their stories. We heard from ParentsNext providers, academics, not-for-profit groups and advocacy groups, but I specifically want to call out the participants who shared their personal stories with us. It's extremely valuable to hear from them. And I recognise the time commitment from people who, by definition, are time poor, juggling young families amongst their other commitments, but also the emotional commitment that goes with sharing your personal story, the highs and the lows, with fundamentally a group of politicians who have come into town and are people you don't know.</para>
<para>The ParentsNext report describes the evidence we heard as polarised, and I would definitely agree with that description. Participants either loved it or they hated it. It was life changing or it was punitive during a particularly vulnerable period.</para>
<para>We heard some fantastic stories from women who said that they would never have left the house if this program hadn't been encouraging them to reconnect with their community. We heard from women who said that the program had helped teach them parenting skills and connected them in with other young mums to overcome isolation and give them some support for them and their young children. We heard of women finishing year 12, getting qualifications, getting current marketable work skills and gaining confidence that there is a pathway for them once their children go to school to get back into the employment market. We heard of women who were able to escape domestic violence because of their need to attend ParentsNext, which gave them an excuse to leave the house.</para>
<para>We also heard the bad stories. We heard of women whose payments were cut off because the baby was sick and they missed a playgroup session. I recognise the member for Dunkley's story of a young woman who was cut off for missing an appointment while she was actually at a ParentsNext education session. These were not unusual stories.</para>
<para>We had people who told us that all the joy of parenting was sucked out of their life when, suddenly, they had to attend parenting sessions or playgroups as a reportable activity, and that they felt like everyone was watching to make sure they turned up and did the right thing. They felt they were being monitored in their parenting role at a time when they were still learning how to parent.</para>
<para>Many of the providers also told us about their misgivings. Providers told us that starting the program when the baby was nine months old was just too early. Frankly, we could find no rationale for why it started at that age. We heard that young mums and young families should be able to enjoy that important bonding period with a new baby, when everything in your life changes and your focus is on learning how to be a parent to your new child. They told us that the work of parenting should be recognised and valued as work, whether you're on income support or whether you can afford to self-fund staying at home. I think we would all agree that parenting is really important work and can establish good attachment, which is such an important underpinning for emotional self-regulation as adults and a sense of security and confidence. This can be a wonderful time, but it can also be a very difficult time. Providers told us that the notion of having to cut a young parent off payments, knowing that they had one or more young children at home dependant on them, was abhorrent and the antithesis of what they as providers and their staff had actually got into the employment business to achieve.</para>
<para>The report into ParentsNext was handed down in February and made 30 recommendations. Most significantly, the committee recommended that ParentsNext be abolished at the end of its current contract and be replaced with another prevocational service. This is partly because the ParentsNext program brand has now got such a tainted reputation that we really felt that we needed to move away from that while not losing the basic benefits of assisting young parents to reconnect. The report recognises that reconnection to employment is an important part to address poverty: women's poverty, poverty of young families and children's poverty. It's important to be able to help young mums and young parents get employment post child.</para>
<para>We also recommended that a co-design process be undertaken for this new service so that we could actually get input from the participants, the academics and the providers—the people with the lived experience from all sides—about what will actually work to help these people at this vulnerable time. Importantly, we recommended that, in the meantime, mutual obligations be suspended immediately, and I'm pleased to say that this has already happened. This is the punitive framework that the chair speaks about in the report. We want the positives of what this program can provide without the punitive framework that makes early parenthood a misery and risks cutting off income for families with young children. I commend the report.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>124</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was an honour to be part of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport's six-month-long investigation into long COVID. This significant work established a framework for a national response to this serious concern, but we still have much to do.</para>
<para>More than 90 per cent of Australians have now experienced COVID infection. Because most were immunised by the time that we got it and the most dominant strain during the biggest outbreaks was omicron, most of us were sick for no more than a few days, and we generally then recovered quickly with a sense of relief that it had been and gone.</para>
<para>But for many people COVID has not gone. The symptoms have persisted for more than three months, and those people have the disorder now known as long COVID. It has more than 200 symptoms. We heard many descriptions of individuals' difficult experiences of long COVID. We heard of persisting cough, shortness of breath, wild variation in heart rate, brain fog, anxiety, depression and fatigue. These are nightmare scenarios which last months, even years. Most people eventually recover, but some don't. Some can't work, exercise or function normally. The convalescent bear both the emotional and physical scars of their illnesses, but also the fear that those symptoms will recur with repeated infection. At least two per cent of people have persistent symptoms three months after COVID infection. Because numbers remain so high, at any point in time at least 200,000 people are affected by long COVID. It's more common after severe COVID, which more commonly affects the elderly and the frail and the unvaccinated, but because young people are getting more COVID, they're experiencing more long COVID as well.</para>
<para>We still don't have a case definition. We don't have a diagnostic test for long COVID. And that means that Australians who have been affected by it have had to negotiate a largely unknown condition with unproven treatment pathways, minimal supports and uncertain prognosis. Reporting strategies for COVID in this country have decayed. We don't know how much is in the community, and we're not doing much to eliminate its spread. We only know about the deaths from COVID—205 in the last week alone and more than 20,000 in total. We don't have any good epidemiological data on long COVID in Australia. We don't understand its impacts on our children, the elderly, the disabled, the immunocompromised and First Nations communities. Treatment options are patchy. Antivirals lessen the severity of acute COVID, and they probably decrease the risk of getting long COVID, but most of us can't access them.</para>
<para>The economic cost of long COVID is significant, quite apart from its emotional and social impact. It makes every sense to diagnose and treat it as quickly as possible, but early referral for rehabilitation is not possible if the services are not available. The committee found that best-practice treatment of long COVID demands both evidence based guidelines for primary care providers and escalation pathways to multidisciplinary specialist clinics with tele-rehabilitation services for rural and remote communities. But there are road blocks to care. There are GP shortages, lack of treatment guidelines, limited specialist hospital clinics and the sometimes Dickensian complexities of our Medicare system.</para>
<para>The only way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID. The risk of long COVID increases cumulatively with every infection. Many of us are now on our third or fourth infection. Vaccination decreases the severity and risk of long COVID, but vaccination uptake has almost stalled in Australia. The Albanese government has not advocated effectively on COVID vaccination. Only 51 per cent of elderly Australians have received their fifth dose, so most have waning immunity at this time. Young people have valid concerns about vaccine side-effects, and they have a perception of diminishing returns from repeated immunisation. Mask use in crowded indoor areas, testing and isolation decrease the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the risk of long COVID, but public enthusiasm for all of those measures has waned, and our state and federal governments have effectively waved them away.</para>
<para>Almost all COVID infections occur indoors. We have not paid enough attention to the importance of clean air. Improving the air quality and ventilation of schools will prevent acute illnesses and it will prevent long COVID. This government needs to urgently review the National Construction Code and produce our first ever air quality guidelines for buildings. We have to improve our buildings and our schools to futureproof them against future respiratory illnesses.</para>
<para>The COVID committee heard again and again that we need better data collection. We have to understand who is getting COVID, how it's affecting them, how long it lasts, how best to treat it and what works and does not work.</para>
<para>We have heard that medical professionals are exhausted after a three-year pandemic. GPs are struggling with the workforce crisis, after years of stagnant income and increasing workload. Hospitals are struggling to staff outpatient clinics and to maintain inpatient services. Long COVID is a new, complex and severe medical condition, but we still don't know how common it is. We don't know how to diagnose it, treat it or track it. The impact of climate change and of increasing population movements are such that more pandemics are likely, so there's a really urgent need for us to learn the lessons of this one.</para>
<para>In preparing this report, the health committee listened to the unwell. We believed them, and we undertook to make their voices heard. This is not an easy task in a society which is increasingly fragmented and which is increasingly intolerant of difference. In undertaking the study, we consulted scientists, medical professionals and public health experts. Many have been, and continue to be, subjected to personal and professional abuse and invective at times during the pandemic and now in COVID's endemic phase. On receipt of this report, the federal health minister immediately promised $50 million from the Medical Research Future Fund for research to better inform policy decisions and to improve health outcomes for patients with long COVID. An expert advisory panel would delineate areas for future investment decisions, and that's important, but we don't yet have any clarity about the basis on which those decisions will be made and when that will be done. We need that detail, and we need it now. COVID is still with us. It is likely to be with us for years.</para>
<para>I note that funding for the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce—which was an invaluable alliance of 35 expert groups which coalesced quickly during the pandemic and acted effectively and efficiently together—expired at the end of last year. Its remaining philanthropic funding expires in 10 days. The NCET was a trove of evidence based scientific advice during the pandemic. Its evidence was cited 30 times in this committee's report. If it goes to pieces in 10 day, as it will if the government does not fund it, that group cannot easily be reassembled. It is ideally suited to development of evidence based living guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of long COVID. One of the key recommendations of this report was development of those evidence based guidelines. The National Clinical Evidence Taskforce should immediately be given carryover funding pending the report of the MRFF panel.</para>
<para>With this report, the committee has delineated what needs to be done: planning and testing for treatment of further outbreaks; reviews of how our buildings are designed and built; and big picture considerations of how we can provide public health care in this country now and into the future. At some stage, we will have to re-evaluate the federal and state divides in the provision of health care in this country. We will have to re-evaluate the lack of big picture planning, how we fund medical research and in what circumstances we should ever again close the boundaries of our states and of our country. We'll have to examine our decision-making during the pandemic, our procurement and production of vaccines and equipment, quarantine and containment strategies, and workforce and economic management. I would suggest that this would best be achieved in the near future by a targeted, time limited royal commission into Australia's response to the COVID pandemic.</para>
<para>In the meantime, it's time for the Albanese government to demonstrate the vision and energy we need to tackle the very great challenge of long COVID. To that end, I commend this report to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Long COVID has emerged as a significant health and economic challenge. It has cast a long shadow over all our lives. No-one is untouched by this illness. It has affected young people and older people. It has disproportionately affected people in their working lives. Every single sector of our society and our community has been affected by it.</para>
<para>The committee that I was part of—the parliamentary health committee—has put out a significant body of work in response to this challenge.</para>
<para>I will speak about it, but I will also take this opportunity to cast back to my maiden speech. When I first came to this parliament it was actually through a pathway of medical activism in response to the COVID pandemic and how it was affecting healthcare professionals. This is what I said in my maiden speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Watch out for the tail. It has a sting. For COVID, it will be chronic disease and mass illness disrupting lives and constraining our productivity for years to come. This is not inevitable but depends on what we do next.</para></quote>
<para>I will spend a bit of time talking about what we have done since coming to government.</para>
<para>Now, we know that COVID itself is a multisystem disease. It is not the flu. It is an infectious disease, a respiratory virus, but it has multisystem effects. Long COVID is not dissimilar. This is a disease characterised by persistent and chronic inflammation that affects every single organ in the body. We know that somewhere between five per cent to 10 per cent of patients develop long COVID. That may well be an underestimate. Some studies, one recently published in <inline font-style="italic">Nature</inline>, put the number as high as 10 per cent to 30 per cent. It is affecting people disproportionately with mild illness as well, and that's the majority of patients who now develop COVID in the Australian population, which is generally vaccinated.</para>
<para>What we've also found is that people in the prime of their working lives are being cut down, essentially, with this chronic disease, and it is highly gendered, disproportionately affecting women. It is distinct from a separate condition called post-COVID complications. Post-COVID complications refer to complications that arise as a result of COVID. They can be the new onset of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes and other acute illnesses. They are not the same as long COVID. Long COVID has a plethora of symptoms which range from fatigue to brain fog, inattention and problems with cognition. This is what makes it so debilitating; on the outside, people look completely normal, but they are absolutely struggling to fire on all cylinders internally.</para>
<para>What are the causes? What we know about long COVID, we could certainly fill a book with. What we don't know, we could fill a library with. We do know that there are certain things that may be contributing to this persistent and chronic inflammation in the body. One is a persistent reservoir of virus or antigen, a fragment of the virus, that is remaining in the body in various sanctuary sites. The gut is one such place. We know that immune disregulation—an immune system that has gone haywire and has not settled down—is another feature of long COVID. We believe that long COVID can lead to the reactivation of other viruses that lie dormant within our bodies, and the herpes family of viruses are one.</para>
<para>It may also be associated with microclots. COVID in itself is a vascular tropic virus—that means that it is a virus that likes blood vessels, and where are blood vessels? Blood vessels are throughout our body. As a result, getting sick with acute COVID and ending up, for example, in hospital can lead to blood clots all over the body, strokes or pulmonary emboli, which are clots in the lung. But the problem of long COVID, this persistent inflammation, can lead to microclots—clots that are so small that we can't actually see them with the resolution of our current imaging, but they are certainly there and causing impairment to organs and impaired blood blow and oxygenation.</para>
<para>We also think that there may be dysfunctional signalling between the brain, particularly the brain stem, and the rest of the body. The microbiome, which is the bacterial load inside our bodies, particularly in our gut, is also disregulated as a result of long COVID. So there are a lot of things going on in the body contributing to this persistent state of inflammation, and we have a power of work to do in terms of unpacking that.</para>
<para>So the long COVID inquiry was done at speed. It was launched in around September of last year and concluded in April with a report handed to the health minister. We sought out opinion from everyone in Australia, including peak bodies and patients with lived experience, many of whom have encountered a testimonial injustice where they have not been believed or have not felt like they've been heard, particularly by my colleagues in the medical profession.</para>
<para>We sought out top researchers from throughout the country. We brought forth health departments to share with us what they have been doing in terms of mitigating and managing patients who have long COVID. We also heard from some industry experts.</para>
<para>I'd like to go through some of the key recommendations that we put forward. One was that the committee recommended that we establish firstly a single database in order to acquire better quality data. We simply don't know. This is like blind men feeling an elephant—we have all sides of it, but we need to see the whole. We need better information on the number of infections and the complications, those from both long COVID and post-COVID complications and hospitalisations. We'd like a little bit of granularity around this in terms of the high-risk populations—the elderly, First Nations, minority groups and patients with disability—and we would also like to know what comorbid conditions they have that may be predisposing them to COVID.</para>
<para>Vaccination history is a really important variable to collect. We know that vaccination actually reduces your risk of long COVID, and so it's incredibly important that Australians do not become complacent about their vaccination status. Many of us will now be on to our fourth or fifth dose of vaccine. This is going to become an annual thing. COVID is not going anywhere. It started off as a pandemic, and it will now become endemic. This is a rapidly mutating virus that is rapidly changing and pulling away from vaccine efficacy. However, the vaccines still do have some efficacy. They're just not as good as they used to be. The primary goal of now getting vaccinated is to reduce your risk of long COVID. It is like a game of Russian roulette. If you get this virus, you may be the one who ends up with long COVID, and, if you're a young person, you do not want that. It could really hamper your productivity.</para>
<para>We have also suggested that we'll explore the use of innovative tools, such as artificial intelligence, to help scrape medical records, particularly electronic medical records, in order to identify those patients who may be developing symptoms but have not yet been flagged as actually having long COVID or, indeed, some of those post-COVID complications. We suggested that the health department use the World Health Organization definition of long COVID, which is, essentially, persistent symptoms up to three months after the primary illness, and there is a desperate need for evidence based living guidelines. This field is rapidly evolving. We cannot have guidelines that are set in stone. They must be continuously updated in order to keep up with the research. The second thing that's important is that guidelines alone are not enough. They must actually be implemented so that the GP in Cloncurry or in the Torres Strait can immediately jump online and find out what that GP needs in order to treat the patient sitting in front of them. That requires an investment in implementation science, which is something that I am passionate about.</para>
<para>One of the recommendations that I'm perhaps most proud of is the need for better indoor air quality standards. This is an area that I have been championing since coming to parliament. I'm pleased to say that I chaired the Clean Air Forum, which brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts from the built environment industry, aerosol science and people with lived experience to basically deal with this vexed problem of indoor air quality standards. This is not going to be our last pandemic. There will be another one. And we certainly do not want to go through what we have just come from. It's really, really important now to understand that 90 per cent of our time as a species is actually spent indoors. We evolved from roaming the plains of Africa to now spending most of our time indoors, so we need better indoor air quality standards in order to mitigate the response going forward. There's a lot of work to do, but we are committed to delivering on this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to speak on this report. The inquiry into long COVID was an initiative led by my great friend, the member for Macarthur. It was a bipartisan inquiry informed by more than 560 submissions and testimony from a wide range of resources and sources. The committee travelled all throughout Australia to investigate the effects of long COVID. When we came into government, we were emerging from a global pandemic. It had altered our way of life and how we, as a nation, had to approach health care. Yet, as we emerged from the heart of the pandemic, we could see a growing issue amongst the Australian population.</para>
<para>This inquiry was in response to the many reports of people experiencing ongoing complications after contracting COVID-19. It set out a plan for the government to better respond to and support those who are affected. Furthermore, it showed that the government is committed to being proactive in tackling health issues and working cooperatively to ensure the best outcome for all Australians.</para>
<para>While the states had worked hard to limit the spread of COVID-19 and had done exceptionally well in keeping their populations safe, we still had comparatively high rates of COVID-19 within our population. As the recovery from COVID was underway, there were more and more reports of people experiencing ongoing effects that impacted their lives. Some people, while the world was opening and going back to normal, weren't able to do so because of ongoing health issues and impacts. From nurses to labourers to retail workers, many people who had contracted the virus struggled to participate in the reopening of the world.</para>
<para>There was no global framework or much research into the concept of long COVID. We knew we had to act fast and create safeguards and support systems for the thousands of Australians who were struggling with health issues. The inquiry aimed to give the people experiencing long COVID, the people treating it and the institutions who support our healthcare system a better idea of what long COVID is—how long it lasts and the effects it would have in Australia. As we know, COVID hasn't gone away, and the danger of disease and its long-term effects are still a danger for many Australians. In fact, I recall a story from a local woman in Wallan who spoke of how her daughter could no longer work. She suffered debilitating headaches and brain fog and slept for around 15 hours of the day, completely altering her way of life. It's impacted her, her family and her work. It's devastating to even comprehend.</para>
<para>Through this inquiry, the committee saw that long COVID will affect one person differently to how it affects the next person. We know the symptoms can include, but are not limited to, fatigue, brain fog and headaches and can make pre-existing conditions a whole lot worse. The Consumers Health Forum of Australia reported concern about the long-term economic and social effects of long COVID. It said many people are taking long-term sick leave or losing their jobs, returning to part-time or lower-skilled work, or facing a permanent disability. Yet, despite this, many Australians with long COVID have struggled to get the medical and social support they needed. They were not getting the care, because many doctors either did not understand their requirements or were dismissing the concerns of the patients because of the limited research and knowledge on the subject. This often left patients without any direction to get the care they required.</para>
<para>When GPs did recognise the issues and referred these patients to long COVID specialist clinics, the wait time often sat at around three months, and there would be added costs that many people couldn't afford. This added to the physical and psychological toll that those experiencing the disease faced. As Ms Karren Hill, the administrator of the Australian Long COVID Community Facebook Support Group, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For many it is a serious, life-changing condition. … The scale of its impact in Australia is not always fully recognised. Many of our members are feeling neglected or forgotten. … This lack of strong data makes it difficult to develop appropriate policy responses and easily dismiss the serious, urgent widespread need.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Psychological Society's observations of patients attending long COVID clinics showed that many patients were not often believed by their peers, families or friends. And there was a concern that patients might be seen by healthcare professionals and their peers as malingering, making them hesitant to get the health care they needed. This additional psychological stress only contributes to the need for more research and data to be done. It was also important to make sure that those effects were heard about and seen by government. This has to be done through actions, not platitudes and meaningless 'get well soon' comments.</para>
<para>With the virus still in the community and more strains developing, the government recognised that long COVID would be an ongoing concern. The Albanese Labor government had the pragmatic foresight to establish this inquiry so that we could be prepared for and respond to the emerging and future issues that COVID-19 is still bringing to our country. The inquiry found that there is a need to support those affected by long COVID and those who treat it, as well as overall awareness and knowledge of it.</para>
<para>After hearing people's experiences and talking to health professionals, this government is committed to facilitating and supporting more research on the matter—so much so that when the report came out the Minister for Health and Aged Care committed a further $50 million from the Medical Research Future Fund to allow for adequate research to be undertaken. This is in addition to funding that has already been provided for research related to long COVID, including more than $13 million from the MRFF, $1.6 million from the National Health and Medical Research Council and $5 million to the Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies. Funding for data linkage and data analysis projects to better understand the prevalence and impact of long COVID has also been approved. The additional MRFF funding will improve our knowledge of long COVID in the Australian context and generate evidence to inform policy and clinical guidance, improve health outcomes and increase awareness of long COVID in the community. We know we don't have enough data on long COVID, but hopefully this step will go a long way to providing knowledge and adequate support for people.</para>
<para>The report recommends establishing a nationally coordinated research program to coordinate and fund COVID-19 and long COVID research. With the definition of long COVID to be reviewed, this inquiry sets a mandate for governments and government departments, at all levels, to work together to get a clear idea of what this condition is in order to be better able to respond to the challenges of it. Primary healthcare providers, such as GPs, are crucial in the fight, in providing early diagnosis and treatment opportunities for those with long COVID. The committee have recommended that greater support and educational opportunities be provided to medical professionals to assist patients. They say the government should also consider providing greater mental health support, telehealth and digital health resources and establishing better long COVID clinics to provide adequate access to those suffering from long COVID.</para>
<para>The government agrees primary care will play an important and central role in supporting Australians experiencing long COVID. It is amongst the reasons that the Albanese Labor government was proud to announce in the budget more support and investment into bulk-billing GPs. This measure is making sure that Australians have access to primary health care, and it is lowering waiting times to see a doctor, which is imperative in tackling long COVID. Australians can be reassured that this government is investing in protecting Australia's health and wellbeing. As we know, health issues can have ongoing impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of Australians. I know this government will take the important learning from this inquiry into account and seriously consider the recommendations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This parliament's work often shines in its committee work, and that is evident in the work of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport in its inquiry into long COVID and repeated COVID infections. It is a great privilege to have Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah and the member for Robertson, who are also members of the committee, here while this debate is going on. I thank them both for their considered support during the inquiry. For someone who does not have a medical background they were most helpful in their advice, so I acknowledge that. I'd like especially to thank the inquiry secretariat for their support, hard work and logistical advice throughout the inquiry, and I thank the members of the committee for the collegiate way in which these deliberations were made. I especially acknowledge the member for Macarthur and the member for Lindsay, as chair and deputy chair.</para>
<para>The subject of the inquiry was the management of long COVID in Australia. The committee looked at the patient experience, especially through diagnoses and treatments. We looked at healthcare services supporting long COVID and we looked at the research about risk factors, cause, prevalence and management. We have to note that research into this relatively new phenomena, although promising, is very much in its early stages, given that COVID has only been around since 2019.</para>
<para>Ultimately, the best way not to experience the debilitating effects of long COVID is not to contract COVID-19 at all. The effects of long COVID, by definition, last months after the initial infection and disrupt the ability of those affected to contribute in ways they are used to in family situations, work or sport.</para>
<para>This is obviously very distressing for sufferers and their families, and it can lead to disability and time off work, which has significant effects on work and home life and on their mental health. I want to recognise all the contributions of sufferers for their honesty and time in providing the committee with information and their experiences. I note that patients of long COVID often find it difficult to function in normal, everyday situations, and their symptoms are very distressing.</para>
<para>I note that there seems to be evidence that vaccines may assist in the protection against long COVID, and sometimes long COVID develops in people who have had more than one COVID infection. It was clear during the inquiry that a lack of information and data is currently hampering research and suggestions to prevent and treat long COVID. As this is a relatively new disease and complication, it is more important that standardised data is collected for research to look at trends and test outcomes for preventative treatments and ultimately for the cure. The committee recommends that the data should be managed in a single point so that standardisation of results will allow researchers to understand how many people are affected, in what circumstances they may be affected and, if there is a link, when and how to draw conclusions about what and why certain treatments may assist. This information must include information about long COVID in populations such as First Nations people and other communities in our electorates. We note that the care for long COVID patients should be affordable, timely and equitable, with mental health and multidisciplinary support available and accessible in all settings, whether you be in main cities or in remote and regional areas. The use of telehealth and digital resources may be able to be leveraged to assist with this care.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the committee notes that long COVID is definitely a condition, and it may be experienced by someone post a COVID infection. I want to reiterate that we believe that people have long COVID, because, unfortunately, it is the experience of too many people that they are not believed and that they are told to get over it. The committee found that this is definitely a condition, and we do believe you. Sufferers of long COVID experience often debilitating symptoms, which affect all parts of their lives, and it can be very distressing for them. Clearly, more research needs to be done, and I note that our government has already put more resources into that and will continue to look at what else can be done for sufferers. I commend the report to the parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">D</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>r REID () (): I firstly would like to take a moment to put on the record the work that our chair in particular, Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, undertook with our deputy chair, Melissa McIntosh, the member for Lindsay, and all the committee members, some of whom are in the chamber today. You, Deputy Chair Ananda-Rajah, and the member for Werriwa are here. Thank you for all of your hard work.</para>
<para>This is an extremely important topic that affects our health system but also has wide-ranging effects throughout multiple areas in our economy with regards to productivity. We know that long COVID is the persistence of symptoms post that acute illness. When those symptoms are persisting, as we heard from many of the people and peak bodies that provided evidence, it can have impacts not only on the individual's health and productivity but also on the family, the economy and the workforce more broadly. We heard that consistently throughout our long COVID inquiry.</para>
<para>I want to take a moment to talk about some of the frontline workers who were instrumental in caring for patients during the acute phase of the pandemic and who continue to provide care to patients who have now gone beyond that acute illness, in particular members of our hospitals, but really all members of the primary care space.</para>
<para>I can think of a few general practitioners on the Central Coast who play quite significant roles in our community in treating patients with persistent symptoms after acute illness, in particular those associated with long COVID. I make special mention of Dr Jon Fogarty. I congratulate him on his retirement but also thank him for his service to our community through the health system. I'll also mention Dr Ian Charlton, from Kincumber Doctors; Dr Colette Hourigan, a great local GP and women's health advocate; and Dr Stephen Kenny from East Gosford Medical. Two GPs who are key members of the peninsula now are Drs Raymond Fam and Mario Fam from Providence Medical. They are amazing medical practitioners, amazing general practitioners, who continue to provide care for our most vulnerable, in particular those suffering from persistent symptoms after COVID-19 infection.</para>
<para>I'll move on to some of the other professionals who assisted us during the acute phase and the years that followed, particularly those professionals at the Wyong and Gosford hospitals. I'm talking not just about the doctors there but about the nurses, the allied health professionals—the physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists—and the ancillary staff, who often don't get a mention and receive the recognition that they should; in particular, ESOs, environmental support officers, and the like. All the work they do is absolutely instrumental in our fight against COVID and long COVID. I also don't want to forget to mention Woy Woy Hospital, a little subacute hospital down on the peninsula—I've spent some time there—for all its work not only during the pandemic but also in providing care for patients at the moment.</para>
<para>I'll also give a big shout-out to the union movement, who really supported their members and all members of the health profession during that time and continue to provide support. I'll make special mention of ASMOF, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation; the HSU, the Health Services Union; and the Nurses and Midwives Association. They're just three, but there were multiple unions that really stepped up in the health space during that time.</para>
<para>I do want to mention some of the words that the chair, the member for Macarthur, used in the foreword to this report. They were about how, with the COVID-19 pandemic, we really hadn't seen a pandemic like it since the Spanish flu at the conclusion of the First World War. He noted that despite warnings that there was going to be another pandemic, it did take some experts by surprise, particularly the extent and gravity of it. I'm not going to say we were lucky, but we were fortunate that in Australia we have a health system that is resilient and well resourced, and for the most part we were able to deal with the significant challenges we had with regard to COVID-19. That was in particular because of the researchers, the scientists, the health experts, the GPs—all those people that I mentioned earlier—but also, too, because of the frontline workers, whether they were in our shops stacking shelves or elsewhere. Wherever it might have been, it was the resilience of the Australian people during that time that really moved us forward.</para>
<para>With regard to ongoing care of people with COVID-19 and the persistent symptoms that we see in long COVID, part of it is really about making sure that our primary care, including general practice, is well supported. I think it's fantastic that in our budget, which was handed down by Jim Chalmers, the member for Rankin, recently, we are investing significantly in primary care through tripling the bulk-billing incentive, making it cheaper and easier for Australians, whether they be in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast, in Victoria—you name it—to see a doctor. We know that GPs are at the centre of multidisciplinary care, and we've heard on countless occasions that patients with long COVID benefit from multidisciplinary care, particularly when we have GPs at the centre of it.</para>
<para>I commend not just the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance but also Mark Butler for really making sure that this bulk-billing incentive got up and was part of our most recent Albanese Labor budget.</para>
<para>In conclusion, although there are members of this committee who are in this room, I do want to thank the hundreds of people that made submissions to the long COVID inquiry, in particular to the individuals who were suffering quite significant symptoms. Whether they zoomed into the committee meeting, whether they came here in person or whether we came to them in some of the major cities and hospitals that we visited, the bravery they showed telling us their story about their journey from that acute illness to a chronic infection took courage. I want to thank each and every person who made a submission, which led to the recommendations from our long COVID inquiry and the report that followed.</para>
<para>Also, I make mention of the inquiry secretariat. As you know, Deputy Chair, there were hundreds of submissions that we went through, but the bulk of the hard work was done but our secretariat. They are always professional in their conduct and in the work that they undertake, whether that's in this House or whether that's on the road or via Zoom. I want to particularly mention Clare Anderson, Kate Portus, Kate Morris, Cassie Davis and Cathy Rouland, the members of the secretariat for this inquiry. They were amazing in everything that they did towards the recommendations that came out of this long COVID inquiry.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I want to thank the Chair and Deputy Chair of the COVID inquiry, the members for Macarthur and Lindsay, for all the work that they've undertaken. This was such an important inquiry to undertake into long COVID and repeated COVID infections, particularly in the aftermath of the acute phase of the pandemic. I think the title of this inquiry was apt, <inline font-style="italic">Sick and tired: Casting a long shadow</inline>, because we know that's what long COVID does. I want to commend this report to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the debate be adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>131</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>WOODS, Constable Anthony</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Constable Anthony Woods was simply doing his job, trying to help keep our community safe, and what happened to him was an absolute tragedy. I'd like to offer my sincere condolences to Constable Woods's family, his friends, his fellow officers at the Belmont Police Station, the wider police family—because that's what it is—and his footy mates, the Winnacott Eagles. I know what this will mean to them, and I know what he would have meant to them.</para>
<para>To Emily, his wife: Emily, I am so sorry that you've lost your much-loved husband. I'm sure when you kissed him goodbye that morning you never for one moment thought it would be the last day of him being on duty as a police officer. His life was cut so short. He was just 28 years of age. As I said, Constable Woods was simply doing his job, carrying out his duty as a police officer in protecting and serving his community, on 8 June.</para>
<para>Given the nature of the incident, can I also offer my deep sympathy to his fellow officers, in particular, his partner, who was present at the time, and the additional officers who assisted in recovering Constable Woods, who was trapped beneath the vehicle following the incident.</para>
<para>I believe that they will not need to close their eyes to be able to see what they saw at that time. I think it will live with them forever.</para>
<para>This is still very raw for many of us in WA. So many of us were shocked and absolutely saddened when we heard of Constable Woods's injuries. Following the incident, and despite the critical nature of his injuries, many people were just hoping and praying for Constable Woods's recovery. However, he passed away three days later.</para>
<para>I want to also offer my condolences to my South West District Superintendent Geoff Stewart and all of the officers in our South West who are doing similar work to what our officers do right around Australia every single day. That is, the work that Constable Woods was engaged in.</para>
<para>There are 7,000 WA police officers and police officers right around Australia who are out there day in and day out, doing their best to help keep us safe. They face those similar critical situations on a daily basis. In my opinion, from what we're seeing now, the threat and risk to those people is increasing. Every time they approach a vehicle or attend a call-out, they are at risk. The heightened nature of this comes as a result of what we're seeing on a daily basis. Some of the shocking crimes we're seeing committed are even directly against police themselves. As recently as January, even on the Forrest Highway in the South West, a police car was rammed head-on while a police officer was simply attempting to pull over a car. We read almost daily about shocking crimes and incidents that police attend as first responders.</para>
<para>I want to thank the families, as well, of our police officers—those like Emily. I want to thank them for supporting their loved ones in the work they do to help keep us safe. They certainly need the support of their family all of the time.</para>
<para>Can I also commend the work of Police Legacy and note how heart-wrenching it will be on National Police Remembrance Day on 29 September this year that Constable Woods will be the 88th WA police officer to lose his life while serving our community. But he will never be forgotten by his family, by his friends and by his fellow police officers. This is the ode that was written by WA police chaplain Barry May that's read at our Police Remembrance Day. I'd like to add this today, entirely for Constable Woods at this time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As the sun surely sets: dawn will see it arise, for service, above self, demands its own prize. You have fought the good fight: life's race has been run, and peace, your reward, for eternity begun. And we that are left, shall never forget, rest in peace friend and colleague, for the sun has now set. We will remember. We will remember. Hasten the dawn.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise with a heavy heart to remember and honour Constable Anthony Woods, a true hero who, in the line of duty, made the ultimate sacrifice. I can only imagine the profound sense of loss for his wife, family, friends and colleagues. There has been a shared, collective grief which has washed over all Western Australians, and I think it's because Constable Woods stood to serve and protect our community—to keep us safe. Constable Woods fought for his community during the pandemic, and he kept on fighting for his life during his hospital stay. But, sadly, he lost that fight due to his traumatic injuries. Everyone deserves to go home safe from work, including police officers.</para>
<para>I think there's another reason for the collective grief. Anthony was just 28 years old. He was happily married, a freshly minted police officer, a pretty good football player at his club, the Winnacott Eagles, I hear, and a passionate Eagles fan. He had so much that lay before him.</para>
<para>I honestly was not so mature at 23, but Anthony, at this age, decided that he wanted to become a police officer. Anthony joined the Western Australia Police Force as a trainee in 2019 and was admitted into the force in 2021. His graduation marked the beginning of a promising career.</para>
<para>He had the potential to make a lasting impact to my community of Swan. I remember when the COVID-19 pandemic first took hold across the world. Fear rippled throughout our community, and Anthony was one of the many police officers who bravely stood in the frontlines during the crisis. He selflessly put himself at risk to ensure the safety of the Western Australian community. When Anthony took on duties at Kensington Police Station, he showcased versatility and adaptability as an officer. Just last month, he was stationed at Belmont Police Station, where he was poised to embark on a fulfilling career.</para>
<para>The impact of Anthony's loss reverberates throughout Western Australia, affecting us all. However, it's his beloved wife; his parents, Natalie and Todd; his siblings, Nathan and Brooke; his extended family; his friends; and his fellow police officers who will bear the heaviest burden of grief.</para>
<para>I will now share some of the many messages of condolences shared with me from my community to show how deeply affected people felt. Tony Andretta wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">RIP Anthony Woods. You were doing your job serving and protecting us and paid the ultimate price. Thank you for your service and bravery.</para></quote>
<para>Julian Macdonald wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An unbelievably sad day for the family and WAPOL. Condolences to all.</para></quote>
<para>Marie Fernandez wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">So sorry he left us. I was praying for a miracle and rooting for his recovery. Deepest condolences to family, friends, colleagues and WAPOL.</para></quote>
<para>Jennifer Reeve wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How very sad a young man doing his job is killed so tragically. Condolences to his family and his fellow officers.</para></quote>
<para>Phil Trainer wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Sincerest Condolences to family and friends, a great loss to the world.</para></quote>
<para>Jill Innes wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is so damn sad, only doing his job, just awful. I trust the family finds comfort in the love and support being offered to them at this shocking time. In respectful Memory</para></quote>
<para>Our deepest condolences are with his family and colleagues during this difficult time. I would particularly like to acknowledge the first responders at the scene, who, by all accounts, acted with great bravery and urgency at the time of the tragedy, and who must be heartbroken to lose a friend and a colleague. I can only imagine how confronting that scene would have been. May they find solace in the memories of Anthony's unwavering dedication, commitment and sacrifice both in the line of duty and to his family. As we mourn his passing, let us also celebrate his life and the impact he made in his short time with us.</para>
<para>In the face of this tragedy, let's come together as a community, supporting one another and extending a helping hand to those in need. Speaking to Jill Willoughby from WA Police Legacy and my colleague the member for Tangney, Sam Lim, a former decorated police officer, I understand that Belmont Police Station has been overwhelmed by the outpouring of messages, condolences and gifts. The support was truly unexpected. The blue family are strong, but they're even stronger with community support. I would also like to acknowledge the work that WA Police Legacy has done in supporting Anthony's family. I understand that they work tirelessly every day and support over 400 widows and 50 children.</para>
<para>It is during times like these that our strength and resilience shine the brightest. Together, we can ensure that Constable Anthony Woods's legacy lives on, inspiring future generations and serving communities with honour, courage and unwavering dedication, but most importantly reinforcing the message that everyone deserves to go home safe.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the previous contribution by the member for Swan. I'll just acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to give a speech about a member of your community who has lost their life serving that community. Thank you.</para>
<para>I stand here today to contribute to this condolence motion for Constable Anthony Woods, a police officer who will forever more rightly hold the title of 'hero'.</para>
<para>In the execution of his duty, providing us with a peaceful society so we can live our incredibly fortunate lives, he paid the ultimate price with his. On Thursday 8 June at 1 am, Anthony and his partner were working when they intercepted a suspected stolen vehicle being driven by a 23-year-old person who had recently been released on bail. As a result of that intercept and the circumstances that followed, Anthony lost his life in the most horrific way. He was transported to hospital, after his partner did everything he possibly could to try and save his life, where he was placed in an induced coma and then finally succumbed to his injuries on the 11th.</para>
<para>Anthony served his community for three years, and, as a former police officer, I know what that's like. I know that journey. It's a proud journey. But it's a journey where police put themselves forward, not to wear a uniform, not to have power, not to hold a gun on their hip. They do it to help their fellow citizens. That's what they do it for. And that's what he was out doing when this terrible tragedy occurred. He was out helping his citizens. It highlights not just how fragile life is but also how these things can happen so rapidly. For police, every intercept could be exactly what we've seen here. An unknown risk is a high risk, and every car that you pull over—you just don't know. It could be as dangerous as that horrible domestic violence incident that you had the knowledge of before you went. Police do this every night. They're doing it all of the time, and we need to acknowledge as a society the dangers in which they operate.</para>
<para>Anthony's probation report said he was a great all-rounder and an officer that any community would want responding when they call triple 0. I can envisage Anthony, although, obviously, I didn't meet him. He would have been a proud young constable, and he would have put that uniform on with pride. I was told once by a person I had a great deal of respect for that, when you put that uniform on, you are embodying every good citizen in the community. There is an immense amount of satisfaction in doing that and doing it properly, and that's what he was doing.</para>
<para>My deepest sympathies go out to Anthony's colleagues at the Belmont Police Station. It will be a very difficult time not only for you but for the wider community. Hold your mates close. Spend time with your family. Do all of those things that you know make you stronger. This is the nature of policing, unfortunately. Take care of your mates: that's my message to those people. WA Police Legacy is accepting donations on behalf of the Woods family, and I would encourage all citizens to help out and make a contribution to that legacy fund.</para>
<para>This loss comes only a relatively short time after the horrible incident in Wieambilla in Queensland, where Queensland lost two members of its police service and a citizen, Alan Dare. The members were Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow, whose lives were also taken in the line of duty. On 16 September, the Wall To Wall ceremony will be held. At the ceremony, which is held every year, sadly, new names are added to the bronze plates on the memorial wall on Lake Burley Griffin. It will be a sad time in September. I'll be there, and I would encourage any others who can be at that ceremony to come along and to show their support for their brothers and sisters wearing the blue uniform. My deepest sympathies go to Anthony's wife, Emily, his mum and dad, and his broader family.</para>
<para>Rest in peace, Constable Anthony Wood.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We stand here in this place as representatives, and as far as workplaces go it is a relatively safe place. Police officers are also representatives, in the sense that they go out every day and stand where most will not stand and do what most cannot do. They work at the difficult and unpredictable face of executive government, fulfilling tasks that few of us would be able—or, still less, willing—to do. Their work is necessary, and when they do their work they do it on our behalf.</para>
<para>The death of a police officer in the line of duty is felt deeply across our communities by those who can understand the work they do for us. Constable Anthony Woods passed away earlier this month in hospital from injuries received while carrying out his duty. He was run over by the driver of a vehicle while the arrest of that person and two other occupants of the vehicle was in progress. Tributes for Constable Woods have been made by the premier and the police commissioner. The commissioner stated that Constable Woods exemplified the values of the WA Police Force.</para>
<para>This terrible event occurred in Ascot. Ascot is not far from the city. Many or most people in Perth pass through Ascot on a regular basis, and when we do so we don't expect to be attacked or killed. Police officers carry a different burden. They know that they will often be asked to put themselves on the line, and they know that the people they will very often have to deal with will be unwell, emotionally stressed, drug affected, or just too immature or morally deficient to properly govern their own behaviour. Police officers stand there on our behalf.</para>
<para>I add my condolences to the many that have been expressed. For the colleagues and first responders, for the family and friends of Constable Woods, taken too young, I'm sorry. May you draw strength from the community around you, the love that's being expressed from across the country, and the support of Police Legacy to get you through this time.</para>
<para>As legislators here and in the states, let us continue to find ways, across all portfolios, to reduce and remove the precedent conditions that can lead to these events taking place at all. That is our role in this. I'm grateful to be joined by the member for Wide Bay, who spoke just previously, with his 16 years of experience, and members like the member for Tangney, a decorated former police officer. We have the knowledge and experience in this place to be able to make those changes. Eighty-eight serving officers have died in the line of duty in Western Australia. Just one is too many.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay my respects to Constable Anthony Woods, who tragically lost his life on 11 June this year after succumbing to his injuries after being dragged underneath a vehicle. I didn't know Anthony Woods, but I know Anthony Woods. I say that because in my 12 years in the police force in New South Wales there was a common thread, and that was family—the family in the police force. And it actually doesn't matter whether you're serving or you've left, or if you've retired: there's always that common thread. It's an understanding that you've all done the same thing, have done that job and have worked together.</para>
<para>I can stand on prepoll for hours and hours and I'll have ex-police or current police come up to me. Someone might say to me, 'I was in the Queensland cops'—great—and you'd have that conversation, because you'd have that understanding and camaraderie. That could be said internationally, as well. I know that every police officer in Australia today and on 11 June would have been thinking about Anthony Woods.</para>
<para>I've seen some photos of Anthony in the media. I can say that I know he would have loved his job. The look on his face—he would have loved getting up every morning, or at night time going on night shift, pulling on those black Baxter boots and going out there and doing that job, and part of that would have been doing that job with his mates. He wouldn't have walked out that door thinking, 'I might have to face danger tonight,' because that's just assumed. Every single police officer walks out the door like that because they walk into this job with eyes wide open, as I did in 1989. What you see with your eyes wide open is different, but you know that's part of the job. Yet Woodsy—I'm sure they called him Woodsy—would have walked out that door looking forward to going to work, looking forward to working with his mates and looking forward to the job in which he swore to protect our communities. And that's exactly what he did.</para>
<para>I offer my condolences to his family—his wife and his extended family. There will always be pain. But after time, the memories of him will fill your heart. I offer my condolences to his mates, his work colleagues. And the families of police should be recognised today because they let those police officers walk out the door every day, knowing that this may happen. It's quite unfair to them, but it's a choice that they make because they love their loved ones. They know they love their job. It's a sacrifice that the families of police officers make. So I thank you, the families of police officers, for letting your loved ones walk out the door every day to serve us.</para>
<para>Finally, I recognise the first responders. That would have been one of the toughest scenes to visit, knowing that it was one of them, knowing that it was one of theirs. Having been to many incidents, I thank God that none of them were people known to me or loved ones. I offer my thoughts and my prayers to the first-responder community around Australia and thank you for what you do for our communities.</para>
<para>Might I just recognise Peter Addison and Robert Spears, who were two senior constables working at the Kempsey police station back in 1995, a station where I once worked, who both lost their lives in a tragic shooting incident. It's been 28 years, but we still remember them, as we will always remember Constable Anthony Woods. Again, thank you to all the police officers, and vale, Anthony Woods.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Cowper, for those heartfelt words.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak and share my condolences on the tragic death of Constable Anthony Woods. A committed and hardworking police officer who served in the Western Australia Police Force for the past three years, Constable Woods was just 28 years of age.</para>
<para>As we often rise in this place to speak on matters, this is probably, in my time in this parliament, one of the saddest, saddest times I've had to speak. I feel so, so sorry and so upset for his family. So young and with so much life ahead of him, he was the 88th police officer in WA to die in the line of duty. He was only a month out of his probationary period and no doubt really looking forward to the future ahead of him. He had a career and a life that were sadly cut short.</para>
<para>To his family, I express my deepest condolences. Losing a loved one is absolutely devastating. Losing them in a tragic and unexpected manner can be so much more heart breaking. To his wife, Emily; his parents, Natalie and Todd; his brother, Nathan; and his sister, Brooke: I say how sorry I am for your loss.</para>
<para>May you remember all the best times you had with Anthony. As you grieve, I know that the hearts and thoughts of all Western Australians and all Australians, especially those with connections to the police force, the bluey family, are with you.</para>
<para>I'd like to share some history on Constable Anthony Woods to build a picture of the wonderful and fun man that he was. Prior to joining the police force, he volunteered at the Police Community Youth Centre, the PCYC, a club that exists so that disadvantaged youth and children at risk across Western Australia have a safe place to go, somewhere they can feel at home, make friends and do things that young people do. Constable Woods joined the police force as a trainee in 2019—I can imagine he was very proud—and he was inducted into the academy in 2021. After his graduation from the academy, Constable Woods started his career as an officer posted to Operation Tide, where he served on the frontline protecting the Western Australian community during the challenges of COVID-19. Constable Woods was posted to Kensington Police Station prior to Belmont Police Station.</para>
<para>On Sunday 11 June, following his death, landmarks were lit up in blue lights to commemorate the loss of Constable Woods: Council House, Matagarup Bridge and WA police headquarters in East Perth. Flags were flying at half-mast, and flowers and notes had been left at Belmont Police Station. Flags at police stations right across WA have been flown at half-mast. In a mark of respect, leadership and friendship, WA Police Commissioner Col Blanch spent time with the officers at Belmont Police Station on the evening of 11 June, trying to reassure them, trying to comfort them. I can imagine the devastation in that police station and an empty desk. That must have been awful. A fundraiser raised almost $14,000 in less than 24 hours for Constable Woods's family. His local football club played a tribute match last Saturday and retired his No. 3 jersey in his honour. I can imagine the atmosphere and the devastation of that football team; they were all very closely linked, no doubt friends and childhood family friends. It would have been just awful and so very, very sad.</para>
<para>Premier Roger Cook said he was devastated by the horrific events that occurred resulting in Constable Woods's death. Premier Cook said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I know I speak on behalf of everyone in WA, in sending our love and thoughts to Anthony's family, friends and colleagues. His life was dedicated to making our state a safer place for Western Australians and he is to be commended on his dedication and bravery.</para></quote>
<para>WA police said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is with great sadness that the WA Police Force confirms the passing of Constable Anthony Woods, who succumbed to injuries suffered in the line of duty, while attending an incident in Ascot earlier this week</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Constable Anthony Woods exemplified the values of the WA Police Force, and his memory will be forever etched in our hearts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">WA Police extend heartfelt condolences to Anthony's family, colleagues and all those who knew and loved him.</para></quote>
<para>These must have been very difficult words to write, never mind say. WA police minister Paul Papalia MLA made a statement in WA parliament, and I would like to read that statement here in the federal parliament:</para>
<quote><para class="block">On behalf of the state government, I offer my sincere condolences to the family, friends and police family of Constable Anthony Woods. May he forever be remembered for his dedication, commitment and sacrifice in the line of duty for the protection of the Western Australian community.</para></quote>
<para>We remember his bravery, sacrifice and unwavering commitment to protecting and serving our community.</para>
<para>A statement from the family of Constable Anthony Woods:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are shattered to lose our dear Anthony. He was a devoted husband and loving son, brother, and uncle who was taken from this earth far too soon.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Anthony will be remembered as a funny, hard-working man who loved the West Coast Eagles and mucking around with his mates—</para></quote>
<para>I'm a West Coast Eagles fan too; a great team—</para>
<quote><para class="block">He brought light and laughter to every situation, and his wicked sense of humour is irreplaceable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our pain at this time is indescribable, and we take comfort in the outpouring of love from the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We ask that you keep Anthony's memory alive by telling stories of all of your good times with him.</para></quote>
<para>I have to say, as a parent, that's one of the last things you would ever want to write about your child. His dear wife, Emily, on behalf of the family said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He was a devoted husband and loving son, brother, and uncle who was taken from this earth far too soon.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Anthony will be remembered as a funny, hard-working man who loved the West Coast Eagles and mucking around with his mates.</para></quote>
<para>For a young wife, how very, very sad and tragic.</para>
<para>Constable Woods will be remembered as an exemplary police officer. Western Australian police noted that Constable Anthony Woods exemplified the values of the WA Police Force—values of duty, team work, integrity and care.</para>
<para>As a leader in our community, I have to say that this is so very sad. Somebody so young, so vibrant, so energetic and so committed to his community has been taken from us far too soon, and we say: rest in peace, Constable Anthony Woods.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:55</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>