2023-06-22 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 22 June 2023

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

STATEMENTS 1 STATEMENTS Neal, Mr Alfred, OAM 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 2 09:09 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the death of Alfred Neal OAM be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 2

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:10 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will give effect to Australia's international obligations arising out of two amendments to the London protocol agreed to in 2009 and 2013. Australia is a contracting party to the London protocol, on the prevention of marine pollution by sea dumping of wastes and other matter. This bill would amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 to implement Australia's international obligations under that London protocol. I note that this enacting legislation was recently recommended by the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in its recent inquiry into the London protocol. I thank the members of the committee for that work. The bipartisan committee, which included members from the government, the opposition and the crossbench, found that ratifying these amendments would 'place Australia in good stead regarding its regional foreign policy objectives, given the clear interest from traditional trading partners'. Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard from experts such as Dr Constantinos Yiallourides of the Centre for Environmental Law. Dr Yiallourides recommended that this be ratified from a global environmental law perspective as it builds harmonisation across borders and foregrounds any of these activities and other requirements in the London protocol, which he acknowledges is the most specialised provisions that we currently have. I thank the committee for their work. The Climate Change Authority has recently come to a similar conclusion, noting in its recent policy paper that Australia's ratification of these amendments would promote consistency across international, national and subnational regulatory approaches to better enable cooperation on emissions reduction. The sea dumping act regulates the loading, dumping and incineration of waste at sea and the placement of artificial reefs within Australian waters. It also prohibits disposal of material into the ocean that is considered too harmful to be released into the marine environment without a robust assessment and approval permitting process. Australia has agreed to the 2009 amendment to the London protocol to enable the export of carbon dioxide (CO2) streams for the purpose of carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations—also known as carbon capture and storage. In 2013, another amendment was adopted by the contracting parties to the London protocol to allow regulation of the placement of wastes, or other matter, for legitimate scientific research activities into marine geoengineering, such as ocean fertilisation. Regulating this type of activity, though a robust application, assessment and approval permitting process, would ensure that only legitimate scientific research activities exploring options to reduce atmospheric CO2 can proceed. This amendment also provides for regulating other potentially harmful marine geoengineering research activities should they emerge in the future. These amendments ensure that legitimate scientific research institutions and other organisations will be able to conduct marine geoengineering research with legal certainty while ensuring the marine environment is protected from the impacts of those activities. While these amendments were agreed to by parties to the protocol in 2009 and 2013 respectively, neither has yet entered into force. Once the sea dumping act is amended to include the 2009 CO2 export amendment, Australia may deposit a declaration of provisional application to the International Maritime Organization as part of the ratification process. This means that Australia can start regulating both the import and the export of CO2 streams for sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations sooner, rather than waiting for the 2009 amendment to come into force for all parties internationally. Companies would be able to better plan for transboundary projects for carbon capture and storage into sub-seabed geological formations within a clear regulatory framework. Until then, this export activity is not permitted under the sea dumping act. It is important to note that projects from domestic proponents are already allowed under existing Australian law. The bill would also update the sea dumping act by making minor consequential amendments to enable the effective implementation and enforcement of these new permits. It would also make minor technical amendments to clarify existing provisions in the sea dumping act and adopt modern drafting practices. The regulatory framework for sequestration of CO2 into sub-seabed formations and scientific research for marine geoengineering activities will be comprehensive and include strict guidelines. In summary, these changes to the sea dumping act will meet Australia's international obligations under the London protocol. It will also protect and preserve the marine environment from potential environmental risks, through a robust, comprehensive and science based regulatory framework. Debate adjourned. Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 3

Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Ensuring the security of our nation and its people is a foundational responsibility of this parliament. Today we confront emerging and serious threats to our national security. The Director-General of Security has warned Australia is facing unprecedented challenges, describing the current security environment as 'complex, challenging and changing'. In such an environment, the Australian parliament's responsibility is clear. It must ensure our intelligence and security agencies have the necessary powers and resources to protect Australian citizens and Australian interests. The parliament has rightly entrusted our intelligence and security agencies with significant powers to counter these threats to our security. However, these powers can impinge on the values and freedoms on which our democracy is founded—values and freedoms which Australian citizens rightly expect parliament to protect. The task of the parliament is to strike a balance between the protection of Australia's essential security interests and the preservation of essential rights and freedoms. Critical to achieving this balance is strong and effective safeguards and oversight. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only be assured through rigorous and effective oversight and—to the extent possible—public accountability. The greater the potential for coercive or intrusive powers to infringe on individual liberties, the greater the need for accountability in the exercise of those powers. This is not to suggest our security and intelligence agencies are misusing their powers or acting improperly. I do not believe that to be the case. However, enhanced powers demand enhanced accountability. Strong and effective oversight mechanisms do not stand in opposition to Australia's national security interests—they are best understood as an essential part of advancing them. The current security environment has led to increased collaboration and engagement with agencies across government. The six intelligence and security agencies are the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Intelligence. To counter security threats, these agencies are increasingly partnering with an additional four agencies: the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and the Intelligence Division of the Department of Home Affairs. Collectively, these ten agencies comprise the National Intelligence Community and each has important functions to protect Australian citizens and Australian interests. However, the oversight and accountability framework for the National Intelligence Community is not uniform, nor has it been reformed since the formation of the community. The current framework Under existing legislation, oversight of Australia's six intelligence and security agencies is provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. These three bodies perform different but complementary roles to provide the public with assurance that the extraordinary powers entrusted to these agencies are appropriately used and remain necessary. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is Australia's dedicated intelligence oversight body, providing independent assurance to parliament and the public that the agencies within its jurisdiction act lawfully, with propriety and consistently with human rights. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security also plays a critical role in overseeing Australia's intelligence agencies and scrutinising national security legislation to ensure it is necessary, proportionate and effective. The committee also has important statutory functions to review the administration and expenditure of the agencies within its jurisdiction. Lastly, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of national security and counterterrorism laws; and considers whether the laws contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to national security threats and remain necessary. The b ill The bill amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and other Commonwealth legislation to expand the jurisdictions of the inspector-general and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to oversee the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the intelligence functions of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs. The expansion of the jurisdiction of these two bodies will provide holistic oversight of the 10 agencies that comprise the National Intelligence Community. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security currently reviews proposed counterterrorism and national security legislation as a matter of practice. The committee provides an important accountability mechanism in ensuring that counterterrorism and national security legislation is fit for purpose. To this end, the bill includes amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review proposed reforms to counterterrorism and national security legislation, and all such expiring legislation, on its own motion. The amendments in this bill would ensure that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security can provide appropriate scrutiny in this complex and constantly evolving intelligence environment. The bill also strengthens the relationship between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The bill provides that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security conduct an inquiry into matters within the inspector-general's jurisdiction. This will ensure that areas of concern identified by the committee can be brought to the inspector-general's attention as appropriate. The bill also provides that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request a briefing from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Similarly, the bill requires the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence to provide regular briefings to the committee. These measures will enhance the committee's oversight role and provide it with necessary and relevant information to support its work. Conclusion It is the responsibility of parliament, on behalf of the people, to balance individual liberty and national security. If the public are to have confidence that an appropriate balance has been struck and that the enhanced powers and capabilities of our intelligence and security agencies are being used only for the purposes for which they were granted, current accountability arrangements must be improved. Strong and effective oversight mechanisms are an essential part of advancing and protecting Australia's national security interests, providing assurance of intrusive and covert activities, and ensuring public confidence in, and social licence for, Australia's intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Oversight makes agencies better. Oversight is an essential part of advancing our national security interests. Oversight ensures agencies are accountable and that the public can have confidence in their activities and that their powers remain reasonable and proportionate. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 5

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:27 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 will amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting foreign bribery. The measures in the bill seek to address key challenges with investigating and prosecuting cases of foreign bribery in Australia. The measures in the bill will look familiar to many members of this parliament. That is because schedule 1 of this bill is in substantially the same form as schedule 1 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019—which was, in turn, in substantially the same form as schedule 1 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017. On two occasions—across two parliaments and over a period of five years—the previous government introduced a bill to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting foreign bribery. But on two occasions, the previous government allowed those bills to lapse. Those bills were never put to a vote, despite measures like those contained in schedule 1 of this bill enjoying bipartisan support over many years. It is my hope that those opposite will work with the government to complete the work that they commenced when they were on this side of the chamber by supporting this bill. Foreign bribery is a serious and insidious problem across the world. At a local level, it can harm communities by increasing the costs and reducing the quality of vital public goods and services for citizens, skewing competition and misallocating precious resources. At a macro level, it impedes economic development, corrodes good governance and undermines the rule of law. Further, bribery by Australians and Australian businesses damages our international standing and can shrink the global market for Australian exports. As the Australian Institute of Company Directors told the Senate committee that inquired into the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019: … foreign bribery and corruption causes significant harm to the governance of societies and economies abroad, as well as distorting competition and the integrity of markets". As a signatory to the OECD antibribery convention, Australia is required to ensure that our laws are effective in holding natural and legal persons to account for foreign bribery. In 1999, Australia gave effect to these obligations by enacting the current foreign bribery offence in division 70 of the Criminal Code. Over time, that offence has proven to be overly prescriptive and difficult to use. The measures in this bill have been carefully developed and targeted to overcome these issues, to ensure our legislative framework adequately deters and punishes the corrupt practice of foreign bribery. Under the current foreign bribery offence, the prosecution needs to show that both the bribe and the business advantage sought were 'not legitimately due'. This presents challenges where bribes are concealed as legitimate payments. To address this, the bill replaces this requirement with the concept of 'improperly influencing' a foreign public official to better reflect the type of conduct involved in foreign bribery. The bill amends the definition of '.foreign public official' to also include candidates for public office. The bill also broadens the scope of the foreign bribery offence to capture bribery conducted to obtain a personal advantage, not a business advantage. This is because, as the experience of law enforcement agencies has shown, a bribe could be in a range of different forms—such as the bestowal of a personal honour, the processing of a visa request, or a reduction in an individual's personal tax liability. The bill also removes the existing requirement that, for the offence to be established, the foreign public official must be influenced in the exercise of their official duties. The bill also clarifies that the offence does not require the accused to have had a specific business or advantage in mind, and that the business or advantage can be obtained for someone else. Most significantly, the bill creates a new offence for corporations that fail to prevent foreign bribery, which carries a maximum penalty of $27.5 million or higher. This measure holds companies directly liable for the foreign bribery activities of their employees, external contractors, agents and subsidiaries, unless the business can demonstrate that they had adequate procedures in place. The United Kingdom has successfully used a similar offence to prosecute companies in several foreign bribery cases, which has reportedly had a significant and positive influence on the adoption of more effective corporate compliance programs to prevent bribery. To support the introduction of this new offence, guidance material on what constitutes 'adequate procedures' to avoid criminal liability will be published. The bill requires me, as the responsible minister, to publish guidance on the types of measures that are likely to constitute 'adequate procedures' within six months of royal assent of the bill. The draft guidance will largely be modelled on the UK government's guidance that accompanies the 'failure to prevent' offence under section 7 of the UK Bribery Act. In finalising the guidance material over the coming months, the government will build on the work that was undertaken—but never completed—by the previous government in 2019 and 2020. The government will also have regard to existing guidance published by the Australian Trade Commission, the OECD and other international organisations. This is intended to enable Australian companies that have already framed their antibribery policies on international guidelines to easily incorporate additional policies relevant to the Australian context. In addition to the measures contained in this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019 would have introduced a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. This bill contains no such scheme. The purpose of a deferred prosecution scheme is to strike a balance between encouraging companies to self-report serious offending and holding companies to account for serious corporate crime. However, given that there is universal agreement that the existing foreign bribery offences in the Criminal Codeare grossly inadequate, it is premature to entertain the introduction of a deferred prosecution scheme. The introduction of such a scheme should only be entertained after the measures in this bill have been enacted and given time to work. When ordinary Australians commit crimes, they feel the full force of the law. However, under the deferred prosecution agreement scheme proposed by the former government, companies that engaged in serious corporate crime, including foreign bribery, would have been able to negotiate a fine, agree to a set of conditions and have their cases put on indefinite hold. The amendments in the bill will strengthen Australia's implementation and enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactionsand the United Nations Convention against Corruption. In December 2021, the OECD found that Australia had increased its enforcement efforts against companies and subsequently upgraded Australia under the relevant recommendation. Introduction of this bill will further enhance our enforcement efforts under the antibribery convention. The Albanese government takes corruption very seriously—whether it is corruption in the public sector or the private sector. In July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be established to investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector, refer evidence of criminal corrupt conduct for prosecution and undertake education and prevention activities regarding corruption. The combatting foreign bribery bill enhances Australia's response to foreign bribery and supports our obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to combatting foreign bribery and ensuring our laws are effective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 7

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:38 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Classification Scheme (the scheme) plays an important role as a trusted and reliable source of information for all Australians about what they, and those in their care, watch, read or play. The current scheme was established in 1995 under cooperative arrangements between the Commonwealth, states and territories. It provides for the Commonwealth, through the Classification Board, to classify films, computer games and certain publications; and the states and territories to enforce classification requirements under their own complementary laws. The scheme is based on the principles that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want; minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; and that everyone should be protected from unsolicited offensive material. These are principles worth pursuing today, perhaps more than ever. But the scheme has not kept pace with the way Australians access media content, particularly the rapid growth in online content, or with evolving community standards. The Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report Classification—content regulation and convergent media, and the 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation by Neville Stevens, which the Albanese government released on 29 March 2023, found that aspects of the scheme are no longer fit for purpose. These reviews, as well as continued calls from industry, have highlighted that reform of the National Classification Scheme is long overdue. In March this year the government committed to a two-stage process of classification reform. A staged approach will enable immediate improvements to the current scheme to progress now, while the government undertakes the necessary consultation to develop a contemporary and fit-for-purpose classification framework—one that reflects the modern media environment and will serve all Australians into the future. This bill supports the implementation of the first stage of the government's classification reforms by introducing a number of changes to existing classification arrangements. These changes will improve the capacity of the Scheme to deal with large volumes of online content, promote industry compliance, and increase access to cultural content in public libraries and approved cultural institutions. Currently, there are two ways for industry to have content classified—either through submissions to the Classification Board or the use of minister-approved classification tools. The rapid growth in the volume of content now available to Australians, particularly online, means that it is no longer efficient or effective to rely on the board to classify content. In addition, not every content provider has the resources to invest in the development of automated classification tools. To address this, the bill expands options for industry to self-classify content. Content providers, particularly online content providers, will be able to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification timeframes and costs for business. It establishes a new accreditation scheme to enable content to be classified by individuals who are trained and accredited by the government. To support the expansion of self-classification arrangements, the bill introduces a number of safeguards. Eligibility criteria will ensure that only fit and proper people are accredited to classify content. Provisions for accreditation to be suspended or revoked for failure to appropriately classify content will also apply. The Classification Board's powers to quality assure self-classification decisions will be expanded to include decisions by accredited classifiers, similar to arrangements already in place for decisions of approved classification tools. The Bill also provides further clarification around the use of consumer advice to ensure that these advices, which are an important source of information for consumers, are being appropriately and consistently applied in classification decisions. The bill also expands exemptions from classification for low risk content, where it is sensible and beneficial to do so. Exemptions from classification will be introduced for certain films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. This will improve access to cultural content and ease the regulatory burden on institutions that provide such content. To improve the efficiency of the classification system, material already classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992will no longer need to be re-classified for distribution on other platforms. This supports a 'classify once' principle where content that has been classified using similar classification guidelines, and has not been modified, does not need to be classified again. This approach was advocated by the Stevens review and in the ACCC's 2019 digital platforms inquiry recommendation for a nationally-uniform classification scheme to classify or restrict access to content consistently across different delivery formatsas part of a harmonised media regulatory framework. The government is committed to reforming the National Classification Scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia. The changes proposed in this bill will help set the scheme on the right path forward. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 8

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:45 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Intellectual Property (IP) system enables Australian businesses to protect and grow trusted brands, supporting economic growth and prosperity. A well-functioning IP system fosters innovation and encourages the development of new ideas. This bill makes important improvements to the Australian IP system to help ensure it remains modern and fit for purpose. A key measure in the bill improves the protection of Olympic Games insignia. The bill will also modernise, streamline and simplify other aspects of the Australian IP system and provide more certainty to Australian businesses as they protect their great ideas. The government has consulted on the amendment contained in this bill with key stakeholders, including the Australian and international Olympic committees, who support these changes. The Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987was designed to prevent unauthorised actors profiting from the Olympic movement. Under the Olympic Charter, the Australian Olympic Committee is required to take necessary steps to prohibit illegitimate use of Olympic insignia. However, ambush marketing and other unauthorised use of these insignia detract from the branding and reputation of the games. Protecting the Olympic insignia and restricting its use to the Australian and international Olympic committees helps protect the Olympic movement and ensure the games generate revenue through sponsorships and licencing arrangements. The bill amends the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987to make clear that only the Australian and international Olympic committees can register Olympic insignia as trademarks in Australia. The changes align the wording of the Olympic Insignia Protection Act with the Trade Marks Act 1995, so they work together to prevent the unauthorised registration of trademark applications containing Olympic insignia. The amendment will also provide greater legal certainty for IP Australia to reject speculative trademark applications from applicants other than the Australian or international Olympic committees. Such applications can be made in an attempt to profit from activities associated with the Brisbane Olympic Games. Trademark applications made in bad faith are often filed years in advance of an Olympic event, so it is important to act now. This amendment will ensure that the Olympics Insignia Protection Act's objectives are met. It is important to note that this only makes changes to who can protect Olympic insignia, making it clear that is limited to the AOC or IOC. It does not change the rules for how these insignia are used, which is to prevent unfair competition in commercial settings. In addition, the bill amends the Trade Marks Act 1995, saving businesses time and hassle by simplifying processes, increasing procedural fairness, closing gaps and ensuring that government can engage with customers in a modern and flexible way. The bill will also make changes to streamline the way users interact with parts of the trademarks system. The bill will also streamline the administration of trademark renewals by aligning the relevant grace period payments to a consistent six-month duration. Currently, in exceptional circumstances where a trademark application is still pending after 10 years, the available grace period for paying a renewal fee is up to 10 months after the renewal is due. The amendment changes the grace period for this situation to six months, aligning with the grace period for renewal fee payments under normal circumstances. This amendment will provide consistency across all trademark renewal due dates. This will also ensure that trademark registrations that are no longer active can be removed in a timely way. This will improve certainty and simplify processes for trademark owners. The bill will also clarify requirements to revoke a trademark registration to ensure procedural fairness for all trademark owners. The amendment simplifies and clarifies provisions dealing with revocation of the registration of a trademark, where a component of a notice of opposition to registration of that trademark has been overlooked. After a trademark is accepted by IP Australia, it can be opposed—for example, by a competitor. This opposition process consists of multiple steps. If one of these steps is overlooked, or if the opponent needs an extension of time to complete one of these steps, the trademark application might proceed to registration in error. This amendment ensures that a trademark registered in error in these circumstances can be revoked and the opposition will resume. This will allow a fair process for both sides. The provisions for revoking registration in those circumstances will by aligned with other current oppositions processes before IP Australia. The bill will implement safeguards to protect a trademark owner who needs an extension of time to provide evidence to help them defend against removal of their trademark for non-use. Under the Trade Marks Act, third parties can apply for trademark registrations to be removed if they have not been used. Trademarks can be defended against these non-use removals, usually by their owners. If a due date is missed in one of these non-use proceedings, the trademark may be removed from the register of trademarks. Under the current act, that removal is irrevocable in some circumstances. So even if an owner is entitled to an extension of time, they cannot defend their registration. This amendment clarifies provisions to enable restoration of a trademark registration where an owner missed the deadline to respond to a type of opposition, but is later granted an extension of time to respond. The amendment means an owner can continue to defend their registration if they miss a due date but are eligible for an extension of time. This will give trademark owners a fair opportunity to present their case. The bill will modernise the way crucial information about the status of trademarks is communicated publicly. Currently, the government is required to use an official journal to communicate trademarks information. However, the world has changed, and IP Australia now publishes this same information on its website and through an online search portal which is easier to access and keep up to date. These amendments will remove the old-fashioned restrictions requiring the printed journal to be maintained and allow the government to communicate such information through up-to-date, user-friendly technology. Benefiting business by providing a single, current source of official trademark information through a modern online search portal. Moving to format-neutral provisions will reduce duplication and futureproof the administration of the IP system and enable us to deliver trademark information in an accessible way for users, when and how they want it. Finally, the bill makes one minor amendment to the Patents Act 1990to repeal transitional provisions. These provisions apply to patents granted under the previous Patents Act 1952. The last patent protected under the 1952 act expired in February 2016, and the six-year statutory limitations period on actions for infringement under that act expired in February 2022. Therefore, these provisions will cease to serve any purpose and will be redundant. This is good regulatory practice and helps to streamline the patents system. I am pleased to introduce this bill, which will provide legal certainty ahead of the 2032 Olympics, as well as ensure our IP system is fit for purpose in supporting Australian business to innovate and grow. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023 10

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 09:55 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There is a crisis of exploitation in Australian workplaces. Too many workers are forced to confront vulnerability created by our visa system. This means more wage theft for workers. Australians and people who hold temporary visas alike. People are too terrified to speak out when they are mistreated. We all know this happens. There is clear evidence of the systemic nature of exploitation in Australia's labour market. Unscrupulous employers and facilitators have misused visa rules to exploit workers. According to a recent report by the Grattan Institute, up to one in six recent migrants are paid below the minimum wage. Another report from Unions NSW released today found over one in five workers are paid a lower salary because of their visa status or nationality. So, it's not just a bad apple or two. The government is particularly concerned about the vulnerability of people who hold a temporary visa. Empty promises of permanent residency, wage theft, sham contracting, threats of a phone call to the Australian Border Force, stories where people have had their passports locked away, been sexually harassed and sexually assaulted. The list of behaviours is almost endless. Most exploitation happens in entry level jobs with lower wages. Yet we know those who are paid more can also be vulnerable because of their visa conditions. Those who have done the wrong thing are diverse from local bubble tea outlets in suburban shopping centres to global ICT multinationals headquartered in Sydney. Regardless if you are working retail or developing software, regardless if you are born in Australia or have chosen Australia, the Albanese government believes no worker should be penalised for speaking up. And the exploitation of those who hold a temporary visa doesn't just hurt the individual worker, it drives down wages and worsens conditions for all workers. It impacts all of us. Exploitation also harms those employers who do the right thing. I know there are so many employers out there who seek to do the right thing. But they face unfair competition because too many choose to underpay a worker. We have to stop this race to the bottom. This bill enhances the ability of Australia's visa system and enforcement regime to combat worker exploitation with a particular emphasis on targeting employers and third-party facilitators who misuse our migration program and the rules designed to support it. This bill aims to strengthen employer compliance and ensure that law-abiding Australian employers are not undercut by unscrupulous competitors. This bill will implement recommendations 19 and 20 of the Report of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, and includes several additional measures. Importantly, it will help remove barriers that stop exploited temporary migrant workers from speaking out and seeking support. This is an election commitment of the Albanese Government. And we are keeping our word. The Migrant Workers' Taskforce should have been actioned earlier, as it was delivered by Professor Allen Fels to the then government in 2019. New criminal offences In its report, the Migrant Workers' Taskforce recommended making it an offence for a person to knowingly pressure, influence or coerce a worker to breach a visa condition. This bill will implement this recommendation. It will be a criminal offence to coerce someone into breaching their work-related visa conditions. Employers who deliberately coerce vulnerable workers must face the consequence. We are also going further. It will be a criminal offence to use a worker's visa status or a future work-related visa requirement to coerce or unduly pressure a person into accepting an exploitative work arrangement. The bill also includes an additional criminal offence and associated civil penalty provision for a person who unduly influences, unduly pressures or coerces an unlawful noncitizen to accept an arrangement in relation to work. This new offence makes it clear that it is never acceptable to use a person's immigration status to exploit them in the workplace, whether they are lawful noncitizens or unlawful noncitizens. This new offence builds on existing provisions in the Migration Act, which already make it an offence to employ an unlawful noncitizen. It does so by appropriately penalising unscrupulous employers for taking advantage of vulnerabilities associated with the 'migration rules'. Prohibition measure The task force report recommended exploring mechanisms to exclude employers from employing further workers who hold a temporary visa for a specified period of time where they have been convicted by a court for underpaying migrants. We are doing that. The new prohibition measure will be introduced to prevent employers and other third parties from hiring any temporary visa holders where they have exploited workers. At the moment, the only bar under the Migration Act on hiring is for sponsored workers, such as those who hold a Temporary Skill Shortage visa. The new measure will prevent prohibited employers from hiring non-sponsored workers who hold any form of temporary visa, such as international students. This prohibition will be in place for a specified period of time and a list of prohibited employers will be published on the Home Affairs website. This prohibition is necessary to protect workers from employers who have engaged in serious, deliberate or repeated noncompliance with their obligations. Prohibition notices will be triggered by breaches under both the Migration Act and the Fair Work Act, as well as certain offences under the Criminal Code. The Albanese government wants to ensure employment law and migration law work towards the same goal, so that they are not pulling in opposite directions. Triggers include remuneration related noncompliance, but they also extend to other forms of exploitation, recognising the corrosive behaviour of some unscrupulous employers. And it will be a criminal offence where prohibited employers have been found to have employed an additional worker on a temporary visa whilst prohibited. The decision to prohibit will be a decision for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs or Minister for Home Affairs and it can be delegated to a relevant decision-maker. I will be consulting and collaborating with my colleagues on how the Fair Work Ombudsman can play a role in this process. The bill provides that before the minister, or delegate, declares a person to be a prohibited employer, the minister must give the person a written notice: stating that the minister proposes to make such a declaration, and giving the reasons for it, and inviting the person to make a written submission to the minister, setting out reasons why the minister should not make the declaration. This gives the employer an opportunity to respond to the notice and outline any extenuating circumstances to be considered as part of that decision-making process. Given the seriousness of these penalties, this bill also provides that the minister must consider any written submission made by the person. Also, the minister must also consider any criteria prescribed in the Migration Regulations, for example: past and present conduct of the employer in their engagement with relevant government agencies the employer's history of noncompliance and whether the noncompliance is recurring the nature and seriousness of the contravention(s) that gave rise to the proposed prohibition the impact on the migrant worker or migrant workers any extenuating circumstances outlined by the employer, including the impact the prohibition would have on the ongoing viability of the business and how that might impact existing workers and the broader community. This is a really significant measure. In industries where exploitation is particularly widespread—such as accommodation, food services, cleaning and construction—this is a necessary step to show that we can tackle exploitation where it is most prevalent. It demonstrates that the Albanese government is committed to protecting workers from employers who have broken the trust of our community. Increasing pecuniary penalties and civil penalties This bill also increases the penalties for unscrupulous employers misusing our migration programs and misusing migration rules. For penalties to have a deterrent effect, they must be set at a level that actually deters people from offending. This bill will see penalties under the Migration Act significantly increased to better deter these unscrupulous employers. Increasing penalties reflects the significant damage that the actions of unscrupulous employers can have on Australia's visa program integrity and public confidence in our migration system more broadly. We need to ensure that employers think twice before deciding to ignore their obligations under the Migration Act. Migration Act enforceable undertakings and compliance notices At the same time, we understand that some employers can make mistakes. That is why we are enhancing the compliance and enforcement framework in relation to work related offences under the Migration Act. This bill will give the Australian Border Force tools to work with employers to better support them to do the right thing. Enforceable undertakings and compliance notices will address noncompliance by encouraging voluntary compliance as an alternative to pursuing punitive court proceedings, where it's appropriate to do so. These Migration Act tools provide for an escalating range of measures to be used when employers fail to comply with the law. Repeal of section 235 For people who have been exploited, the Migration Act has criminalised speaking out. Section 235 of the Migration Act creates a criminal offence for a visa holder to work in breach of a work related visa condition or for an unlawful noncitizen to work at all. However, this criminal offence has not been prosecuted since it was introduced over two decades ago. A major issue raised by stakeholders is that section 235 of the Migration Act has undermined the ability of workers on temporary visas to have recourse to their rights under certain workplace laws such as workers' compensation laws. A key element of this bill is to repeal this offence. We understand that workers are afraid to speak out, because if they do so, they would be liable for prosecution for this offence. We recognise that section 235 acts as a barrier for them to report exploitation. Beyond this, section 235 has seen other unintended consequences. Despite not being prosecuted since introduction, the mere presence of section 235 has resulted in adverse effects for noncitizens, even when they have not been prosecuted for this offence, such as in cases of workers' compensation. The national workplace relations system and other workplace laws should apply to workers in Australia, regardless of their visa status. This is critical for the protection of all workers in our community. We are repealing this section to assist in closing this loophole that gives unscrupulous employers leverage over vulnerable noncitizens. This bill also includes an avoidance of doubt clause for the remaining work related offence provisions to further assist in closing this loophole. The aim of the avoidance of doubt provision is to resolve potential unintended consequences associated with breaches of work related visa conditions that may lead to the interpretation that a 'contract of' or 'contract for' service is void—inadvertently contributing to the abrogation of employer responsibility to provide workplace rights and entitlements. Other amendments The final substantive measure included in this bill is the introduction of a power to permit the Migration Regulations to prescribe matters to be taken into account in a decision on whether or not to cancel a visa, under section 116 of the Migration Act, as well as the weight to be given to those matters. Some will be aware of the assurance protocol, introduced in 2017. The assurance protocol is a commitment between the Department of Home Affairs and the Fair Work Ombudsman that a worker who holds a temporary visa will not have their visa cancelled for breaching a work related visa condition if certain criteria are met. While the intent of the protocol is positive, it has clearly failed to provide the assurance necessary to encourage people to speak up. Since 2017, there have been only 79 referrals under this initiative. Clearly it has not inspired the necessary trust among exploited workers. Stakeholders have told me that the reason they don't trust this initiative is because it is not transparent and because it is not legislated. It is too secretive to instil the necessary trust and confidence. The final measure included in the bill will allow the Albanese government to make regulations to legislate the protections that are currently only available under policy. I have instructed my department to work with industry, unions and civil society organisations to consider the protections available to workers who hold temporary visas to encourage them to speak out when they face exploitation in the workplace. Just this week, they have come together to work through the existing settings and consider whether other protections are needed. I thank those in business, civil society, unions, researchers, legal practitioners and other experts who have participated in these important conversations. I intend to consider their advice—in consultation with my colleagues—and together we will ensure the protections achieve an appropriate balance, encouraging workers to come forward and report exploitation while also maintaining the integrity of our visa programs. The measures in this bill will help give people confidence to speak out and seek help without fear of visa cancellation. Role of ABF This bill creates new powers, new penalties, and a new approach to tackling the exploitation of workers who hold a temporary visa in Australia. Alongside the measures in the bill, the Albanese government recently increased funding for immigration compliance in the 2023-24 budget. This recognises the important role of the Australian Border Force in compliance and enforcement. For too long, the consequences for doing the wrong thing have been a slap on the wrist. The chance of getting caught, far too small. So I want to make it clear. The ABF will be out there enforcing the law when it comes to those employers who choose to do the wrong thing. Those who seek profit at the expense of paying workers a fair and legal wage. Those who do the wrong thing will be found. And they will be penalised. Closing remarks So many workers who hold a temporary visa make a significant commitment when they leave their home to come to Australia. This commitment involves a leap of faith which is characterised by both opportunities and inherent risks associated with moving to a new environment, away from the normal supports of family and pre-existing relationships in the workplace and beyond. This commitment requires them to adapt to new working environments, new laws and, for some, a new language. Australia has for decades benefited from migrants that have demonstrated resilience, hard work, and who have made substantial contributions to our country. We all witnessed this first hand during the pandemic. People who held visas stacking shelves, delivering essential care, staffing hospitals, and delivering food. I believe there is a greater appreciation today in this country for people who hold temporary visas than there has been in the past. It is unconscionable that some employers target these very workers as cheap and exploitable labour. It is unacceptable. So many of these workers contribute to important jobs across the country. This bill recognises to that when people vulnerable to exploitation are mistreated, we all suffer. It recognises the contribution being made by so many workers and the importance of addressing the corrosive nature of exploitation in workplaces across the country. Additionally, the bill acknowledges that Australia can't take for granted being a destination of choice for prospective migrants. We are in a global competition for talent. And it is critically important for the government to demonstrate its strong commitment to addressing worker exploitation, because this is the right thing to do, and because it is squarely in our national interest. This bill reflects the government's strong principle that approaches to employment and migration will work side by side to address exploitation. The Fair Work Act and the Migration Act will work together to protect workers, regardless of their visa status. We cannot build our nation on the back of those being exploited. Strengthening employer compliance with the requirements of the Migration Act. The bill will do what it says it does. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 14

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023

First Reading 14 Second Reading 14 10:12 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 gives effect to the government's election commitments. These election commitments were announced in April 2022, with specific details announced in the October 2022 budget. These policies are grounded in the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting, which began in 2013. Working together within this inclusive framework, over 135 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating on the implementation of measures to tackle tax avoidance, improve the coherence of international tax rules and ensure a more transparent tax environment. The bill introduces new rules to protect the integrity of the Australian tax system and improve tax transparency. This will help to ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. The government will continue to engage with stakeholders on our commitment to introduce a public country-by-country reporting regime. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to require that Australian public companies disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports, by way of a 'consolidated entity disclosure statement'. This new requirement is a statement that includes disclosures about entities within the consolidated group. This statement will be provided at the end of the financial year, and include information such as: the names of each entity; whether the entity was a body corporate, partnership or trust; if the entity is a body corporate, the public company's percentage of ownership; and the tax residency of each of the entities. The reported information will ensure companies are upfront with how they structure their subsidiaries, including for tax purposes. Public companies for this purpose include listed and unlisted companies and is defined to mean a company other than proprietary company or a corporate collective investment vehicle, in line with section 9 of the Corporations Act. While some ASX listed companies may already disclose this information in some form, this change will ensure all public companies will now have equal requirements for reporting basic information on their corporate structures. These amendments will hold companies, particularly large corporate groups, to account on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, it is in the public interest that shareholders and the community have more information of this kind. The amendments in schedule 1 will apply to annual financial reports prepared for financial years commencing on or after 1 July 2023. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to schedule 1 to the bill and has approved it as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Schedule 2 to the bill amends Australia's thin capitalisation rules to limit the amount of debt that entities can deduct for tax purposes. These amendments introduce earnings-based interest limitation rules for general class investors to replace the existing asset-based rules. Specifically, the current safe harbour rule lets an entity deduct debt up to a threshold of 60 percent of assets. Under the new rules, that threshold will become 30 percent of profits. This will ensure that an entity's debt deductions are directly linked to its economic activity—its earnings—which is a more robust approach to addressing the use of debt as a base erosion and profit shifting risk. This amendment is consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's best-practice framework rules. The amendments in schedule 2 also introduce a third-party debt test to replace the existing arms-length debt test. While this test excludes related party debt—a high base erosion and profit shifting risk activity—from being deductible for tax purposes, it is expected to be used by the property and infrastructure sectors to ensure genuine commercial arrangements can deduct third-party arms-length debt without an earnings limitation. Treasury will continue to engage with industry to ensure the changes operate as intended. The amendments to strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules will ensure multinationals pay an appropriate amount of tax in Australia, while balancing tax settings to support continued investment in Australia. The amendments in schedule 2 apply from 1 July 2023. As with the other measures in this bill, this measure forms part of the government's election commitments, and as such has been foreshadowed for over a year. Tightening Australia's anti-avoidance legislation will deter multinationals from avoiding income tax, ensuring that they pay their fair share of tax right here in Australia. The tax integrity measures in schedule 2 to the bill are estimated to result in a gain to receipts of $720 million over the four years from 2022-23. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 15 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 15 Membership 15 10:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson resigning from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Joint Committee 16 Report 16 10:19 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the Final report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 by leave—I rise as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to briefly speak to the committee's final report. On 1 July 2023, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, known as ACLEI, will become part of the new National Anti-Corruption Commission, the NACC. Accordingly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity will cease to exist, with the oversight of the NACC undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. With this change imminent, the committee resolved to present this final report outlining its work since it was first established. The committee was established by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, which commenced operation on 30 December 2006. Resolutions relating to the powers and proceedings of the committee were first agreed in the 41st Parliament in February 2007. The committee was created to oversee the operation of ACLEI to ensure the Integrity Commissioner is accountable to parliament. The committee tabled 23 reports—and this report makes it 24—over 16 years. This final report details the work of the committee from its establishment to date and explains the transition to the NACC. I'd like to thank my colleagues on the current committee. Although I have been chair only a short time, I appreciate the collegiate way in which this committee operates. I also thank former chairs, deputy chairs and members of the committee over the past 16 years. In addition, I wish to thank the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI officials for their proactive and professional engagement of over the life of the committee. I thank the current integrity commissioner, Mrs Jaala Hinchcliffe, for her active and helpful engagement with the committee. Of course, none of this is possible without a secretariat, and I'd like to put on the record the thanks of committee members over the many years to the secretariat, including current committee secretary Lyn Beverly and her team. I trust that the information in this final report will usefully mark the work of this committee over the 16 years of its existence. BILLS 16 BILLS Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 16

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 16 10:23 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It's really interesting the way we talk about the Public Service in this chamber. There are some quite different and diverging views. I want to put on the record, as we debate this bill, the high regard that we on this side of the chamber have for the Public Service, for the public servants whose job it is to look after so many aspects of people's lives in the way they relate to the operation of federal agencies and departments. When I think of public servants, particularly of those who work in my electorate and live in my electorate, there's huge diversity. I think about the people in Centrelink offices, who, in Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains, have been the ones to respond and try and help people through the processes when a bushfire hits, when a storm hits and wipes out their home and has it sliding down a hill, or when floods come. These Centrelink staff are among the first that I think of, because they have had a really challenging few years, particularly in our electorate. I also think of the team of people who administer and try and support people through the National Disability Insurance Scheme process. Now, we know that the processes are not always as simple as they could be and the public servants who work on them face challenges but are working so hard to try to make it accessible. I see that particularly around the NDIS. I also think about it when there are Medicare or My Aged Care issues and people go seek help. All the people who are trying to help my constituents—in fact, many of them are my constituents working in these offices, working in their local community, serving their local community—are public servants. We also have a huge range of people who work in our Defence Forces—civilian workers around the Richmond RAAF base, around Glenbrook RAAF base and living scattered throughout the electorate of Macquarie. This is not to mention those who are being helped by workers at the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I think about the tax office and the myriad public servants that we are privileged to have living in the electorate of Macquarie, and I take my hat off to the work they do. I also say to the union that supports them, the CPSU, that the work they do elevates the issues, brings to light the things that are not working and makes systems better for their workers and also for the wider community. That's why I am very pleased to be speaking in support of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which will amend the Public Service Act 1999 to deliver enduring, transformational change and to ensure that the Australian Public Service is well placed to serve the Australian government, the parliament and, very importantly, the Australian public into the future. To strengthen the Australian Public Service's core purpose and values, the bill will do a number of things, and I will talk about each of those. Actually, I am going to step back for one moment to think about why we've actually gone down this path, because many of the proposed amendments in here were recommendations of the 2019 independent review of the Australian Public Service—that's the Thodey review—or go to the intent of that review and haven't been acted on previously. There are other amendments that have been drawn from observations about public administration from governments at a state level or even overseas, and of course they've been informed by engagement within and beyond the APS. That includes with APS employees, the CPSU, agency heads, experts and interested parties, including input from the general public. I think it's important to know that this has been done based on a lot of information and a lot of feedback and engagement. In terms of the areas that the bill will strengthen, the first is the APS value of stewardship. The proposed amendment will add a new APS value of stewardship alongside the existing APS Values, which public servants will be required to uphold at all times. There are currently five existing APS Values: being committed to service, ethical, respectful, accountable and impartial—all the things we would expect when engaging with those who work in the Public Service. The proposed amendment adds the following supporting statement to clarify the meaning of the new APS value of stewardship: The APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does. The APS Values are designed to provide a philosophical underpinning for the APS; to reflect public expectation of the relationship between public servants and the government, the parliament and the community; and articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS. Under the Public Service Act, secretaries, the APS Commissioner and the Secretaries Board are required to act as stewards of their department and in partnership of the APS. The Thodey review found that legislating stewardship would give it broader application to guide the enduring role of the Australian Public Service. Enshrining stewardship ensures that APS employees are able to see how their individual behaviours contribute to the stewardship of the APS. I know that this part of the bill is welcomed by the CPSU, which points out that, as a knowledge based institution, the Public Service's most valuable asset is its people, and it's right that that's a consideration for any government or agency heads going forward. The second change that is being proposed in this bill is to require the secretaries to oversee the development of a single unifying APS purpose statement and review it at once every five years. All agency heads will be required to uphold and promote this purpose statement. The purpose statement helps to unify the service behind a common vision, representing and influenced by the contemporary, diverse and innovative APS and community. The requirement to review it every five years ensures that it stays contemporary, up to date and responsive to the changing views and expectations of government and community. This is another one of the sections of this bill that is highly supported by the CPSU, who particularly support the involvement of employees in the development of a purpose statement. The work on the first one is underway now. When you think about APS employees being the face of the public sector and having broad experience and expertise in providing services to the community, it is really beneficial that their voices, experience and contribution are recognised and heard through the purpose statement. The next section of the bill I want to talk about is around ministerial directions on APS employment matters. The amendment that we're proposing here omits the previous wording, 'An agency head is not subject to direction by any minister', and it substitutes for it, 'A minister must not direct an agency head.' Under the proposed amendment to section 19, the clause is being redrafted from the passive voice to the active voice. I've spent a lot of my life as a journalist and then, in my own business, thinking about language and the power that it has, and people like me will appreciate that shift from passive to active says a lot. I can see my colleague across the way, the member for Fisher, has his head stuck in a book, thinking about these very issues. Mr Wallace 265967 Statutory interpretation—I don't go to bed without it! Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 What that move does is strengthen the language so it's clear that the onus is on ministers not to direct and that ministers have that responsibility. What this does is reaffirm the apolitical and impartial role of the APS. Currently, under the Public Service Act, it's stated that agency heads are 'not subject to' directions by ministers in regard to section 15 and various other parts of the act. By strengthening the language, the bill clarifies the duty is on the minister, creates clear limits on inappropriate involvement by ministers in APS employment matters and supports the integrity of the Public Service. There's also an amendment that looks at introducing a requirement on agency heads to implement measures that create a work environment that allows for decisions to be made at the lowest appropriate classification. I know that there'll be work that happens in implementing this, but, under the bill, agency heads have discretion to consider what constitutes the lowest appropriate classification, taking into consideration the work level standards for classifications. The sense of this is that it seeks to ensure that decision-making is not unnecessarily raised to a higher level, so that we get improved decision-making processes and reduce duplication of work. We look forward to working through this in a practical sense with the workers within the APS. Another amendment that's coming through with this detailed piece of legislation is around capability reviews. The proposed amendments would make regular, independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement for each department of state, Services Australia, the Taxation Office and the Australian Public Service Commission and would also require the resulting reports and action plans to be published on the relevant agency's website. The Thodey review noted concerns that the capability of the APS had been eroded over time. We've certainly described it as being run down by a decade of a different sense of purpose from a different government. We want to see the integrity, the strength and the capability of the APS built up. To be future fit, the APS needs to continually build its capability to create a skilled and confident workforce that can deliver modern policy and service solutions for decades to come. The proposed amendments seek to ensure the APS maintains a culture of continuous improvement to deliver for the government and the Australian community. There's also an amendment that relates to long-term insight reports. This is about requiring the Secretaries Board to have regular, evidence based and public engagement to drive long-term insight reports, developed through a process of public consultation. The Thodey review called for the APS to strike a better balance between short-term responsiveness and investing in the deep expertise required to grapple with long-term strategy policy challenges. We've seen a lot of things outsourced to other parties over the last decade or so, and we want to see capability developed within the APS. These proposed amendments address the concerns that there might not have been genuine consultation with the Australian community, which is, in our mind, absolutely crucial for there to be good long-term planning and decision-making. There'll also be an expanded 'outside' definition to exclude ADF members. I want to touch on this one. The amendment is going to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy by removing the requirement to seek the APS commissioner's approval to delegate powers and functions to Australian Defence Force members. At the moment ADF members are considered an outsider in the Public Service Act, and this needs to be updated to reflect the new Public Service Regulations 2023. This has practical implications, particularly in an electorate like mine where we have a big defence presence. The last point I will go to is the amendments to the APS census results. The bill amends the Public Service Act to establish a requirement for agencies to publish APS Employee Census results, along with an action plan responding to those results. Why would we be introducing this amendment? The annual survey is used to collect information about the attitudes and opinions of APS employees. It's an opportunity for employees to share their experiences. Many agencies already publish their results but the proposed amendment aims to continue to foster a culture of transparency and accountability for that continuous improvement with agencies by making it a requirement for them to publish their aggregate census results. Our view is these are necessary amendments to ensure we have, going forward, a strong, capable and highly respected public service. 10:38 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I rise in support of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which will amend the previous act of 1999. The Albanese government is delivering accountability and integrity in our institutions by taking the next steps in rebuilding the Australian Public Service. This bill is all about restoring the public's trust and faith in government as well as the multitude of government services the APS provides. It is an important part of the Albanese government's broader APS reform agenda, which is reinvesting in and valuing what is the APS's most valuable resource—its people. Many of the proposed amendments implement the independent recommendations of the Thodey review, which was largely sidelined under the previous government. In late 2019 the Thodey review found the APS was in desperate need of a service-wide transformation, enshrining both short-term change and long-term reform to achieve better outcomes for the Australian public. The independent review involved extensive public consultation, including engagement with more than 11,000 individuals and organisations working in the APS over more than 400 meetings, workshops and information sessions. With this bill, the Albanese government is putting the people who use our services front and centre because accessibility of government services should reflect the diverse group of people that use them. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 will strengthen the APS's core purpose and values to create an APS with the capability and integrity to do its job well. It will build the capability of the APS and support good governance, accountability and transparency. The bills four key pillars reflect our government's vision for an APS that best serves Australians. We want a truly independent APS that is empowered to embody integrity in everything it does. We want an APS that puts people and business at the core of its daily operations. We want an APS that is a model employer for the over 150,000 strong workforce that serves as its backbone. And we want an APS that is supported by our government and future governments to have the capability to do its job to the highest standard. The Albanese Labor government is acting on this vision with the introduction of this bill, which I am proud to support. First, I wish to reinforce how the bill lays the foundations for stronger integrity in the APS. To uphold integrity in the APS, the bill will ensure an independent public service which supports transparency and good governance. The bill will make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. It will require agency heads to implement measures which enable employees at the lowest appropriate classification to make appropriate decisions. This way, decision-making is not delegated to a higher level than is necessary, and this will reduce the unnecessary hierarchy in the APS and empower employees to act with integrity. The bill makes it necessary for agencies' APS employee's census results to be published, creating a publicly accessible blueprint for action that responds to results. This greater transparency will foster a culture of honesty and accountability, supporting continuous employment within the agencies to meet their goals for the Australian people. Our APS must be empowered to be honest and truly independent and to remain true to due process. That is why this bill is being introduced, to ensure that, as the minister says, the APS is ready to deliver advice that the government of the day may not want to hear just as loudly as the advice that we do want to hear. These structural changes to the APS are supplemented by an important cultural shift ushered in by the introduction of the bill. Predominantly, this involves the introduction of a new core value of stewardship that all employees must uphold. Stewardship means the APS is committed to supporting the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term implications of what it does. It is an ethical value, involving the responsible planning and management of services to respond to the needs of all Australians who rely on them. This reflects recommendation 5 of the Thodey review, which called for the core principles of the APS values to be strengthened, highlighting a need to reaffirm the important and enduring role that all of our valued APS employees play in serving successive governments, the parliament and the broader Australian public. The Public Service builds on a wealth of knowledge and human capital created through years of experience, and it is important that the values of the APS are dictated only by those within it, not by the comparatively fleeting governments which it serves. That is why the bill will also require the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a single, unifying APS purpose statement, encouraging the Public Service to think critically about its values. Once a unifying purpose is chosen, the statement will be mandatorily reviewed every five years to ensure it is meaningfully adopted. This implements recommendation 6 of the Thodey review: developing and embedding an inspiring purpose to unite the APS in serving the nation as a unified front. All agency heads will therefore be required to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement in addition to the existing APS Values and Employment Principles. This will ensure the values of the APS more accurately represent the values of its employees and the role of the Public Service in modern Australia. Again, the act will make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions, including the implementation of this unifying purpose. This will affirm the APS's rightly apolitical nature, ensuring we give it the support needed to remain fiercely independent and free from government bias in its advice. This bill puts people and business at the centre of the services delivered to them. Our government is working with the heads of the APS on a vision for partnership between the Public Service and the people it serves. This includes close engagement and co-design with communities, businesses, the not-for-profit sector, universities, states, territories and others. Crucially, this vision will include a Charter of Partnerships and Engagement which makes a promise about working to ensure the Public Service is a trusted partner which the community can rely upon to put their needs at the centre of policy implementation and delivery. This links to how the bill will work for the people at the centre of the APS—its employees. The government is working to deliver a renewed APS which is an equitable, model employer, with ample opportunity for promotion and development. I reaffirm what the minister said: the greatest resource of the APS is its people. If we want the Public Service to focus on the needs of the Australian people, we have to focus on the people who will be delivering those needs. We need to co-design the way the APS runs in consultation with those that run it. What is their experience of working with the public? Are we attracting and retaining Australia's brightest? If the answer is no, then we need to find out what can be done to foster a better culture of inclusion and professional development. As I previously mentioned, encouraging decision-making to occur at all levels of APS employment will help shape workplaces that empower staff and create opportunities for professional development. The reforms will help make this opportunity available to all Australians looking for work within the APS. As the minister mentioned in her second reading speech, while there have been many hard-fought gains in the APS, including that the proportion of women in senior APS executive roles is now 52 per cent, there is more work to be done. Transparency breeds accountability, and that's why the bill will require the APS to report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, so it can be a leader in driving ambition on gender equality. Employment of people with disabilities has reduced in the last 30 years, and the introduction of this bill is also aimed at setting the stage for greater workplace inclusivity and equal opportunity, to attract and retain a more diverse workforce. Representation of First Nations people in the APS is currently 3.5 per cent. We know it can and should be better. That is why it is this government's policy to hold the APS to meet its ambitious target of increasing First Nations employment to five per cent, in line with its commitment to elevating First Nations voices to parliament. We also promise to deliver on the government's commitment to reduce reliance on consultants, creating opportunities to work across departments for a unified vision of the APS. The bill supports the development of an in-house consulting model for the APS, to strengthen functions that have previously been contracted out, providing more opportunities for public servants to upskill, collaborate with colleagues and challenge themselves in new roles, to retain more of the workforce. Finally, I want to point out how this bill seeks to build a robust APS, with the capability of doing its job well. The APS Academy is a hub of learning and development excellence which is already boosting service capability. Around 20,000 staff have been through its doors to date. The government is also introducing the APS Workforce Strategy 2025, as well as the APS Learning and Development Strategy, to review the capability of the APS over the next few years. Accompanying this careful monitoring is our commitment to reinstituting independent capability reviews. This amendment acts on the concerns of the Thodey review that the capabilities of the APS have been eroded over time. It seeks to establish a future-fit APS, with a culture of continuous improvement, by making regular independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement. With this requirement, the Albanese government is investing in the long-term capability of the APS. It is investing in a skilled, confident, competent workforce which will deliver modern policy and service solutions where they're needed most. Capability reviews and their associated action plans are a crucial opportunity for reflection and future oriented development. They've already been adopted in public sectors in many international jurisdictions, including the UK, New Zealand and Canada. Knowing where we are at and being able to anticipate future challenges keeps our Public Service agile and adaptive to the changing needs of Australians as we head towards 2025. All sorts of Australians interact on a daily basis with their Public Service, whether it's a teenager seeking their first tax file number for their first job or a pensioner seeking a Medicare rebate. There is no reason why we should not ensure the running of these services is done independently, efficiently and clearly for all Australians, and that is what the heart of this bill goes to. With this bill we are creating lasting reforms to ensure the integrity, efficiency and excellence of the APS. We are creating reforms which finally address independent advice from the Thodey review, reforms that are long overdue, reforms that cannot be rolled back to meet the needs of future governments without being driven by the public, those who the APS is designed to serve. I am so proud to be a part of a government which is creating opportunities for innovation in the APS through legislated review and strategic future focused action. I'm proud that our government is standing up to ensure the APS is a leading workplace that attracts and retains some of Australia's finest and brightest. And I am proud that we are looking, with this bill, to make the APS a more inclusive and equitable place to work as well as a smoother service to interact with for Australians. A large number of the constituent inquiries we get through my electorate office in Boothby relate to various functions of the Public Service, because that's, after all, where my electorate members should be going when they have challenges. A number of those inquiries relate to wait times and labour hire contracts where people are turned over—'There's a loss of the memory of what I said last time when I phoned up.' People are frustrated. I think these reforms are something that the Australian public are really going to appreciate as they roll out, as we have an APS that is more highly able to respond to the needs of individuals as they contact them but also the Australian public as a whole. I commend the bill to the House. 10:52 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise today to speak in support of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which will amend the Public Service Act 1989 to deliver enduring transformational change and ensure the Public Service is well-placed to serve the Australian government, the parliament and the Australian public into the future. This bill and the Albanese government's border APS reform agenda are about restoring the public's trust and faith in government institutions. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 will strengthen the APS's core purpose and values, build the capability and expertise of the APS and support good governance, accountability and transparency. Our APS and APS employees are absolutely vital to my communities in Gilmore and, of course, so important right across our country, whether it is APS that work at our defence bases at HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell; or at Services Australia across multiple locations at Batemans Bay, Ulladulla and Nowra; and, of course, at Health, Veterans' Affairs, Indigenous Affairs and more. I am proud to say that for a number of years I was an APS employee based at HMAS Albatross and had the privilege of working with my fellow APS employees as well as Navy, Army and Air Force members and contractors on incoming and outgoing helicopter types for Navy. It was a great experience and something that firmly showed me the importance of the APS and also the highly important relationship between our APS employees and Defence for defence capability. I'm pleased that this 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. It's important to note that many of the proposed changes align with recommendations from the 2019 Thodey review. That independent review of the APS, led by Mr David Thodey, concluded that the APS lacked a unified purpose, was too internally focused and had lost capability in important areas. The Thodey review called for a Public Service that is trusted, future fit, responsive and agile to meet the changing needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity. The bill delivers on several important recommendations of the Thodey review, recognising that the case for reform has only strengthened in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, geopolitical disruptions and increasing economic volatility have all highlighted the importance of an APS that acts with agility and common purpose. And don't we know that on the New South Wales South Coast? The Black Summer bushfires taunted my communities for months on end. Lives, livelihoods and homes were lost. But through it all APS staff at Services Australia went above and beyond to support people, even when they themselves or their family members and friends were severely impacted. Of course, it didn't stop with the Black Summer bushfires. My electorate in Gilmore really knows natural disasters. After the bushfires—actually during the bushfires—some communities in my electorate faced floods and storms. It is almost unthinkable that so much destruction could occur at once. People were still traumatised by the bushfires, and here they were being retraumatised by floods and storms. And then came COVID-19. A perfect storm of natural disasters having a devastating impact on everyone. You cannot not be impacted by all of these disasters, but through it all APS staff at Services Australia were there, answering phone calls in massive volumes, connecting and ensuring that people received the help they needed. Sometimes I think it can be a thankless job, but it is so important. We should be proud of all our APS workers from all departments that do so much to support people. Constituents in my electorate felt that dearly when, yes, they couldn't get their passports. It possibly seems a simple thing, but this had a massive impact on people in Gilmore. My office was inundated with distressed people and parents about to travel who did not yet have their children's passports when they were just days away from leaving the country. It was this government that brought in more staff to ensure we'd get through the passport and massive visa backlog. Similarly, on coming to government we found veterans' claims were also taking far too long to process. This is something that I heard about regularly from my local RSL subbranch advocates. One of the first things we did was boost the APS to ensure greater support to get through claims. I am incredibly proud of all our local APS workers and our APS that supports our communities. The experience of recent years has also highlighted the enduring importance of the existing APS values: to be impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical. I really think we have seen that enduring impartial commitment over this government's decision to implement our cheaper medicines policy from 1 September. I note that this was recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee first in 2018, but I know that APS workers in the Department of Health have shown genuine commitment and impartiality to help in making medicines cheaper for people. This includes staying focused to implement 60-day dispensing. Importantly, I also know they are committed to listening to concerns and ensuring that every dollar saved goes back into community pharmacy. We need to support our APS workers more. We need to always encourage the modelling of good values and integrity. The APS needs to be honest, truly independent and empowered to provide frank and fearless advice and to defend legality and due process. The APS needs to listen to and engage with the Australian community, developing policy and delivering services with empathy and in a spirit of partnership. We should expect greater transparency about the state of the service and its ability to deliver. That helps build good trust in government. We want the APS to be confident and capable, acting with a clear purpose, demonstrating through leadership, and taking a long-term view of the implications of each decision and action. Reform of such a large and complex organisation takes time and sustained effort. That's why we need reforms that stick, reforms that last. For these reasons the Albanese government is introducing these amendments to the Public Service Act to embed reform in the legislation that guides and governs the Public Service. This bill aims to strengthen the core purpose and values of the APS. The APS is a complex organisation, comprising tens of thousands of dedicated individuals working across numerous departments and agencies. It is essential to foster a shared understanding of the APS's role and promote a unified approach. The amendments in this bill address this by reinforcing integrity as a guiding principle for the APS in everything it does. One of the significant additions in this bill is the inclusion of a new APS value of stewardship. This addition was developed through extensive consultation with APS staff across the country. This value emphasises the importance of building capability and institutional knowledge. and supporting the public interest for both present and future generations. Stewardship is deeply rooted in Australia's history, as First Nations Australians have long served as the original stewards of this land. By requiring all APS employees to uphold stewardship, this bill strengthens their crucial role as stewards of our nation. I want to take a moment to thank APS employees, defence and contractors for the way they work together to provide great stewardship of our lands and waters. I have seen this in action many times at both HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell where the APS and defence members interact seamlessly. This also really benefits our communities. This bill will seek to create a unifying purpose statement for the APS. This is so important because we need to work together towards a common goal. This purpose statement will serve as a common foundation for collaborative leadership, aligned services and shared delivery across all departments and agencies. It will provide tens of thousands of APS employees with a shared sense of purpose and reinforce a unified approach in serving the community. But it won't just be a static statement; this purpose statement will be periodically refreshed to adapt to the evolving role of the APS over time, because the nation's goals will shift over time and it will be important for us to continually reassess what our direction as a nation should be. The previous government hollowed out the Public Service and took away their power to make decisions. They took the creativity away from the public sector, forced them to bend to the will of ministers even when it was against the department's best advice. We're not going to do that. The Albanese Labor government respects the work of the Public Service. That's why, to safeguard the impartiality of the APS, it is vital to limit ministerial directions on individual APS staffing decisions. The first APS value emphasises the need for an impartial Public Service, and this bill strengthens the provision in the Public Service Act to ensure ministers cannot interfere in such matters. This reaffirms the apolitical nature of the APS and empowers agency heads to act with integrity and maintain public trust. Building capability and expertise through leadership of the APS is another critical aspect addressed in this bill. The APS must continuously assess its strengths and weaknesses, engage with the Australian public, and work in genuine partnership to solve problems and design solutions that benefit our country. By embedding ongoing measures to enhance capability, this bill ensures the APS remains future fit. We need an agile public sector that is equipped to tackle the challenges facing Australia and deliver modern policy and service solutions. To ensure that the Public Service stays agile, we will ensure that there are regular independent and transparent capability reviews. These will be essential for assessing the strengths and areas of development within each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These reviews, conducted every five years, will contribute to a culture of continuous improvement within the APS and enable a better understanding of the agencies' operating environment, both present and future. In line with the Thodey review's recommendations, this bill introduces long-term insight reports commissioned by the Secretaries Board. These evidence based reports developed through public consultation will explore medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities that Australia faces. By engaging with academics, experts and the broader community, the APS can strengthen its expertise and understanding of cross-cutting issues that impact all Australians. Importantly, this bill addresses the need for good governance, accountability and transparency within the APS. Unlike the previous government, the Albanese Labor government doesn't want to have secret deals that go on behind closed doors. We want to make sure that there is never another robodebt scandal. One of the ways this bill will achieve this is by publishing annual APS employee census results. Public sector agencies will be encouraged to foster a culture of transparency and continuous improvement. This bill will help to provide employees with a voice, ensuring their thoughts, concerns and ideas are not only heard but also acted upon. Additionally, enabling APS employees to make decisions at the lowest appropriate classification level will reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks, promote professional development and create a culture of trust and support. It is undeniable that Australia is faced with immense challenges in the coming decade, but I am confident that the Australian Public Service will rise to the occasion. Our valuable public sector will play a vital role in meeting the evolving needs of government. The Thodey review has presented us with a crucial blueprint for the continuous transformation of the public sector, ensuring its ability to adapt to changing circumstances and demands, and the Albanese government is responding with great ambition through the APS reform agenda. With the introduction of this bill and the necessary amendments to the Public Service Act, we are taking important action to strengthen the public's trust and confidence in our government and one of its most significant institutions, the Australian Public Service. I thank all our tireless APS workers in Gilmore and our APS for supporting people in my communities and across our nation. Together let us forge ahead, embracing the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead as we work towards a future where the APS continues to be a pillar of excellence, responsiveness and public service for the betterment of our nation and its people. I commend this bill to the House. 11:07 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Every day, millions of us rely on the Australian Public Service up here in Canberra. It can be the small things, like a teenager applying for a tax file number, a new parent getting their first parental leave payment or a small business owner accessing natural disaster relief after a devastating bushfire that put their livelihoods and those of their employees on the line. When our Public Service is at its best, it is an effective and meaningful tool to advance our national interests, but too often it was kneecapped under the previous Liberal government. We're here today to get on with fixing that. The decisions made by our Public Service, whether they be policy development, service delivery or any one of the other functions that they perform, leave an imprint on everything that we do. It's simply too important for us not to get it right. We should be glad that as a country we have a public service that is dedicated to working tirelessly on behalf of the Australian public. They are so often selfless, working in pursuit of a shared purpose and, indeed, our shared values. They don't do it for the money or the status; they're in it for the greater good. People join the APS because they have a drive for progress, whether it's in social welfare, international relations, infrastructure and transport, or so many other areas. They are renowned for their frank and fearless advice. Our Public Service has already helped deliver two budgets during the first year of the Albanese government. They have contributed immensely through assisting in the development of our cost-of-living plan, pushing forward the housing agenda to get more roofs over peoples' heads, making it easier and cheaper to see a bulk-billed doctor and implementing our cheaper childcare plan, amongst so many other examples. They do so much for us, they work hard to deliver good outcomes, and these workers deserve our respect. But they need to be armed with the right skills and be empowered by the government of the day to do their jobs to the standard that our community expects. That's what this is all about—helping our Public Service to keep helping Australians. This legislation forms part of the Albanese government's commitment to rebuild the Australian Public Service. That's why I'm speaking in support of this bill today, because it's something that we need to get on with urgently. It's imperative that we enshrine greater transparency and accountability in our system of government. Trust in politics and the Public Service forms the bedrock of our institutions. When there's a breakdown in that trust, we all suffer. If the last decade under the previous Liberal government showed us anything, it showed us what can happen when a lack of trust festers and dishonesty is left to run rampant. It doesn't take long to find the egregious examples from the former government, whether it's sports rorts, regional rorts, airport rorts or water rorts. And who could forget car park rorts? A few colour-coded spreadsheets later, and we saw public trust in government totally eroded. The final nail in the coffin came when the post-mortem analysis was in full swing, with the revelation that the former Prime Minister secretly appointed himself to several ministries without notifying his cabinet, other ministers or the Australian people. The lack of transparency and accountability experienced under the previous government leaves a shameful shadow over the last decade. It lingers over all of the decisions made during that time, hanging on like a bad smell. Not only that, but throughout the preceding decades it was always the Liberals who constantly and continually diminished the role of the Public Service. They disrespected their skills, experience and expertise, all for the posturing pursuit of a fictional few dollars on their budget bottom line. This clearly came at the expense of good governance and a strong Public Service, as has been exposed to within an inch of its life in the media over the last decade. Those opposite had to learn those skills somewhere. The Howard government treated cost-cutting like a competitive sport, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. Privatisation and lay-offs were too common, and they left our Public Service in worse shape than ever. During Howard's reign, he oversaw the loss of about 30,000 Public Service jobs—a national shame. This carried on under the previous Liberal government, who in their 2015-16 budget brought in changes to the public sector workforce, including the average staffing level cap. This arbitrary and damaging workforce cap was implemented to maintain employment numbers at 2006-07 levels. This of course forced the previous Liberal government to outsource to labour hire firms at record levels to deliver the core business of the Australian Public Service. We're getting on with cleaning up the mess that they left behind, with budget forecasts showing we're on track to increase the workforce by more than 10,000 people across 2023-24. Just prior to the last election, in May 2022, they once again tried to pull a similar trick—announcing their election commitments would be miraculously funded through further cuts to the Public Service. This came in the wake of all of the rorts and controversies that they were at that stage so well known for. That's because, when cutting is all you know how to do— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member for Page is seeking the call. Mr Hogan 218019 Deputy Speaker, I ask that the speaker remain relevant to the bill. There is some scope to talk about previous governments. He hasn't actually spoken about anything to do with the bill. He is just going on a rampage, even as far back as Howard. It's a joke. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Page. This is a wideranging bill. We've had this issue arise before. The member is relevant and will continue, with his focus on the bill. Mr RAE 300122 As I was saying, when cutting is all you know how to do, the most vulnerable in our community are left behind, and the rest of our country is taken for a ride. It's clear that we can't function properly if we're all too busy pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. That's why we need a strong Public Service that works on behalf of the Australian people. Whether it's the frontline staff of Services Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Australian Taxation Office, the department of immigration, the Australian Passport Office or so many other organisations, the Public Service is often on the front line, at the coalface of government decisions. Whether it's those working in our departments, developing and progressing effective policy and advising government—fundamental to the functioning of our government is transparency in its processes. That remains as important a factor today as it has always been. Most of the amendments in this bill were recommendations that came out of the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review, or speak to its intent. The Thodey review was made necessary thanks to the continue desecration of the Public Service over that wasted decade under the previous Liberal government. It was given the task of delivering an ambitious range of recommendations designed to ensure that the APS is fit for purpose for the coming decades as well as to guide and accelerate future reform activities. At its conclusion, the review handed down 40 recommendations. Chief amongst them was the need to build the capability of the APS for the future. The proposed changes were also informed by consultation with employees, representative groups, agencies, experts, the public and the Community and Public Sector Union. This bill delivers on our promise to clean up the Public Service in a few very important ways. It seeks to: … strengthen the APS' core purpose and values; build the capability and expertise of the APS; and support good governance, accountability and transparency. In doing so, this bill will add a new APS value of stewardship. There are currently five existing APS values: committed to service, ethical, respectful, accountable and impartial. In incorporating the new value of stewardship, the bill includes the following statement in support of this change: … the APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does. The key to future success in the APS looks like the transfer of knowledge and experience amongst the vast and highly qualified workforce, because only by working together can the Public Service achieve the best outcomes for Australians. The addition of stewardship to the core values of the APS helps to articulate the shared ethos this government is aiming to achieve through rebuilding the Public Service and its functions. What's more, the bill adds the requirement for the development of an APS purpose statement, to clearly outline the vision of what the APS collectively strives to work towards. This would be reviewed every five years, in consultation with staff and the public, to hold the APS accountable to itself through developing a shared purpose. This bill also strengthens the protections that agency heads enjoy, by making it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. The APS is proudly apolitical and impartial, and it's important that this is strengthened to ensure that at its heart it cultivates greater public trust, free from political interference. We saw too many 'jobs for mates' controversies from those opposite, in the dying days of the former Liberal government, so by stamping this out we send a message that this isn't accepted or acceptable. The bill also seeks to encourage decision-making at the lowest appropriate level, enabling a work environment that values decision-making and capability-building at all levels. This will help streamline and improve processes, while letting the next generation take the lead on issues that are important to them in the workplace. It will free up efficiencies in the processes our APS uses, enabling greater reliance on each other and tearing down silos that can frustrate good work and great outcomes. An important amendment is the requirement for regular, independent and transparent capability reviews every five years for each department of state, Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Public Service Commission. Helping to improve organisational capability and identify opportunities, this will mean that agencies will be best placed to continue delivering for Australians. This will help build on the long-term capability of the APS, fostering continuous improvement amongst the workforce. This will be coupled with a proposed amendment that will establish regular, long-term insights reports, developed through a process of public consultation. The need for long-term thinking is clear. These regular reports will be developed annually, helping departments and agencies to continually evaluate their goals and interests for the future. It's important that this is done, factoring in public engagement and consultation. As we all know, genuine consultation on these issues is the only way we can address concerns on issues affecting Australia and our society. Another amendment is to expand the definition of an 'outsider' for the purposes of including Australian Defence Force members in the APS. Currently, ADF members are considered outsiders in legislation, meaning that agency heads cannot delegate powers or functions to them without the consent of the commissioner. This red tape gets in the way of the proper functioning of the APS, delivering more bureaucracy where it is not needed. This bill seeks to change that, to make sure that our ADF can continue to work in the best interests of all Australians whenever and wherever they are needed. Building on our knowledge base of how the APS workforce views themselves and their jobs is one of the main ways to measure success as we continue to rebuild our Public Service. One way we will do this is through publishing the APS employee census results along with an action plan responding to those results. The APS employee census is a survey which collects information about the attitudes and opinions of APS employees, listening to the workers themselves. Being able to analyse, respond and act on that data will leave us better off, and having visibility of the actions taken will help to drive up accountability and transparency. Many of the proposed changes align with recommendations from the 2019 Thodey review into the Australian Public Service. These changes were released for public consultation on the key amendments proposed in this bill in May this year to ensure they were informed by the views and values of our community more broadly. By working hard to develop these meaningful amendments, this bill will go a long way to providing greater integrity and transparency in our APS. It will enshrine stewardship as a key value, develop a shared purpose for the APS, better protect agency heads from undue influence and ensure decision-making functions are shared amongst all levels of the APS wherever appropriate. It does these things and so much more, because our Public Service is worth cultivating and investing in for the good of our community. When we have the best people, they deliver the best work. It just makes sense. Having a forward-thinking team focused on the issues at hand as well as those of the future is integral to furthering our national interest. We are very fortunate to be able rely on some of the best up here, with a Public Service that is dedicated, talented and ready to do the necessary hard work when asked. It is for those hard-working public servants that the Albanese government is delivering on its promise to restore and rebuild our Public Service. It is also for the Australian people that we make these changes. They deserve to have an APS that best achieves the outcomes that make our lives better and easier. We can't take a strong and trusted Public Service for granted. Our democracy relies on it, and we have seen the risks the Liberals pose to it. It is for all of these reasons amongst others that I commend the bill to the House. 11:22 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I am pleased to rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, and join with so many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber, who have spent considerable time talking about the value of the Public Service and talking about how we understand the very direct role the Public Service plays in all our communities, at Centrelink, at the NDIS, in helping people sort their tax problems, those day-to-day touch points that people across the breadth of this country rely on, as well as the very important work that the Public Service does in policy development and implementation that helps the work that we do in this parliament actually go out into our country. What I have also heard from listening to my colleagues here and what I have observed during my time in this place is just how unusual it is actually to have these speeches being made in this place because certainly for the previous decade under those opposite the Public Service was not valued. It was not seen as a vital part of our nation's infrastructure, as the part that makes sure that the work we do in here gets translated and taken out and has a positive impact on people's lives. What those opposite did, in fact, was run down the Public Service, made it a very difficult place to work. It made it very difficult for people who are dedicated to making this country a better place to actually do their work. I actually have the privilege of having tried to do that work myself. I am in fact a former public servant at both a Commonwealth and state level, so I have had the privilege of working with some very dedicated people who do every day seek to make this a better country for all of us. I have also seen the challenges and the very real stresses that those people work under. Indeed, I worked at the NDIA when the former government imposed a staffing cap, a very real staffing cap, on that agency. That posed a massive impost on the NDIA, the agency tasked with supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, supporting people with disability to lead the lives they should. They put a staffing cap on it, and of course that led to immense strain on the people in the NDIA, who were trying to do work that should have been spread amongst so many others, who were trying to do work that should mean people with disability, their families and their carers are all able to lead the best life possible. It was very hard for people to do that work with that unreasonable and unjustified staffing cap in place. I am very pleased our government has recognised that that was unreasonable, that that was not in fact leading to better outcomes, and we have removed that staffing cap. More broadly, I also, during my time in the Public Service, observed that when governments don't trust the Public Service, when governments don't turn to the Public Service for advice, when governments have a trend of going outside the Public Service for advice—and we've seen recently how often that seemed to have been happening; the big four consulting firms and other consulting firms were the places the previous government was turning to for advice—the Public Service feels devalued. That impacts on morale and capability, and impacts on young people when they are thinking, 'When I graduate, do I want to go work for KPMG or for the Public Service?' We want the best and brightest to say, 'I want to go and work for the Public Service because I can see a long-term future there, where I help to build our country.' Unfortunately, under the previous government, we too often saw young people looking at the reality of where work was going and thinking, 'I want to go and work at KPMG or one of these businesses that seems to be doing this work that should sit with the Public Service.' For all these reasons, I think it is very important that we are in this place noting the value of the Public Service and also talking about this bill, which is our government's commitment to the Public Service and our government's commitment to rebuild the Public Service, to make sure that we are putting together a public service that is fit for purpose and that allows those very capable, very dedicated people who are part of the Public Service to do their work knowing they have a government that backs them in and knowing they have the structures around them that will allow them to do the vital work they do. This bill and our broader APS reform agenda are about restoring the public's trust and faith in the Public Service, in government and in its institutions. The bill will strengthen the APS's core purpose and values, build the capability and the expertise of the APS, and support good governance, accountability and transparency—all things we definitely lacked in the last decade coming out of this place but which I think the Australian people will be very pleased to see coming back. They are values that are important for the Public Service both now and into the future, and they make a real difference. They actually have an impact on how Australians experience government services and how their lives are conducted. This bill adds a new APS value, of stewardship. It requires an APS purpose statement. It makes it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. It encourages decision-making at the lowest appropriate level. It makes regular capability reviews a requirement. It requires annual APS Employee Census results to be published, along with an action plan responding to the results. And it establishes at least one long-term insight briefing each year. These measures that are in the bill were not dreamed up out of the blue; they are in fact a result of recommendations from the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, otherwise known as the Thodey review. They've also drawn on the observations and work of people both at a Commonwealth and at a state level, as well as best practice from public services overseas—so we've drawn on the evidence to put together the measures in this bill. If we think about what David Thodey said about his review and the intent of that review, I very much agree with what he said: It comes back to what is the role, purpose and values of that organisation. That gave us a bigger view of what change was required to enable this incredibly diverse and complex organisation to respond to a future we aren't sure of. You definitely still need structure and frameworks about how the organisation works. But at the end of the day you need to create an organisation that is able to adapt and change and respond. If you can get that right, then you can face any challenge going forward. If you think about the operating environment for our country, for our government, for our community, that is absolutely where we are at the moment, and we do need a Public Service that is built on all of that—that is able to face challenges, adapt and respond to get the best that we need for our country. These proposed changes, of course, have also been informed by engagement within and beyond the APS—APS employees, the CPSU, agency heads, experts and interested parties, including members of the public. As I said, there are a number of measures in the bill, and I will go to some of those now. The bill includes the APS value of stewardship. There are currently five existing APS values: committed to service; ethical; respectful; accountable; and impartial. The amendment proposed in this bill adds the following supporting statement to clarify the meaning of the new APS value of stewardship: The APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does. This moves us beyond this short-term political-cycle thinking that we've had for the last decade, this immediate-advantage thinking, to thinking about what is in the long-term best interests of this country. Enshrining stewardship as an APS value ensures that employees are able to see how their individual behaviours contribute to that overall stewardship of the Public Service—how the work they do day to day plays into that long-term benefit for our country. It supports everyone having some joint ownership of the role the organisation plays. The APS purpose statement will have to be reviewed at least once every five years to ensure it remains contemporary and responsive to the changing views and expectations of government and the community. Again, this is something that will help to unify the service but also present a common vision so that people doing their jobs, day to day, know what they are working towards and how they are working together to achieve that in the best interests of our country. The bill also includes a provision for decision-making to be undertaken at the lowest appropriate classification. Going back to my own experience in the Public Service and from discussions I've had with a number of senior and past public servants, it does seem that, over time, a tendency has crept into public services where it's thought that decisions and important work can only be done at the most senior levels, and for everyone else it's a bit unclear: they're doing good work, but they couldn't possibly make a decision. Certainly, when I talk to people who were involved in the Public Service prior to the past decade, they say that they really benefited from often having subject-matter experts at lower levels being able to make responsible decisions, with, of course, appropriate oversight and all those things. But we devalue workers—we devalue people within the Public Service—when we make an assumption that only those at the highest level can make decisions. This change seeks to ensure that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary. It improves decision-making processes and hopefully reduces duplication of work, which I think many staff would appreciate as well. The bill includes capability reviews to make sure that we have regular, independent and transparent capability reviews as a five-yearly requirement. It also requires resulting reports and action plans to be published on an agency website, allowing for that transparency, so that we know the Public Service is conducting this work and is also being acquitted and so that the government knows that we are continuing to build this long-term capability in the APS. Capability reviews and the resulting action plans are an opportunity to focus on strengths and development areas and, again, to help prepare the Public Service to look ahead and think about what sort of operating environment they need to be in. This aligns with a number of other countries that we share values of public service with. Countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada all have reviews of their public sector capability. The Thodey review also called for the APS to strike a better balance between short-term responsiveness and investing in the deep expertise required to grapple with long-term strategic policy challenges. It called for genuine consultation with the public on issues affecting Australia and its society. Under this proposed amendment, the Secretaries Board must cause at least one long-term insights report to be prepared each financial year, again with that report to be published. Analysis in the report will be impartial, apolitical and based in evidence, building that ability to look to the long term and to reassure Australians that their public service is preparing for that long term and has the capability to continue to work in all of our best interests into that long term. The amendment will also ensure transparency around the APS employee census, which is an annual survey to collect information about the attitudes and opinions of APS employees, by ensuring that agencies have to publish their aggregate results from that survey. The people who work in the Public Service are some of the best placed people to know what future improvements and changes need to be made, so it is important that the Public Service gathers that information. It's also that agencies look at it and work out their plans to act on it, and that they are public and transparent about that, so that the Australian people and governments know what's happening there and know that any issues identified are being addressed. I'll go back to where I started. The very fact that this bill is before this place, the very fact that we are debating this bill, shows that this government values the Public Service. We know that our community relies on that Centrelink worker who helps them get a disaster relief payment. We know that our community relies on that support coordinator who helps them with their NDIS plan. We know that our community gets the best results when the people in the public service can give our government frank and fearless advice that helps us deal with the very real challenges this country faces. This bill is before the House because we also know that, for a decade, our Public Service has not been valued in that way. Our Public Service has been undermined. People within the Public Service have not been respected as they should. This bill goes a long way to restoring the Public Service to the position it should hold. It shows all those members of the Public Service in our country that, as a government, we value them and we value the work they do. We are investing in that work. We are investing in the capability of a modern, fit-for-purpose Public Service. I commend this bill to the House. 11:37 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan The Australian Public Service stands as a shining beacon of our important democracy. It's an important part of what makes Australia such a great place to live. What are those things that make Australia great? A minimum wage system, a Medicare system and access to higher education make Australia great. These are fundamental parts of the Australian fabric, but who administers them? Who coordinates them on behalf of the government of the day? It's the Public Service. One of the things that I think is fundamentally interesting about these people is their title: to serve the public. Their values, the way that they act, are to invest in public good, to make our country better. I rise to make a contribution to the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. This bill aims to bring enduring change to the Australian Public Service and ensure its ability to serve the government, the parliament and, most importantly, the Australian public for today and into the future. I would like to thank the Minister for the Public Service for bringing this bill forward as well as for her commitment to our Public Service. In the 2015-16 budget, the coalition government announced a policy to maintain the average staffing level of the Public Service at the 2006-07 level, which was about 168,000 people. This policy was referred to the Community and Public Sector Union as the average staffing level cap. This was proven to be a false economy. The government was spending more on outsourcing than any money saved. In fact, it was shown that the equivalent of nearly 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers for the federal government during the last financial year. That is the equivalent of 37 per cent of the 144,300 employees of the Public Service. During this speech, I hope to demonstrate later just how bad this decision was for the Australian Public Service at the capacity and capability level and also that it was very poor value for money for the Australian people. At the 2022 election, we pledged to abolish the arbitrary staffing level cap of the Morrison government and to reduce spending on the procurement of contractors, consultants and labour hire. I was pleased to see that the 2023-24 budget papers reported that the average staffing levels in government will increase by about six per cent. That will be up to the equivalent of about 192,000 public servants. Some of the increases derive from ongoing or increased funding for critical services and a reduced reliance on contractors, consultants and external labour hire. Already about 3,300 formerly external roles have been converted to public service positions. This is good value for the Australian public. Those opposite falsely claimed that the explosion of government expenditure on outsourcing was due to the unexpected needs for assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This does not sit with the facts. At the beginning of the Morrison government, spending on external contractors had already exploded by 250 per cent since the start of the coalition's time in office. When the staffing level cap was announced in the 2015-16 budget, the Australian government was spending about $1.2 billion on external contractors and consultants, and this was already a steady gain on the 2016-17 budget. External contractors then exploded 60 per cent in 2017-18, to $2 billion. Why was this? Only two years into this experiment, the government realised that it couldn't reach its goals whilst maintaining the cap, yet it persisted with a policy that it knew was failing. I've described that as wilful blindness. Shockingly, it pursued the policy through the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the most dangerous and challenging public policy periods in Australian history, despite knowing full well that this policy was already a failure. All in all, during this decade of the coalition government in office, spending on external contractors increased by over 1,200 per cent, with spending on consultants increasing by close to 250 per cent. This is a shocking indictment on the coalition's approach to governance in Australia and the shocking way it spent public money. I will say that I was a consultant for 12 years and that there is a time and a place for consultants. I use the analogy of electricity: you have base load electricity demand that you need to meet, and then there are times where you have peaking demand. The thing that I would say is similar is that, in the Public Service, there is core work that the Public Service needs to do to ensure that it fulfils its core requirements. Sometimes there will be projects with required expertise, so it's important to be very intentional to do this. We need to make sure that the capability and capacity to do the core work is held by the Public Service. That means you get to keep institutional knowledge within the organisation rather than it going external. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 represents a significant step in implementing reforms recommended by the Thodey review to transform the Australian Public Service. It aims to create a future-fit, responsive and trusted APS that gives frank and fearless advice and serves the government, the parliament and, most importantly, the Australian public. The APS reform agenda which the bill is a part of focuses on four priority areas: integrity, people-centric policies and services, being a model employer and improving the APS's capability. The proposed amendments in this bill emphasise the importance of strengthening the core purpose and values of the APS. This includes introducing a new APS value of stewardship and creating a unified APS purpose statement to promote a shared understanding of the APS's role across departments and agencies. The truth is I have worked in the private sector most of my life; however, I remember a time when I was auditing a public sector organisation and I was also the WA branch president of Professionals Australia, the union that represents engineers. The thing that stood out to me not only when I would do audits but also when spending time with my public sector engineering colleagues was the fundamental values base of those that work in the public sector versus those in the private sector. The thing that I observed was a sense of collegiality, not only wanting to make sure that there is an investment in the skills of the future of the Public Service but also this fundamental desire to contribute to public good. Australians should share our pride for our Public Service and know that being a public servant is an honourable profession. The current values are: impartiality, commitment to service, accountability, respect and ethics, which demonstrates the best of the Australian state. Impartiality shows commitment to fairness and equality in treating everyone the same, regardless of who they are and who they know. Their apolitical nature means so much of Australia sails on, regardless of the chaos of this place, a situation many countries aspire to. Their commitment to service is also a commitment to professionalism, objectivity, innovation and efficiency. These are the values of a well-engineered workforce, something we could all strive for and admire. The accountability of the Public Service in some way exceeds the accountability of elected leaders. We have only just legislated an anticorruption commission and we on this side welcome that transparency. Finally, I will talk about the value of ethics. 'The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity in all that it does.' These are simple but powerful words. Adding stewardship to these values means we are ensuring the APS will always work with an eye on the future while meeting the requirements of today, will work to build its capacity and expertise, future-proof itself and consider the long-term ramifications of its work. Reaffirming an apolitical APS is at the core of these values. The now opposition on occasion decided that officers of the APS were their servants as opposed to the public's servants. Recognising the need to address the concerns about eroding capability over time, this bill emphasises the importance of building the capability and expertise of the APS. It proposes measures such as regular capability reviews and engaging the Australian public to uplift the APS's capability and ensure a skilled and confident workforce. Apart from the incredibly important goal of strengthening Australia's Public Service, I see this bill as a part of a suite of reforms that the Albanese government has committed to in order to improve the governance and the general functioning of government all the way across the Public Service and even right here in this place. On this side of the chamber we deeply believe in the importance of making government work for people, not just using the government as an ideological tool to achieve some vague notion of small governance or handing out contracts to favoured private contractors. We believe in the immense capability of the people who work in the Public Service and we want to support them by creating a platform for them to do their job effectively, with compassion and professionalism. This bill acknowledges the importance of external scrutiny, transparency and empowering the APS employees. It provides measures such as enabling decisions at appropriate levels, publishing of annual APS employee census results and responding through the action plans to enhance the government accountability and transparency of the APS. The final thing that I will talk about is the need to measure the right numbers. The truth is when the staffing level caps came in, the coalition government fundamentally wanted to measure the wrong thing. They had an ideological position that small government was better, but they didn't understand that they actually needed the capacity to deliver the work of the government. So, rather than just having people that were part of the APS, they hired external contractors. They essentially did not look at the right numbers, they fiddled the books and they had the wrong targets. The truth is that we needed to look at this from a high-level perspective and understand what was fundamentally happening, and at the time the size of the problem was not well understood. But we fundamentally understand it now and we're fixing it. We're continuing to get on with the wasted decade of delay and dysfunction of the previous coalition government. 11:50 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide This government is taking the next steps in rebuilding the Australian Public Service by the introduction of this bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, and it's a very important bill because the broader Australian Public Service reform agenda is about restoring the public's trust and faith in governments and institutions. I suppose, when you think about it, there's not a single day when Australians—every single one of us, every single one of our constituents—do not have contact with our Public Service. Of course, the contact that they have could be through a pensioner trying to get their rebate back or dealing with a Centrelink issue. It could be a student querying his HECS fees et cetera. Every day, every single person around this country has some sort of interaction with the Public Service, and it's sad to hear that people have lost faith in governments, not just here in Australia but around the world. The face of government is always the Public Service, and I know that in Australia we've had a very good system—a system that is impenetrable, a public service system that is professional, a public service system in which public servants take pride in their job of giving fearless advice to government and, as I said, in being impenetrable. But all this has weakened in the last few years. When we see millions of dollars being spent on outsourcing, on consultants and on companies outside of the Public Service to do even policy work, it asks a question of our public servants. Where you once had public servants who were determined professionals doing good work because they were committed to a particular area in the office that they were working in, we've seen a lot of that work being outsourced and a lot of casualisation of the Public Service. If you're a casual and you don't know what's happening from month to month or every three months or every six months or even every 12 months, this has meant that you're always on the lookout for something else and you're not really 100 per cent committed to that particular area, and we need good public servants—people who know that their future is secure in a job where they will be able to contribute, and contribute in a way that will benefit the government of this country, regardless of who the government is, benefit policymaking and ensure that the flow of that spills out into the community. As I said, there's not a single day when there's no contact between the Australian public and our constituents and the Public Service. We have seen a huge issue at Centrelink in the past few years in terms of the workload, the information that people get not being up to date or the information having to be re-requested. These are all things that this bill will try to combat to make sure that we have an Australian public that has confidence in its democracy, and the core of a democracy is obviously the way in which its public service operates. The casualisation, the consultants and the outsourcing haven't helped strengthen the Public Service. In fact, they have helped weakened it. Having said that, I will say that there are many, many good people in the Public Service who work very hard and are very committed, and we want to make sure that we add to that and make it even better. As I said, there's a broader APS reform agenda that is about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. This bill will strengthen the APS core purposes and values and build the capabilities and expertise of the Australian Public Service and support good governance, accountability and transparency. It will require the Australian Public Service to have a purpose statement—in other words, a common goal which will benefit this nation and that they should always be striving to reach. There are a lot of things in it. One of the things is to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads to employment matters. Another is to encourage decision-making at the lowest appropriate level. This gives people confidence. It builds their confidence, and it develops them as professional public servants. That is a good point, to allow decision-making at the lowest appropriate level without interference from others. It will also make regular capability reviews an absolute requirement. The bill will also require annual Australian Public Service employee census results to be published, along with an action plan responding to those results, which is a good thing. Early last year, I think it was, Australia suffered one of the globe's largest falls in public trust. According to the Edelman public trust barometer, just 52 per cent of Australians trusted the government and its institutions to do the right thing. That was just above 50 per cent—52 per cent—which is very sad when you think about it. It was a steep nine-point decline from 2021. That's a massive loss of confidence in our governance system, our governments, our Public Service. This bill is really important in winning back the Australian public's trust, and it will be a key challenge facing our governments and our institutions. We must restore that trust. I suppose the question is: what does good governance look like and how can we restore the trust of Australians in our government and institutions? That question cannot be answered without the Australian Public Service at its core. The face-to-face contact that everyday Australians have with the Australian Public Service is core to that trust. We know that good government delivers effective policy, is transparent and is accountable to the public. If we want to earn the trust of Australians, you must agree that you have to have an absolutely solid foundation in the institutions that assist us and help us. We need to recognise that the world changes, and so should our institutions. We saw during the pandemic the reliance on the Public Service in terms of the health department and Centrelink and the work that they did. That was an incredible period where the number of people requiring assistance from Centrelink or from the health department shot through the roof, grew by thousands of people. That proved that we do have a Public Service that is very committed and works very hard, and that restored some of that confidence back into our system. The fact that we were able to mobilise people within the Public Service to assist and help was also very important. What also needs to be looked at closely and focused on is workplace culture and to set the standard of Respect@Work. We've seen many reports in this place and other places which provide a blueprint for that respectful environment. The Public Service is the face of the Australian government; it's the face of our institutions. This bill will ensure that we are able to work with the Public Service, to make sure that they develop and become an even better Public Service than we've had for many years. The Public Service values and principles that this bill talks about reflect the responsibility that public servants are entrusted with and apply across all agencies. When these laws are enshrined, the responsibility of stewardship in the Public Service Act will be absolutely crucial. As was referenced in the report of the Thodey review, stewardship can encourage building a service that is committed to the public interest and sustains genuine partnerships in the institution's knowledge—the ability to create that knowledge and keep it within the Public Service, not to lose it when Public Service employees leave. Rather than losing all that history and knowledge, there should be a system in place to keep it within the Public Service for ever and a day. One of the other areas is preserving and enhancing our great social assets, the large social programs that have assisted people for many years. Whether it be Medicare or, in the last 10 years, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or protecting the Great Barrier Reef, these are all areas of the Public Service that play a crucial role. Focusing on our health system is also fundamental, as is the way we innovate, collaborate and improve our Public Service for generations to come so it can continue to provide services to the people who need them and ensure they get their rebate back in a timely manner. The same goes for Centrelink. These agencies are the face of government, regardless of which side of this chamber we sit on; that is the reality. Out on the ground, in our electorates, when people have contact with government, it's usually through those agencies that they deal with every day. We need to prioritise an Australian Public Service that puts people and businesses at the centre of policy and services. The public should be at the centre of every single policy. I know that government is going to work with leaders of the APS on a vision for a partnership between the Public Service and people, communities, business, the not-for-profit sector, universities, states, territories and others. Engagement and co-design with our partners have to become a natural and early impulse in the way we work. Each month, a thousand people across the country are surveyed on their level of trust in and satisfaction with the Public Service. This information should be published annually. We need greater transparency on what Australians are saying about their government. When I talk about government, I'm not just talking about us in here. People see government through the lens of the daily contact they have with the different agencies; it's their lived experience of the Public Service. These are really important measures in making sure that we restore some confidence in the systems that we have in this country. As I've said, we have a great Public Service. It's renowned as one of the best public services in the world. In fact, many of the systems in our Public Service have been exported to other countries. We see the good work that's being done in countries in the Pacific and in new democracies. It's something we should be proud of, and it's also something that we can build on and make even stronger and better. This will deliver a better future for all Australians and a better experience when they have contact with agencies and services. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 31 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Critical Minerals Strategy 31 12:04 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand by leave—The economic story of modern Australia has turned on a few key moments in history. The gold rushes of the 1800s transformed the Australian colonies, built our cities and brought workers and families from around the world. In the 1950s investment from Japan opened the iron ore industry in the Pilbara as Tokyo sought to rebuild after the Second World War. That investment laid the foundations for the industry that underwrites so much of our prosperity today and which will continue to be the backbone of our economy. The development of our LNG industry in the 1980s and nineties brought further wealth whilst also providing energy for homes and businesses, not just in Australia but right across Asia. Today we stand on the cusp of the creation of a new resources industry. This industry offers not only economic prosperity but solutions to the challenge of our age: the fight against climate change. It is imperative that we get this right and that we get the policy settings right for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. According to the International Energy Agency, the world's total demand for the minerals necessary for the development of clean-energy technologies is forecast to double or even quadruple by 2040. By 2030 electric vehicles will represent more than 60 per cent of vehicles sold globally. Demand for battery minerals such as lithium is forecast to increase by 40 times on 2020 levels by 2040, while demand for cobalt and graphite will rise by approximately 20 times and demand for rare earth elements could increase by seven times over the next 20 years. More mining is required to meet this demand. Recent analysis by the IEA suggests the world will need around 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines and 70 new cobalt mines to meet carbon emission goals by 2030. These statistics take on extra weight when we consider that supply chains for much of these minerals are currently heavily concentrated. This is particularly concerning for countries that do not possess such minerals and are reliant on international partners. The extraordinary geology of our unique island nation gives Australia its remarkable endowment of the minerals required for the world to reach net zero and for the broader energy transition. The materials needed to build the world's batteries, wind farms and solar panels all lie beneath the surface of this continent. We are the world's largest producer of lithium, the third-largest producer of cobalt and fourth-largest producer of rare earth elements. There is much more to do to capitalise on the unique opportunity provided by net zero and the bounty of our critical minerals endowment. Our trade and investment partners are increasingly looking to Australia to provide critical minerals that will feed diversified global supply chains in the energy transition. We are also working with international partners to help projects link to emerging markets in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, India and the European Union and its member states. The world is waking up to the opportunities here. The world understands that the building blocks of the technology that we need to fight climate change are here. It seems barely a week passes that we don't receive an approach from a foreign partner to discuss opportunities to develop Australia's critical minerals and rare earth element projects. We must look to grow our downstream capabilities in areas of competitive advantage by enabling more processing and refining of minerals onshore in Australia and realise the benefits derived from adding value to our resources. This is already happening. Earlier this year, for example, the US company Albemarle said it would spend more than $2 billion to build two extra processing trains at its Kemerton site south of Perth to double its production of lithium hydroxide, that essential component of lithium batteries. The Albanese Labor government's new critical minerals strategy sets out a pathway for Australia. It is a long-term framework to guide policy direction and government consideration. It is not a shopping list of items. While we prosper from our wealth of resources, Australia cannot outspend economies significantly larger than our own. I understand that some have become accustomed to a different load of policymaking, where financial support has been given primacy over strategy and planning. Financial investment by governments to support strategic projects where the market cannot is, of course, very important, and it can indeed be critical. But it is wise to establish what strategic investment looks like with the benefit of a well thought out, considered an inclusive strategy. This is what I have done. We are laying a foundation for how the government will support our critical minerals sector and ensure it gets access to the kind of domestic and foreign capital it needs and the benefits it will deliver for all Australians. The strategy will help to create diverse, resilient and sustainable supply chains; build our sovereign capability in critical minerals processing; extract more value from our resources, resulting in more jobs and economic activity for our regions; and help deliver net zero by 2050. The strategy highlights six focus areas, including developing strategically important projects, attracting investment and building international partnerships, growing First Nations engagement and benefit sharing, promoting Australia as a world leader in environmental and social governance, unlocking investment in enabling infrastructure and services, and growing a skilled workforce. I am pleased to see Australian industry support the strategy I released this week. The Minerals Council of Australia has described the strategy as 'a leap forward, providing a coherent framework for integrated already well developed policy areas'. The Association of Mining and Exploration Company has said the strategy provides 'an enduring framework to build and shape Australia's critical minerals industry into the future'. US based chemicals manufacturing company Albemarle and Australian rare earth company Iluka have also welcomed the release of the strategy. The Future Battery Industries Cooperative Research Centre has said the strategy will 'push Australia forward, and the government's targeted, concerted and proportionate approach will amplify the investments already made by the Australian government, private industry and the research community'. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia says the strategy provides 'a way forward for the future'. The Albanese Labor government welcomes this support, but we have much more to do, and this strategy will inform future budgetary decisions. The recent critical minerals compact between Australia and the United States offers the possibility for close engagement with the US. The compact is a positive step forward, and our bilateral work with the US will build reliable and sustainable clean energy supply chains. Through the signed statement of intent, Prime Minister Albanese and President Biden directed both governments to report back on the progress of the compact by the end of 2023. As part of that compact, I will spearhead a task force on critical minerals, working closely with the US National Security Council. The task force will work with industry leaders to develop and expand reliable, responsible and secure global access to critical minerals, strengthening global supply of those critical minerals. I'm working with my counterparts to agree next steps in the coming weeks, and agreed actions will be communicated and announced as appropriate. Additionally, President Biden has announced that he will ask Congress to add Australia as a domestic source in title 3 of the Defence Production Act. Currently Canada is the only other country to enjoy that status. This has the potential to streamline industrial based collaboration and build new opportunities for US investment in the production and purchase of Australia's critical minerals, critical technologies and other strategic sectors. Being added as a domestic source will enable the US government to directly invest in Australian projects—for example, in critical minerals technologies or technologies relevant to AUKUS. Our traditional minerals, such as iron ore and bauxite as inputs to steel and aluminium, will also be integral. Copper production was once seen as secondary to gold mining, but, with the increasing need for copper wiring in electric vehicles, copper might one day be as sought after as gold. Steel, in particular, will play a key role in all renewables. Each new megawatt of solar power requires between 35 to 45 tonnes of steel, and each new megawatt of offshore wind power requires 120 to 180 tonnes of steel. In turn, making 180 tonnes of steel to produce a new megawatt of offshore wind power needs at least 288 tonnes of iron ore and 139 tonnes of metallurgical coal. Similarly, gas will remain crucial for some time. Some fail to acknowledge this, but Australia's coal and gas resources are essential for energy security, stability and reliability both domestically and across the Asia-Pacific and will be needed for decades. As I've said, one of the focus areas of this strategy is skills. Exploiting our critical minerals and reaching net zero by 2050 will need all the expertise of the resources sector. It will need our young people to understand that a career in the resources sector is a career supporting the race to net zero. This nation needs geoscientists, geophysicists, chemists, metallurgists and engineers to find and process the critical minerals the world needs to decarbonise and stop dangerous climate change. As minister, I want to see genuine partnerships between the sector and First Nations peoples. Fifty years ago, in 1973, Labor great Gough Whitlam said: High among my government's ambitions is to give natural rights to our Aboriginal people. We are determined that their interests will be preserved in any mining operations. This still rings true today, given more than 60 per cent of resources projects operate on land covered by native title claim or determination. Think about that for a minute: the sheer wealth and prosperity that has been enjoyed by Australians from coast to coast is thanks to the gracious and dignified consent of the First Nations people. This land always was and always will be Aboriginal land, and we should respect and celebrate the fact that we share this land with the oldest continuous culture on earth. Our prosperity lies in working with First Nations people to mine their land, but they are still suffering from a wealth and health gap that shapes us all. First Nations people are entitled to expect Australia's resources sector will invest in local communities and stand up for the things that matter to them. While the resources industry is the highest employer of Indigenous Australians as a proportion of the total workforce, they must continue providing Indigenous employment and supporting economic participation for First Nations women and men, and providing local recruitment, training and education programs as well as dedicated procurement from Indigenous suppliers. The resources sector has made significant progress in this regard and I acknowledge that commitment. Given its relationship and record with First Nations communities, I have called for the resources industry to publicly back the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the referendum to be held later this year to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through the Voice to Parliament. I am pleased that many of Australia's major resource companies, including BHP, Woodside, Rio Tinto and Wesfarmers, among others, will support the recognition of Indigenous Australians through a Voice to Parliament. They will be powerful advocates to help progress this crucial national agenda. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution in a meaningful way. As I have said often, the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources industry. This Critical Minerals Strategy is another step along that road—a road the rest of the world is travelling. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPE 230531 Well done. I thank the Minister for Resources for her contribution. I call on the Leader of the National Party to speak in response to the minister's statement. 12:16 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I rise today to speak on the importance of Australia's critical minerals industry. The federal coalition is resolute in our support for the growth of this industry, which holds a vital key to strengthening not only Australia's future prosperity but also the prosperity of the entire world. Delivering ongoing, genuine and rock-solid investment into critical minerals is crucial for building our national security, securing our economic development and meeting the demands of the future. It's crucial because Australia is fortunate to have a critical minerals sector with such extraordinary potential and which hosts vast deposits which are among the world's best. From mobile phones to computers, microchips to banknotes, defence to health, evidence of the importance of these resources is all around us. The federal coalition is proud of what we achieved in critical minerals during our term in government, and it is worth going through this. Driven by the need to increase investment and promote quality production within Australia, our track record of delivering was underpinned by our dedicated commitment and backing for the sector. It was the federal coalition who created Australia's first Critical Mineral Strategy—a landmark document that affirmed our vision for the future of this industry. We updated the strategy in 2022, reflecting on the changing global mineral environment, and we also updated Australia's critical minerals list. Importantly, in 2019 former prime minister Morrison and the then US president coordinated the first US-Australian action plan for critical minerals cooperation. This strategic partnership was designed to boost our critical minerals industry and provide the US with a secure supply of minerals which are essential to their manufacturing. In addition to this, the federal coalition made it our priority to invest billions into developing critical minerals. In 2021 it was members on this side of the House who set up the $2 billion Critical Minerals Facility—a loan facility targeted to diversify the critical mineral value chain, including supply chains and downstream processing. In fact, in April last year, Iluka Resources was awarded a historic $1.25 billion loan to develop Australia's first integrated rare earth refinery in Eneabba, Western Australia. Also, last year the federal coalition was pleased to set up the $200 million Critical Minerals Accelerator Initiative to provide targeted funding towards early and mid-stage critical mineral projects. This funding was directed at key activities which were designed to build our nation's production capability. The first six grants, totalling about $50 million of investment, were announced by our government in April 2022. Importantly, these projects will produce cobalt, graphite, high-purity aluminium, tungsten, tantalum and vanadium. These grants were awarded in a measure to encourage work in early to mid-stage projects, kickstarting the next generation of critical minerals ventures. Unfortunately, this program was cut to the tune of more than $100 million by the Albanese Labor government in what is a disappointing blow to other projects which are seeking to harness investment. In government, the federal coalition also committed $50.5 million over three years in our budget last year to establish the virtual national critical minerals research and development centre. In more key measures, we extended the junior minerals exploration incentive with an additional $100 million in support, and created the $225 million Exploring for the Future program. Both of these initiatives were crucial to finding resources which are capable of creating hundreds of jobs and stimulating billions of dollars for the Australian economy. We also committed more than $20 million to the Global Resource Strategy to identify new markets for our resource exports such as critical minerals. All of this highlights the proud and enduring legacy that the federal coalition, and in particular our last two resource ministers, the Honourable Keith Pitt and Senator Matt Canavan, delivered for the critical minerals sector. These achievements have left our nation stronger. Ultimately, this is a legacy that has set critical minerals up for a promising, sustainable and productive future. This now brings us to the minister's announcement on Tuesday of the 2023 critical minerals strategy. First of all and disappointingly, the minister has ignored calls from both industry groups and the federal coalition to update Australia's critical minerals list. I note that the shadow minister for resources, Senator McDonald, wrote to Minister King advocating for the inclusion of potash, phosphate, aluminium, alumina, bauxite, nickel, copper and zinc. Both potash and phosphate are important for Australia's ongoing agricultural productivity and contribute to our food security. Potash is a valuable fertiliser, but currently Australia's emerging industry does not produce enough to meet our domestic requirements. Our farmers also need large quantities of phosphorus, of which rock phosphate is a key ingredient to maintain healthy productivity in the regions where the weather has eroded natural phosphorus in the soils. Having a secure source of these minerals will allow Australia to develop a reliable supply of efficient fertilisers countering any shortages of global supply. Crucially, increasing our domestic extraction of potash and phosphate, and including these on the minerals list, will help achieve our agricultural sector's ultimate goal of growing to $100 billion by 2030. Further minerals identified on a number of international critical minerals lists—aluminium, copper and zinc—are essential for the functioning of modern technologies and, in an increasingly unstable world, are susceptible to the shocks of disrupted international supply chains. On this front, Australia has enormous potential. Our nation has a big production capacity for aluminium, nickel, copper and zinc. We are the world's largest producer of bauxite. We are the second-largest producer and largest exporter of alumina, we have the largest economic resource of zinc and we have the second-largest reserves of copper and nickel. It is clear Australia has the capacity to play a major global role, as these strategic resources become more important to advanced technologies and emerging industries around the world. Countries that have identified the significance of these minerals to their economies include the United States, Canada, Japan, the European Union and South Korea. With copper demand set to double by 2050 and key suppliers that include China, Russia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, there are clear risks in securing a sufficient global supply. As we have seen in recent years, global supply chain disruption can happen at a pace that far outstrips the development of required new mineral resources. As such, the increased uncertainty of reliable access has driven many nations to strengthen their supply chains for many of the minerals in which Australia is either globally dominant or competitive. However, despite these strong arguments in support of adding these minerals to the list, the government has instead chosen to postpone any further reviews or updates of the strategy to 2026, a disappointing outcome for the sector. So what has the government's critical mineral strategy actually outlined? Three of the six key focus areas concern the coalition and these are: (1) promoting Australia as a world leader in environmental, social and governance performance; (2) unlocking investment-enabling infrastructure and services; (3) growing a skilled workforce. Firstly, on ESG performance, specifically the calls to streamline EPBC approvals, the government's work on the review of the EPBC Act does not give the coalition much confidence. Progress on new environmental laws and standards is stalling under Labor and, despite having been in the job for over a year, the environment minister still appears to be months away from finishing that work. It's also looking more likely that the government's approach will lead to more regulation, more red tape and fewer incentives and clarity for business and resource projects. Secondly, on infrastructure, it's quite extraordinary that Labor now claim that one of their priorities is 'unlocking investment in enabling infrastructure and services' when they have already swung the axe over the infrastructure sector. In fact, in Labor's first budget their infrastructure cuts amounted to $9.6 billion. This was in addition to cutting more than $10 billion in regional programs and $7 billion in dams and water infrastructure. Further to this, in Labor's second budget they announced a 90-day infrastructure review which is expected to make further cuts to rail and road infrastructure projects across the regions. Compounding the damage, the government has also cut programs for regional airports and has made cuts to the road safety Black Spot Program. Finally, on growing a skilled workforce, it's ironic that the Critical Minerals Strategy is calling for a skilled mining workforce when currently the government is trying to push through its 'same job, same pay' legislation, which is at odds with our nation's mining sector. Labor needs to stop taking directions from their union paymasters and stop pushing policies that will not work in reality. However, despite the issues in half of the government's objectives, what we find when we unpack the new investment in the sector is that it appears that Labor are relying on programs delivered by the former coalition government as the main investment to develop this sector and have committed no real programs or initiatives of their own to help invest in critical minerals projects. Another major point was reflected in the government's budget, handed down in May, which was a major letdown for critical minerals. Labor's budget provided no real investment in the sector, with $57.1 million for the Critical Minerals International Partnerships program and $23.4 million for critical minerals policy development and project facilitation. Both of these funding pools are largely administrative, with neither going toward supporting new projects or investing in the development of our critical minerals reserves. This funding is a drop in the ocean, in contrast to the billions that the coalition invested. To quote Mineral Resources managing director Chris Ellison, this funding is the Australian government telling industry to 'go it alone.' The $500 million from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is not new funding but simply earmarked from the $2 billion increase that I, as the former minister for Northern Australia, along with the former special envoy for Northern Australia, Senator McDonald, announced back in December 2021. To conclude my remarks, the federal coalition's support for the critical minerals sector is unwavering. We firmly believe there is a bright future for critical minerals to operate alongside vital traditional resources like iron, coal and gas. Ultimately, this update to the Critical Minerals Strategy provided the government with an opportunity to illustrate their plans for the development of this sector, but what we saw announced on Tuesday was more fluff than substance. Australia's on the cusp of reaping the generational rewards of building a vast and productive critical minerals sector. Every single day, our nation competes on the global market for investment dollars for our resources, dollars that create domestic jobs and put money back into our economy. The federal coalition set a secure foundation for the sector's growth, and it is now up to the government to ensure that this opportunity is not wasted. COMMITTEES 36 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 36 Report 36 12:29 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I present a report from the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests concerning an application from Mr Andrew Dettmer for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives. Report—by leave—agreed to. BILLS 36 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 36

Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 36 12:29 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The amendments that have been proposed in the Senate are agreeable to the government. I will go to some of the specifics of these amendments. There is an amendment to schedule 2 returned from the Senate which relates to periodic investment reporting by the Future Fund. This amendment is identical to the one that the previous government introduced in the last parliament but never implemented. The proposed provisions would align reporting for the Future Fund, as far as is practicable, with the portfolio holdings regime that exists for superannuation funds, as outlined in the Corporations Regulations 2001. The government supports transparency and accountability, and, in the same way that we were prepared to support the previous government's amendments to require this reporting in the previous term of parliament, we are quite prepared to support the amendments before us today. The amendments to schedule 3 of the bill ensure that the transitional provisions operate as intended for overseas aid organisations. These amendments are consistent with the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and recommendation 2 from the additional comments from the Australian Greens. I want to particularly thank the extraordinarily capable Chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Jess Walsh, as well as the other members of that committee, Senator Andrew Bragg, Senator Nick McKim, Senator Deborah O'Neill, Senator Jana Stewart and Senator Dean Smith and the secretariat, Tas Larnach, Michael Finch and Parabhjot Saini. I want to especially thank, on behalf of the government, Senator Rice and Senator McKim, for their constructive engagement in the interest of creating a better and more supportive framework for Australian charities to do their critical work. I know their deep commitment to the Australian charity sector and to ensuring that Australian overseas aid has its maximum impact, and I thank them for their constructive engagement with my office and with the government more broadly on these important issues. I want to also acknowledge a number of outside organisations that have made thoughtful and constructive contributions to these amendments: the Law Council of Australia, through their CEO, James Popple, their director of policy, Leonie Campbell, Geoff Provis and Seak-King Huang; the Stronger Charities Alliance, particularly Ray Yoshida and Saffron Zomer; the Australian Council for International Development, particularly Marc Purcell, Jessica Mackenzie and Antonia Pannell; and Oxfam, through Lyn Morgain and her extraordinarily capable team. I acknowledge, too, Retail Drinks Australia and Michael Waters, for their engagement through this process. Naturally I'd like to thank Treasury officials, for their policy and drafting support, and my chief of staff, Nick Terrell, for his extraordinarily capable management of this process. I commend the Senate amendments to the House. Question agreed to. Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 38

Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 38 12:34 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments were supported by the government in the Senate. They further the objectives of the government in this bill to provide opportunities for our bright young innovators and to safeguard them in their studies. The first amendment confirms in primary legislation what is already in the government's draft guidelines—that the intellectual property of students will be protected when they participate in a startup year course. The second reaffirms the government's commitment to have a regional focus in Startup Year by requiring that 25 per cent of places go to regional universities where that is practicable. The third amendment reinforces existing protections for Startup Year students. I thank Senator Pocock for his engagement on this bill and his proposal of this amendment. This bill delivers on the government's election commitment to establish a Startup Year to help build the know-how of the next generation of Australian entrepreneurs. The bill also adjusts the funding caps for the Australian Research Council, continuing the government's support for our research sector. It also lists Avondale University as a Table B provider under the Higher Education Support Act, giving that university greater access to research grants. As I mentioned in the House on Tuesday, this bill also addresses an existing gap in the HELP system where some New Zealand citizen students were missing out on access to HELP while they moved towards Australian citizenship. I want to thank all of those who have played a role in this bill's development and its passage through the parliament. Thanks to my friend and colleague the Minister for Industry and Science, who developed this policy in opposition and who is a tireless supporter of our brightest young innovators in realising the promise of their ideas; to the Department of Education and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for their work in the consultation process and in the preparation of this bill; to my chief of staff, Scott Davies, whose dedication and skill in guiding this legislation through the Senate deserves special recognition today; and to the peak bodies and universities who engaged in our consultation process and in the Senate committee inquiry into this bill and who have welcomed this initiative so warmly. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 40

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 40 12:37 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to speak in favour of the bill that's before us, the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. It gives me a chance to say on the public record something that I've said privately for many, many years and publicly in my own electorate: how important and valuable our Public Service is. It's so critical that all governments, regardless of the colour of the day, have a strong, well resourced, fiercely independent Public Service that is there to provide support and frank and fearless advice to the government of the day. I say this not just because I have two siblings that work for the Australian Public Service but also because it is critical to good government. We need to ensure that the people who are responsible for delivering government's decisions, parliament's decisions, are able to do so and have the resources to do so. This should be, for many, a bit of a no-brainer—the purpose, the title, is 'public service'—but for far too long people in this place and people outside this place have been critical of our Public Service. Too many job losses have occurred. Core public services have been whittled away, particularly in the regions. Departments have been gutted, replaced with very expensive contracts that have provided advice that we now know not to be of best value. What we see in this bill is delivering on Labor's commitment at the election to restore and strengthen the APS's core purpose and value. This bill adds a new APS value, the value of stewardship, which all APS employees must uphold. Stewardship will be defined as: The APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does. This bill requires the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a single, unified APS purpose statement, reviewed once every five years. It will help clarify and strengthen the provisions of the act and make clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This is critical, particularly with the way in which we saw the APS politicised over the term of the last government. It aims to build the capacity and expertise of the APS. We need to rebuild our APS ability. It breaks my heart that so many taxpayer dollars have gone towards third-party organisations, consultancy firms, to give us advice when it should be our own employees, our own Public Service providing that advice. I know how critical the APS is in my own electorate. It's not just the day-to-day services for people seeking Centrelink support. We used to have a tax office in Bendigo that was well resourced, able to provide local businesses, local organisations and local individuals with support. The tax office is one area that has lost thousands of staff over the last decade. It simply has put the service in a very precarious position. They are doing well with the resources that they have, but they need more. That is so that they can do what we all expect them to do: make sure that we have a frank tax system, a tax system that is fair and making sure that everybody, regardless of who they are, business or individual, is paying their fair share of tax. We also need to make sure that we have a strong, robust public service when it comes to areas of immigration, making sure that people are getting the advice that they need in a timely manner. People in my electorate have already said to me they have seen improvements just with the changes that this government has made by being able to process claims quicker and making sure people are getting the advice that they need. But what they all accept, quite tragically, is that our Department of Immigration is rebuilding. After years of being gutted, after years of political interference, they are now rebuilding. We need a strong, resourced, fearless, independent Department of Immigration that can give us in this place, government or nongovernment, the advice that we need around immigration matters. Immigration matters, like tax matters, strike at the very heart of our community. It's one of those areas people get the most anxious about. 'Is my loved one in the right place in the queue?' 'Is the rejection of their visa for valid reasons?' 'Am I paying the right amount of tax?' 'Have I been treated fairly by the tax office?' These are laws that effect so many people, so ensuring that our Public Service is independent, is transparent and has the resources to make those decisions is critical. This bill amends the Public Service Act and is a key element of our APS reform agenda. It needs to be ambitious. It needs to be enduring reform that makes the APS goal and vision clear. It comes from the independent review into the Australian Public Service, which concluded that the APS lacks a unified purpose, is too internally focused and has lost capacity in important areas. By helping to redefine the purpose of our Public Service, we will also attract the brightest back. Once upon a time before Yes Minister, people chose the Public Service as a career of choice. If you wanted to be a public-policy maker, you didn't necessarily put your hand up to be a politician; you put your hand up to be a public servant, and it was a career choice. You knew that you'd be responsible for designing public programming and policy. Yes, there were government and ministerial decisions, and you enacted those; but, equally, you advised government on the very best pathway forward. I think back to what happened during the pandemic. Imagine if we'd had a stronger public service. Imagine if they'd had the strength, the capability and the expertise. Imagine if they were the very best in our country giving advice to government. Our experience of the pandemic might have been quite different. The chop-change approach that we had—JobKeeper, no JobKeeper—and the way in which the JobKeeper program was rolled out was a good idea poorly implemented. Could it have been different if we had had our very best? Far too many people in the Public Service start there but leave, choosing careers and alternative pathways in the private sector, because—we don't know. We could ask them. But that is part of why we need to refocus the purpose of our Public Service. Let's attract the best back into the Public Service so that we have the thinking capability and the purpose capability but also, too, the frank independence and purpose of the Public Service to do what we need it to do. When I'm out there talking to people in my electorate, they do believe in a strong, well-funded Public Service. They don't subscribe to the fat bureaucrats model. They don't subscribe to the fearmongering of those opposite. They do see it as critical to having a really strong, supportive Public Service. In the areas that I've touched on, such as immigration, Centrelink and the tax office, it's fair to say that we have a challenge with our payments. They're clunky. They're complicated. People struggle to navigate their way through. Services Australia staff do their best, but who's doing that big thinking: is this the right way to be going; is there a better way to organise our payment structure; do we have the best people in the country working at that? That is why this bill is so important. We need to make sure that we are refocusing and rebuilding our capability so we're not going to third parties to provide us that critical information. The COVID pandemic, natural disasters, geopolitical disruptions and increasing economic volatility have highlighted the importance of a well-funded, intelligent, well-resourced APS that will act with integrity, be agile and have common purpose. That is what is so important about this bill and why it is before us today, and that is why you find so many people on our side of the House speaking about it. We get and believe in the importance of a strong Public Service, which is starkly different to those opposite. I can remember one of the measures that they had. They called public servants who went on mat leave 'double-dippers'. They tried to take away their maternity leave and paternity leave entitlements. They're the kinds of views that our Public Service was up against. Is it any wonder that people left? There were the efficiency dividends. There was the way in which they cut jobs, made people redundant and didn't replace people. This made it very hard for people working inside the organisation. Look at the role that DFAT, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, plays and the importance of trade. Those public servants who come and speak to us at the committees all play a crucial and important role. We task them with doing a lot of the heavy duty and the legwork when it comes to negotiating free trade. Just this week the member for Spence and I were at a treaties committee meeting where we were talking, committee-in-confidence, about the EU free trade agreement—where it was at and the government position and how it was going. Those were skilled public servants who have the knowledge and capability that is critical to us being able to do our jobs, and critical to the government being able to do its job of getting the best outcome in those negotiations. If we want to have a strong, well-resourced Public Service, it starts from the foundations. It starts with making sure that we have a unified purpose, that it's not internally focused, that they're not looking over their shoulders and that they're proud of the jobs that they do. I do want to acknowledge the unions in this space and the people who've fought the good fight for a long time. The CPSU and other unions have always, in rounds of bargaining, continued to put this on the agenda. The fact that the workers themselves have put this issue of having a unified purpose across the APS on the agenda—not in those words but in similar language—demonstrates how those workers want to see themselves come together. Critical to good government is having a well-funded, well-resourced Public Service that can be proud of the job that it does and ensure that its views are taken seriously, having the skill at every level and having a well-resourced, well-supported grad problem all the way up to secretaries, making sure that every group in between is properly resourced and properly supported. We need a strong Public Service if we're going to be a good government and a good parliament. I commend the bill to the House and strongly encourage all of us to think about the great work that the Public Service does now and will do into the future. 12:50 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise to speak in favour of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. As servants to the public ourselves, as elected representatives in this place—as the member for Wills rightly pointed out during his contribution to this debate—we should all be taking an active interest in ensuring the Australian Public Service is working to the best of its ability, an ability those who have worked in or around the public sector in the past know that it is perfectly capable of returning to. I recognise there are many of the other side of the chamber that harbour a great respect for our Public Service. I'm sure I can take their word for it. I bet some of their friends are even public servants! Despite this, many of those opposite were there at the time to see a government they were a part of undermine, degrade and diminish the role of the Australian Public Service in the machinery of government, from policy formulation all the way to core service delivery to the public at large. Service delivery such as employment services, call centre and other customer service roles were outsourced to a number of non-profit and for-profit entities, to labour hire companies, just so those opposite could chomp on cigars before delivering a budget and pat themselves on the back for reining in the size of the Public Service, whilst at the same time making the jobs of the APS employees who remained and interacted with non-APS contractors and labour-hire employees just that bit more difficult. But, in the same way we saw with the books that those opposite handed the Albanese Labor government when it took office last year, to the Liberal and National parties, small government is merely a figment of the imagination—a catchphrase, a mere illusion, a mirage. On the other hand, from the top down, the previous government outsourced the jobs of six ministers to a single prime minister. I can't for the life of me think of any way this led to better service delivery, improved work output or any degree of increased customer satisfaction. It certainly led to a diminished public perception of government. But good on them for trialing this approach from the top down in their government. The amount of money spent to have a non-APS workforce working with and adjacent to the machinery of government equates almost to the former government having a black budget—a guerrilla workforce. You might say that it was ideology that drove them to this strategy, or maybe one of the big four told them to. I'm sure if one of them thought so, the other three would definitely concur, as they have certainly reaped the rewards of this policy objective of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Why would recommending such a course of action be so attractive for the big four? Well, as the old saying goes, you always back a horse named self-interest. On that note, the Albanese Labor government looks to back in our workforce, a battered but proud and skilled workforce in the APS that backs Australia's national interest. We can point to so many examples, highlighted by royal commissioners, auditors-general and our parliamentary committee system, of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments being fearful of frank advice. To add another cliche into the arguments, we have an oldie but a goldie, one we all know—Einstein's parable of quantum insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, unless you've tailored the terms of reference to a report you've commissioned from consultants to provide cover—whoops; sorry, I meant to say advice—to government. Often, these commissions are geared by the terms of reference for the mission of finding a justification for a position of the government, so the government can hold up a glossy report by an independent firm at a press conference to cover their own tails. To throw yet another cliche into the mix, sometimes the tail wags the dog. The 'decide, announce, defend' approach isn't an especially sound approach when the process becomes too opaque to unpack how the decision was arrived at. There was always some method to the madness of high-school maths teachers that only gave full marks if you showed your working out and everything in between. I'm sure through this method of government we're provided with frank and fearless advice, in the same way that a mercenary shows candour towards their paymaster. Whilst this is not to say that there aren't many bright and talented individuals amongst the ranks of the big four, it simply adds a further point of lamentation to see them not part of the APS, instead finding the private sector a more attractive option. Over the best part of a decade, Australia has become overly reliant on outsourcing its formulation of policy. By all means bring in the specialists to help refine policy, but over that period Australia did not just substitute the APS for consultants to create and deliver government policy; they benched the APS. 'Substitute' is a mild word; really, it is closer to 'replaced'. It doesn't take us commissioning one of the big four to hand down a report to tell us what effect this has on the APS. It definitely perverts the policy formulation process. Once we see the sausage getting made, the favour ends up changing dramatically. Australia needs a more active APS, one that is involved in bringing policy from a proposal to its delivery—from farm to table, as the saying goes. A profit motive behind crafting policy does not somehow make it superior; it makes many armchair observers start to wonder whose interests are at the forefront. We should be, as a matter of course, using the methodology of old in how we make decisions and create policy in this country. Our methodology should be more akin to the clothing brand FUBU—policy that is 'for us, by us'. Having a strong and empowered Public Service aiding and advising government to refined outcomes rather than predefined outcomes further mitigates some of the more egregious failures in policy formulation. Doing the hard work in enacting reforms in the APS—reforms that not just aid our public sector workforce to operate efficiently but provide them with the tools they need to operate effectively—will make another robodebt sized disaster that much harder. We have done our jobs properly by supporting this legislation. After reviewing the testimony that has been put to the royal commission into robodebt, it should not be any wonder why members are jumping up to speak on this bill. I must admit I have been following the debate intently on this legislation during the past couple of days. I could point to a number of extremely salient points made by a number of my colleagues on this side of the chamber. Contributions from the members for Wills, Bean, Lalor, Holt and Newcastle and the beginning of the contribution from the member for Kingsford-Smith, the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, immediately come to mind. I may touch on a few points made by a number of them in due course. Instead, I almost feel compelled to first take note of the contribution made by the member for Riverina on this bill. I can't quite remember what I was doing at the time, but I stopped whatever it was and turned the volume up to listen to the member for Riverina being on-brand and on-message, given the National's role in the previous government, which saw nine years of undermining and diminishing the role of the APS in the machinery of government. The member for Riverina then took umbrage with the legion of Labor members speaking on this bill, overtly implying a cheapness to these contributions. Well, the member for Riverina, as the sole National to speak to this bill, certainly helps to capture one's attention. He certainly never fails to 'make a contribution'. After almost a year in this place, I am beginning to realise this is entirely on-brand for the member for Riverina. The other Nationals were certainly conspicuous by their absence on this bill, but, despite this, here was the member for Riverina, charging out to make a contribution in this place on the Australian Public Service, charging out against a legion of Labor members who have spoken, with many others patiently waiting their turn. He was charging out like the last samurai. The member for Riverina's speech went as far as discussing the contemporary history of notable parliamentary filibusters. I can only describe filibustering by talking about filibustering as a bit too meta for my sensibilities, but the member for Riverina can still entertain, stepping into the arena like Maximus in Gladiator, as he often does. Are we not entertained? I can only speak for myself, as I would be reluctant to speak about the opinions of all present and those of us tuning in the other night to the proceedings of the chamber. I do, though, find it somewhat amusing, rather than entertaining, to see the member for Riverina as the sole National to speak on this bill. Frankly, I would have thought the Nationals would have a thing or two to say about the role of the Australian Public Service, particularly after nine long years in government. Over the past nine years, the Australian Public Service dutifully prepared recommendations to numerous rounds of grants that were completely ignored by those opposite in favour of choices made by a number of colourful Liberal Party and National Party identities with even more colourful spreadsheets. They made moves to force public servants outside of what they referred to as the Canberra bubble, likely only relenting with their big thought bubble at the thought of their local pubs beginning to turn a little too gentrified for their taste. The horror! Oh, the horror! However, much like the extraordinarily understated words of the member for Riverina in his contribution to this debate, I digress, albeit ever so slightly. As such, I feel I should move toward discussing some of the details of this bill, as it is, despite what the member for Riverina's scepticism would have you believe, vitally important in ensuring that the Australian Public Service has a clearly defined purpose within the machinery of government, not just now but in the longer term. Many of the measures in at this bill, which makes a raft of amendments to the Public Service Act 1999, were included as a result of recommendations made as part of the Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, a review initiated by Malcolm Turnbull when he was Prime Minister. Remember him? I'm fairly certain that the member for Riverina was his deputy. Some of the others seemed to be really ambitious for him. On the upside, the irony wouldn't have been lost on the Turnbull government if they had commissioned one of the big four to handle this review of the Australian Public Service. They might have missed out on a bit of work due to this, but the Turnbull government was keeping them pretty busy, despite this job falling just outside of their reach. The review itself, having occurred prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, still had many things to say which have been adopted in measures that have already been implemented prior to the introduction of the bill, and, of course, through measures in the Public Service Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced after the review, in a different environment to the one we found ourselves in after the review was handed down and delivered to the former government. The Albanese Labor government came into office with a substantially broader agenda to reform the Australian Public Service. This bill will be a component of this agenda rather than the beginning and end of this government's input in reforming the APS, an employer of in excess of 155,000 throughout the country, not just in this Canberra bubble—a term those opposite used to denigrate those who operated within it, while being curiously avoidant of pointing out that they are long-term tenants within the same bubble. I think many on the other side of the chamber used to sit glued in front of their television sets, binge-watching Yes Minister and waiting suspensefully for the politicians to win against the public servants. Years later, their approach to the Public Service is one where life imitates art. But at least the Jim Hacker cosplay enthusiasts no longer occupy the Treasury bench in this place. The Albanese Labor government's APS reform agenda is held aloft by four key pillars. They are relatively straightforward but vital to implant into the DNA of the Australian Public Service in order to ensure that the Australian Public Service embodies integrity in everything it does, puts people in business at the centre of the policy and service delivery and is a model employer that has the tools and capability to do its job well. This is the framework underpinning this bill and reforms that have been undertaken prior to now and is the tone of the reforms the Albanese government aims to foster in the APS moving forward. This is about restoring the public's faith and trust in the Australian Public Service. It's also about restoring the faith and trust that the Australian Public Service has in itself. It is no secret the Albanese government started its time on a mission to restore confidence in government and its many institutions that keep the wheels of government turning. This is especially true given that the Albanese Labor government's first months within the 47th Parliament were spent passing the legislation necessary to finally establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Having a good public service begets good government. We should all want this, no matter who is in government at the time. I commend the bill to the House and hope that I can count on the support of all members, even the member for Riverina, as we work together to strengthen the integrity of our public institutions and the confidence that the public have in their ability to serve them diligently, faithfully and effectively. In closing, I would like to give a very big shout-out to those that work in the Public Service in my electorate, especially those at the Gawler, Elizabeth and Salisbury Services Australia facilities that we have, who go about very diligently, every single day, helping people in my community get access to the services that they need to ensure they have a dignified life. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart. 13:04 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to speak in support of the changes in the Public Service Amendment Bill that strengthen the incredible and vital public good that is the Australian Public Service. If you set out to write a list of the key components that make Australia a place and a community that is functional and fair, that is capable and considerate, and that rises to new and often difficult challenges like climate change, natural disasters and a global pandemic, the Australian Public Service would be right at the very top of that shortlist. It's an extension of our system of democratic government and it's the enabling force that implements the decisions we make as a community. As my colleague has just said, the Australian Public Service operates across a broad range of areas of Australian life—almost every area of Australian life that you can think of—from person-to-person on the ground level right up to the level at which policies are formulated and advice is given that allows those of us in this place to make decisions, implement policies and programs, and direct funding in the interests of Australia's broad wellbeing. This bill implements recommendations from the 2019 independent review of the APS—the so-called Thodey review that was implemented by Prime Minister Turnbull. It does things like ensuring there are five-year capability reviews, delivering greater transparency and, very importantly, reinforcing the apolitical independence of the Australian Public Service—one of its great qualities and one of the most significant foundational principles of a democratic system like ours. The fact that it's this Labor government—the Albanese Labor government—implementing those recommendations is a good thing, but it does also fit a pattern that in some ways is a disappointing reflection on what has gone on in the past. These were recommendations made in 2019, and we're 4½ years on from that. I remember being in the last parliament under the previous government where at times in the course of a sitting week nothing much was going on and the government was scratching around for something to bring into this place for us to consider. You would have thought the changes recommended in 2019 might have come forward in the course of the last parliament at some point, but no, it falls to us to do a very important repair job with respect to the Australian Public Service because it has been run down, it has been pushed under, it has been chopped up into bits and it has been subject to unfair criticism. It has had its independence put at risk by all of the things that the former coalition government did. We've come along and we're starting to turn the ship around. As I said, this follows a pattern. Under the previous government, we had the aged care royal commission, and most of the recommendations of that were not implemented by the former government—we're getting on and doing that. We had the Graham Samuel's review of the EPBC, the Environmental Preservation and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which said clearly to the former coalition government, 'You need to do something to improve environmental protection at a time when the Australian environment has been hammered, is under significant threat and is on a trajectory to decline.' Graham Samuel said, 'Here's a fairly simple recipe for effective reform,' and that was ignored, we had the Constitutional convention process in the form of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which the previous government initiated and then promptly ignored. It was disappointing and a failure of what the Australian community is entitled to expect in the form of competent government. The coalition in many cases initiated a review process and then, off the back of that, had the recipe and the ingredients for positive and much-needed reform, and just never got around to it—they did nothing. What's sadder still is that if all they had done was nothing, it wouldn't have been as bad as what actually occurred. When it comes to the Australian Public Service, while not undertaking the reforms that we're implementing, and while not supporting, championing, resourcing or enabling the Australian Public Service, the former government actually did their best—or their worst depending on how you want to describe it—to undermine the vital role of the APS plays by cutting: cutting funding, cutting staff numbers, putting in place pay freezes, and undermining the incredible work of the Community and Public Sector Union, which has always stood up for public sector workers and, more importantly, has always stood up for what the Australian Public Service delivers to the Australian community. They have effectively fought a war of resistance for nine or 10 years while their members, and all workers in the APS, were treated to cut after cut after cut and squeeze after squeeze after squeeze. The ABC and the SBS had resources cut. The social safety net was put under pressure in almost all aspects. It was not subject to death by a thousand cuts, but we were on that path and sort of halfway to death; it was probably 491 cuts or something like that. There was 40 per cent cut out of the department of the environment alone, and what did we see as a result of that? As I said before, we've seen ourselves end up in what is effectively an extinction crisis. The former government's approach to environmental decline and biodiversity was the Threatened Species Strategy. That wasn't properly resourced; it was another colourful pamphlet whose objectives weren't met. One part of that took the 20 most at-risk mammal species, and the idea was to see improved trajectories in the populations of those species within a five-year period. It was a pretty sensible way of going about it, you would have thought. What actually happened? Well, there was an improvement in the trajectory of only eight species—not even the 20 target species but only eight of those 20 species. And, in the case of four of the improved trajectories, we didn't actually see an increase in the populations of those particular species. With the Gilbert's potoroo, the most endangered animal in Australia, whose home range is in the electorate of the member for O'Connor, you didn't see an improved population; you just saw slower decline. I remember at one point the government saying, 'We haven't managed to improve trajectories for 20 species, but we have for eight.' The truth was that, with respect to four of those eight, the population was still declining, just not quite as quickly as it had done before. That was the kind of thing that happened—which, you could expect, would happen—when you cut 40 per cent of the funding to the department of the environment. Not only do you get those kinds of terrible environmental and biodiversity outcomes; you also get slower decision-making, less reliable decision-making and, effectively, faulty decision-making. When the ANAO looked at decisions made under the EPBC, I think they found that in the case of 79 per cent of those decisions there were conditions that had not been observed. The government had failed to grasp the fact that there was, effectively, an 80 per cent, or a four out of five, rate of failure with respect to the conditions that were attached to those decisions and which were the basis on which those approvals were given. On immigration: I don't think any of us would struggle to understand how important it is that Australia's immigration system works well, has integrity, works smoothly, is accessible and works in a timely way. We would all have constituents and—probably, in some cases—family members who have been through that process. In recent times we have seen issues that have arisen when it comes to immigration processing that effectively amount to a crisis. One only has to think of what happened with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The fact is, the immigration department had been knocked back so badly that you had enormous backlogs, enormous delays and a lack of capacity which meant that family members of Australian citizens from Afghanistan who were waiting to be able to come to Australia were prevented from doing so and now, effectively, find themselves locked in a country that has returned to Taliban rule, with all the things that implies. When you talk about undermining the Australian Public Service, it's not just the fact that an aged pensioner might have to wait for an hour on the telephone. That's intolerable. That shouldn't occur for an older Australian. But, when you think, there are people whose family members were waiting month after month, year after year, just to have their migration application process give them the chance to join their kids, parents, brothers or sisters here in Australia. They instead found that, because of that failure, lack of capacity and under-resourcing, the door slammed shut, and they are now stuck in circumstances that are literally grave circumstances that put their lives at risk. Customs and biosecurity is another of those critical areas that underpins our broad social, economic and environmental wellbeing. If you don't resource the Australian Public Service properly and you see failures in those areas, the consequences can be devastating. Once an invasive species comes in, the impact on agriculture particularly and on other areas of our environment and our own wellbeing can be severely affected. The development assistance budget was one of the parts of the Public Service that was hit hardest. Almost as soon as the former government were elected, they decided that they would smash Australia's development assistance program, that they would dissolve AusAID altogether and that they would hammer the capacity that Australia has wielded so generously and thoughtfully and effectively, particularly in our region, to reduce poverty and to reduce death—particularly when it comes to infant mortality and for women and children as a focus group. That not only prevented us from saving lives or from supporting the development of a stable, prosperous and sustainable economy in our region; it put our security at risk. There is no better way to advance Australia's security, stability and prosperity than through well-targeted development assistance. When you go along and take out not only the resources but also the capability—the human capital, all those years of dedication, expertise, practical knowledge, networks, friendships and people-to-people bonds between Australians and people in countries in the Pacific and in South-East Asia—you take away our capacity to be a significant, influential middle power acting for good. I mean 'for good' in the broadest sense, in accordance with our values and principles, in supporting the wellbeing of our brothers and sisters all over the world and in reducing conflict, malnourishment, famine, disease and all the terrible things that, fortunately, we don't experience to any significant degree in this country—but also in advancing our own interests. If you are someone who doesn't find those other things compelling—reducing infant mortality; lifting people out of grinding, aching poverty; freeing women from disease and domestic violence—you should at least find it compelling to think that, when we assert our development assistance program, diplomacy and trade and all the parts of our external affairs armature, when we extend and assert those parts of our Public Service capability well, we build our own security and we support our own ability to exist in a sustainably prosperous place with an environment that is looked after and in circumstances where conflict is minimalised. The Labor Party will always support the Australian Public Service. We are under no illusion about its core significance to our way of life, to our system of democratic governance and as an extension of our principles. The Australian Public Service has suffered over the last decade, like many parts of Australian life. Australian public servants have weathered that storm. There have been a lot of people put under enormous pressure. They've been underpaid, they've had their job security risked, they've seen jobs outsourced and they've seen ridiculous contracts go to PwC and lots of other big companies at the cost of tens of millions of dollars. The quality of service that Australians expect has been smashed, money has found its way into the pockets of private companies and our Public Service has been left to struggle on. We are going to change that. This is the beginning. There is more work to be done. 13:19 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I commend the member for Fremantle for his fine remarks and thoughtful contribution, as is characteristic of the member in this place. I'm pleased have the opportunity to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. This bill amends the Public Service Act 1999. Its purpose is to ensure that the Australian Public Service is well-placed to serve the Australian government, the parliament and the Australian public well into the future. I want to be clear from the outset that Australia has been exceptionally well served by its public servants ever since Federation and is still being well served by them today. Ministers of every political persuasion have known that they could rely on the Public Service to give them accurate information, advice and wise counsel in war and in peace, in depression years and in boom years. Ministers have also known that once this parliament passes legislation or once cabinet makes a decision, the Public Service will work conscientiously to put the will of the parliament. I have experienced, being the chair of a number of parliamentary committees, the diligence, the expertise, the thoroughness and the collegiate nature of the Public Service. I've been privileged to work alongside, to support and to collaborate with them on important policy matters that effect our country, and I firmly believe in the Public Service both here in Canberra and around the country. Our Public Service has always attracted some of Australia's most talented professionals. Sir Robert Garran, Australia's first Commonwealth public servant, was head of the Attorney-General's Department for 32 years and the leading authority on the Australian Constitution. Sir Frederick Shedden, head of the defence department during World War II, was John Curtin's most trusted advisor. Curtin called Shedden 'my right hand'. Dr HC 'Nugget' Coombs worked for both Labor and Liberal governments on great post-war projects such as the Snowy Mountains scheme and was an early advocate for our First Nations people. Sir Roland Wilson was secretary of the Treasury for the whole of the Menzies era and the principal architect of our post-war prosperity. Richard Woolcott, who died earlier this year, was head of the foreign affairs department during Australia's transition from an outpost of the British Empire to an integral part of the Asia-Pacific region. Sir Geoffrey Yeend and Max Moore-Wilton were immensely influential heads of the Prime Minister's department. The integrity of the Public Service was protected by the Public Service Board, headed by powerful figures, such as Sir Frederick Wheeler, Alan Cooley and Peter Wilenski. I could name many more. What distinguished them was their outstanding ability, their strong sense of public duty, their commitment to public neutrality and their avoidance of publicity. Most Australians only ever heard their names when they retired and received their knighthoods. But the House will notice that all of the public servants that I named were men. That was the way things worked for many, many years. But, in 1985, Helen Williams broke the glass ceiling when she was appointed the Secretary of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, and today women occupy a range of senior positions across the Public Service. I might mention Frances Adamson, who was the head of the foreign affairs and trade portfolio and is now the Governor of South Australia. And both her successes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been outstanding and formidable Australian women. All that being said, it has to be noted that the high standards of the Australian Public Service have been under increasing threat in relation years, and this legislation is a response to those threats. There is a popular perception, fed by the tabloid media, that the Public Service is a bloated bureaucracy. But, in real terms, both the size and the budget of the Public Service has shrunk over the past 30 years due entirely to cuts made by coalition governments under the guise of efficiency reviews. In 1993 there were 165,000 Commonwealth public servants. At the end of 2020 there were 148,000. Given that Australia's population has increased by 8.4 million in that time, this is a very sharp reduction in real terms. Some of this has been due to the declining need for clerical workers, but much of it has been due to a deliberate attack on the capacity of the Public Service to develop and provide independent advice to ministers. Those opposite have preferred to outsource this work to a growing swarm of consultants and political-friendly think tanks, creating at times an echo chamber in which ministers are not only told what they want to hear; they are also not warned of the possible dangers of any course of action that they have decided upon. This has had predictably disastrous consequences. Can we doubt that the robodebt scandal was due at least in part to the refusal of ministers such as former minister Tudge and former minister Robert, not to mention the member for Cook, to seek or listen to professional advice from an independent and fearless Public Service. In May 2018, in one of his last acts as Prime Minister before he was forced out by the current Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Cook, Malcolm Turnbull commissioned an independent review of the Public Service. The review's final report was delivered in December 2019 by David Thodey AO, chair of the independent panel. The review made a number of important recommendations designed to strengthen the integrity and independence of the Public Service against the threat of politicisation and ministerial interference, the growing power of unaccountable ministerial advisers and the cuts to budgets and staff levels that threatened to undermine the stability of the Public Service to do its job, not to mention the politicisation of the position of the most senior person in the Public Service, which was given to no doubt a qualified person but someone who had also occupied the role of chief of staff of the then former Prime Minister. Sadly, by 2019, the honourable member for Cook was Prime Minister, and he rapidly made it clear that there would be no such reforms while he was in charge. As we now know, the honourable member for Cook was determined to centralise all power of government in his own hands, sidelining not only the Public Service but even at times his own cabinet colleagues. That was why he became the first Prime Minister to be censured by this House for abusing the powers of his office. I can do no better than to quote one of Australia's most experience and respected political journalists, Michelle Grattan, writing in The Conversation in December 2019: The wide-ranging Thodey panel's Independent Review of the Australian Public Service has made 40 recommendations; the government says it agrees fully or "in part" with a majority. But while only a minority were rejected outright or "noted", these, plus the rejected sections of those accepted "in part", have sent a very clear message: the government has no intention of countenancing reforms that would— circumcise its power. Mrs Marino HWP Circumcise! Circumvent? Mr BURNS 278522 No. I didn't say that. Anyway, you can check the Hansard. Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 There are some incorrect interjections being made, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Goodenough. Andrew Podger, who was Public Service Commissioner under the Howard government, was quoted in 2019 as saying that under the Morrison government: Controlling the public service to minimise political risk is too often given more weight than taking advantage of the intellectual capacity and administrative experience the APS has to offer … By 2019 senior public servants had learned that if they wanted their careers to advance, they needed to tell ministers what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear. This, then, was the situation that the Albanese government inherited when we came into government last year. As Michelle Grattan wrote: … we need the parliament to intervene, if not in the immediate light of the Thodey Report and the government's response, then before or shortly after the next election. And that is what this government has undertaken to do. The Minister for the Public Service, Senator Katy Gallagher, was given a strong brief to fix the mess which the previous government had left behind. As a senator for the ACT, she represents a large body of public servants, and as a former chief minister she understands the relationship between the executive and the Public Service better than just about anybody in either this place or the other. By introducing this bill, the government is taking the necessary steps to rebuild the integrity, the professionalism and the central role in government of the Australian Public Service. The bill is about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions, and it's also about restoring the Public Service's faith in itself. The bill will strengthen the Public Service's core purpose and values, build its capacity— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 49 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS National Wine Show of Australia, King's Birthday Honours 49 13:30 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest The National Wine Show trophy winners were announced last Friday night at the National Press Club. It's a premier wine competition in Australia. To be eligible to even compete, the wine has to have won gold or silver at one of 32 qualifying Australian wine shows. I am really delighted that wineries in the fabulous fine wine region of Margaret River in my electorate were among the trophy winners. Deep Woods Estate won the Sauvignon Blanc Trophy for its 2022 sauvignon blanc as well as the Chardonnay Trophy for its 2021 reserve chardonnay, which also won the White Wine of the Show category. I'm told that the Deep Woods reserve chardonnay stunned the judges and was awarded 97 points, the Chardonnay Trophy and the esteemed Len Evans memorial Best White Wine of Show. I also want to congratulate Deep Woods Estate's chief winemaker, Julian Langworthy, for this great accolade. The Cabernet Trophy was won by another outstanding Margaret River winery, Xanadu, for its 2019 cabernet sauvignon, described by the judges as 'medium to full bodied, with an elegant yet generous palate' and 'finely structured and beautifully balanced'. I also want to congratulate the team at Xanadu and senior winemaker Glenn Goodall. Congratulations to everyone involved and to Vanya Cullen of Cullen Wines. Congratulations on your King's Birthday Order of Australia Medal. Your extensive commitment and promotion of that fine wine Margaret River— (Time expired) Hargraves, Mr Lawrence 49 13:31 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I recently attended the opening by my colleague and friend the member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, of the Lawrence Hargrave display at the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society—or HARS—Aviation Museum. Celebration of Lawrence Hargrave has been a long process for so many people, and still today we do not have an acknowledgement which really parallels the contribution that was made by him. In our local Illawarra community and across New South Wales, there has been a constant pursuit of recognition, and not always an easy one. I would like to congratulate and thank the Lawrence Hargrave Society and the HARS Aviation Museum on the work that has gone into this display. Hargrave encapsulated many characteristics of our distinctly Australian form of innovation. He was a man of foresight and imagination, working in comparative isolation with limited resources, yet was able to have his studies taken seriously in far-off lands even though there was very little interest at home. The impact of his distinctive contribution can be seen by those who follow his work, one of whom was Alexander Graham Bell, the American inventor of the telephone, who visited Australia just to meet Hargrave. Bell noted, 'Mr Lawrence Hargrave is better known in America than in his own country.' A sincere thank you to the members that dedicated their time and expertise to this amazing project, including Michael Adams, Bob Black, Richard Webb, Noel Roberts, Robert Deacon and Michael Hough. Thank you for the contribution to the dilution of the anonymity that has surrounded an incredible Australian for far too long. (Time expired) Baird, Corporal Cameron Stewart, VC, MG, Evans, Mr Allen 49 13:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Today marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG, a digger in the finest Anzac tradition, a hero. Corporal Baird, son of Kaye and Doug, was 32 years young when he laid down his life for his friends. He was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry in action during close quarters combat in Afghanistan. Throughout the action, Lance Corporal Baird showed conspicuous bravery, composure and superior leadership under intense fire against a Taliban stronghold deep within enemy held territory. Cameron marched out of Kapooka, at Wagga Wagga, the home of the soldier, in February 2000 with an award. The 1st Recruit Training Battalion's Award for Most Outstanding Soldier now carries Cameron's likeness, as it should. It is an appropriate way to honour and remember the best of the best. Yesterday I gained leave from parliament to travel to Kapooka to attend the funeral service for a veteran of Malaya, Korea and Vietnam, Alan Evans. It would have been Alan's 93rd birthday. Major General Stephen Jobson delivered an inspiring eulogy in which he praised the late Mr Evans's lifetime of selflessness and service. Kapooka gave Mr Evans a fitting send-off. Much has been said and written lately about our long line of khaki stretching back to Gallipoli and beyond. We should be proud of the fact so many have for so long been so willing to answer our country's call of duty. And we should always say thank you for your service, not just on 25 April, Anzac Day, or 11 November, Armistice and Remembrance Day, but each and every day. Lest we forget. Housing 50 13:34 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The most effective response to the current housing crisis is to build or buy more public housing. Doing so not only provides housing security for more people in need, but, importantly, it moderates free market housing costs and rents for everyone else. That is what the Albanese government's $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator investment will do, and what the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will do. But once again, just as they did in 2009 in blocking critical action on climate change, the Greens have teamed up with the coalition to block the construction of 30,000 social and affordable homes. Showing their real colours, the Greens have put their selfish political ambitions ahead of the need of desperate families. Playing political games may be fun in student politics, but it is not fun when real lives are affected. Deferring for three months a decision on the Housing Australia Future Fund at a time of extreme housing stress is both irresponsible and a callous betrayal of those people whom the Greens claim to represent. Actions speak louder than words. And while the coalition and the Greens unite to pursue their self-serving political strategies, Labor is investing record amounts into housing, proving it is the only party that can be trusted to deal with the housing shortage. Petition: Asylum Seekers 50 13:36 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Recently I received a visit from the Living Justice captains from Star of the Sea College in my electorate of Goldstein. The students delivered me a petition which stated: We, the community of Star of the Sea College Gardenvale, call for the end of the policy of indefinite detention of refugees. We believe that every human being deserves compassion, freedom, dignity, and basic human rights. More than 1,200 students and staff members from Star of the Sea signed this petition, and this week I handed it over to the minister for immigration. The petition includes many powerful messages from students. Charlotte writes: 'To leave refugees in indefinite detention is to dismiss their lives. The government must reform this process.' Another student would like the government to 'consider focusing more funding to help refugees come and settle in Australia, instead of spending billions on keeping them detained'. On Tuesday I attended the World Refugee Day fair with my co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Refugees Group. There, we spoke of the rich contributions that refugees make to Australian society economically and socially. Many constituents in Goldstein share these feelings, and I agree: we need to end indefinite detention for refugees. Thank you to the students from Star of the Sea in Gardenvale for your conviction and your goodwill. Marillanca, Mr Victor 50 13:37 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to congratulate a driving force behind local community radio here in Canberra. This year marks the 47th anniversary of the Spanish language Coneccion Latinoamericana program on community radio station 2XX FM. It was the first radio program in Spanish here in the ACT, and its presenter, Victor Marillanca, has been at the helm since that program first started in June 1976. The 47th anniversary of Victor presenting the program makes him the longest-serving volunteer presenting a Spanish-language Latin American program in community radio in Australia—a remarkable achievement. For his 47 years behind the microphone, Victor has brought thousands of Spanish-speaking people important news and information on a diverse range of topics. The impact of this cannot be overstated for the Spanish-speaking community here in Canberra. Victor himself arrived in Australia in 1975 as a political refugee from Chile and wasted no time in advocating for others who sought freedom from political repression and human rights abuses. The program provided politicians, academics, diplomats and freedom fighters a platform to share their stories, with translations provided for non-Spanish-speaking listeners. He has also hosted a Latin dance music program since 1995. Congratulations, Victor, on another remarkable milestone, and keep going. Cost of Living 50 13:39 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay When I'm speaking with locals throughout my community, the No. 1 concern they raise is the cost-of-living crisis facing Western Sydney. That's why on Tuesday night I held a tele town hall to discuss the cost-of-living stresses right throughout my community. It was fantastic to have the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living, Senator Jane Hume, attend a chat with me about the impact of the cost of living and rising prices, including for the basics, across Western Sydney. We heard from many people in the community, including Allan of St Marys and Tracey of Cranebrook about home ownership and from Michael of Jordan Springs, Matthew of Oxley Park and Belinda of Claremont Meadows about rising energy prices impacting household budgets. I thank the over 4,200 Lindsay locals who participated in the tele town hall for their important questions and a really good discussion. I am committed to raising their issues in this place and will continue to do so. I also thank the shadow minister for finance, Senator Hume, for discussing those issues with my residents—how the government is not acting adequately on these matters, and what the coalition will do to ensure Middle Australia is protected from these inflationary pressures when we return to government. FIFA Women's World Cup 51 13:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I might have dwelled a little longer on the State of Origin had the result been slightly different, but that's old news now. The sporting event that we should all be getting behind is one that will be right in our backyard in less than one month's time. Unlike with the State of Origin, we can all join together as one and get behind our Matildas as they compete to win the FIFA Women's World Cup on home soil. Sam Kerr will swap her Chelsea kit—I must say I'm a Chelsea fan; go Sam!—to lead the Matildas out to face their group B opponents: the Republic of Ireland, Nigeria and Canada. I want them to know they will have the whole of Australia cheering them on from the stands and on screens, small and large, across the nation. Football truly is the world game, and the importance of securing major events like these can't be understated. Cities flood with people from across the globe to see their teams give their all on the world stage. I'm pleased that my home state of South Australia will see four group-stage games and a game in the round of 16 knockouts, all from Cooper Stadium in Hindmarsh, which I'm sure the member for Adelaide will be looking forward to. Those four group matches will showcase South Australia, as fans from China, Haiti, England, Panama, Brazil, South Korea, Morocco and more show their true colours and enjoy the sights and flavours that make Adelaide the best place in Australia to be. Ministerial Standards 51 13:42 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The public deserves to know who our ministers are meeting with. The news today that former cabinet minister Stuart Robert met with consulting firm Accenture to discuss a $111 million federal project, triggering probity concerns, shows it's time that we published ministerial diaries. The public needs to know who ministers are meeting with and why, and they need to know that as soon as is practical. We should have known about this important meeting between former Minister Robert and Accenture in 2021, not now, after he's left office and resigned. The federal government needs to legislate to require ministers to publish the meetings that they have with lobbyists, politicians and interest groups. With trust in government at an all-time low, politicians must do more to actively reassure Australians that they are always acting in Australia's interests, rather than in their own self-interest. The federal government agrees with me. When in opposition, now Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus spent years urging the then Attorney-General, George Brandis, to publish his ministerial diaries. At the time, he noted that there was 'an undeniable public interest in the release of public information about who a minister is meeting with'. I agree. The federal government should act to require its ministers to release their diaries. The public deserves faith in the integrity of government, and transparency is vital to integrity. Bendigo Electorate: Housing 51 13:43 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On the weekend, the Prime Minister announced $2 billion for a social housing accelerator plan, and I have to say I was at first excited and then relieved. I was relieved to know that our government was doing its bit to help with supply, and helping the state government of Victoria get on with what they call the Big Build, and I'll tell you why. In speaking to local real estate agents—I do talk to them, even though most of them are of the blue colour, as opposed to the red colour—they all tell me the challenge is supply. One agent with a significant rental stock said that, since the beginning of the pandemic, they've lost about 25 per cent of that rental stock. They've lost it to first home buyers—we welcome that—and to people who are moving out of Melbourne and choosing to live in Bendigo—we welcome that too; welcome to our community! But it doesn't change the fact that they've lost 25 per cent of their rental stock. Supply is the problem. Real estate agents have also told me that $400 is about a price point. Anything under $400 a week to rent gets snapped up really quickly; anything over that is sitting on the books. We know supply will help put down downward pressure. It will make sure rents stay affordable. We know that supply is critical to solving our housing crisis. That is one of the reasons I really welcome the initiative that was announced on the weekend. This government and our side are really committed to solving the supply challenge we have in this country. I call on all those who want to see an end to the housing crisis to get on board and support these measures. Bowel Cancer 52 13:45 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Earlier this week, I met the wonderful, strong and brave Jessica Pratt in my office here in Parliament House. Jess had travelled here from Mount Martha, in my electorate, to discuss the brutal reality of her lived experience with one of Australia's biggest killers: bowel cancer. You wouldn't know it from her kind and determined character, but less than a year ago Jess said goodbye to her husband, Dean, after three years of fighting stage 4 colorectal cancer. Dean was only 35 when he was diagnosed. He was a non-smoker, a non-drinker and an overall fit and healthy man. He'd done everything right. Dean underwent more than 60 rounds of chemotherapy and 40 rounds of radiation before he was taken from this world far too early, and Jess found herself a widow at 40. Despite this horrific tragedy in her life, Jess is powerfully using her story to create awareness and to advocate for further research and the lowering of the screening age in Australia to 40 or 45 years of age. Understandably, Jess is particularly passionate about the damage of bowel cancer to a younger generation. Death from bowel cancer is five times that of the national road toll in the age bracket of 22 to 45. It is the deadliest cancer. Jess is urging the government to help create greater awareness within this age group, so they know that they too are at risk and visit their GP or go to their local chemist and get a screening kit. Thank you, Jess. Homelessness 52 13:46 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby A few days ago I did a bit of a shouty speech about homelessness and the thoroughly offensive political games being played with people's lives by those opposite and the Greens political party putting the brakes on social housing so they can campaign about it. I mentioned the $9.5 billion worth of strategies the Albanese government is already doing to address housing supply. Thank goodness there are things we can do as a government that don't need to go through them, otherwise they'd probably block that too. I want to take this opportunity to explain why this is so important to me. Those opposite and the Greens political party use people experiencing homelessness or housing stress as political pawns in their campaigning strategy. These are real people. Before I came to this place, I ran homelessness services. I sat with people experiencing homelessness. I heard their stories and their desperation. Importantly, I heard their hopes and aspirations, and I celebrated with them when we found them a home. These are real people and real families in dire straits, and I urge those opposite and the Greens political party to get out of the way of housing. Only housing ends homelessness. These are real people's lives you're playing with. I'd also like to give a call-out to Vinnies for their CEO Sleepout, which is on tonight across Australia. Vinnies provides enormous homelessness services. The funds go direct to services. Please get behind it. Fishing Industry 52 13:48 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Fishers in Wide Bay like Mark Alexander have worked for years with the government on sustainable fishing strategies. Suddenly, all that work has been for nothing. Change is being proposed in Queensland by both the state and federal Labor governments to sea zones where fishing will be restricted or prohibited entirely, creating a perverse outcome of economic destruction in coastal villages which rely on the fishing industry. Fish are a sustainable and renewable food source. Burdening our domestic fishing industry with restrictive regulations after zero consultation doesn't mean Australians suddenly lose their appetite for seafood; they buy it from other countries—predominantly countries which have lax or no fishing industry or aquaculture standards at all, which undermines the sustainability of our oceans and the health of our marine life. Meanwhile, in Cooloola Coast, a fisherman who loses his livelihood can't employ people or feed his kids while we're all forced to eat imported seafood—all because of changes made by people who wouldn't know a mullet from a marlin. Regulation is important. Fishers know that. That's why they have worked with government. But now they have been cut off cold. The Palaszczuk and Albanese governments' refusal to engage will be at the detriment of communities here and afar. Graham, Mrs Joan, AO 52 13:49 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My electorate of Holt is home to one of our newest Order of Australia recipients, Joan Graham. For more than 50 years Joan has selflessly fostered countless children. From tucking in the little ones at night and reading them bedtime stories to being the parental figure they needed, she showered these children with love and a non-judgemental attitude to ensure all children felt safe and supported. For more than 40 years, Joan volunteered for the foster care agency OzChild, and retired only two years ago after a fall. Joan is also a proud mum of four with her late husband, Brian. Learning of Joan's story reinforces the infinite love people can have for one another. Throughout the last 50 years, Joan has shown that no matter what is going on in our personal lives, we can always make time to help others. Congratulations, Joan, on your OAM. I am so proud and honoured to represent someone of your calibre in this place. Climate Change and Energy 53 13:51 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax We must all learn from history, we must all learn from those who are older and wiser and we must also learn from our own personal experiences. But, as a nation, as we look to the great challenges that lie ahead, we must also learn from the next generation. I was delighted to have facilitated some workshops recently with the year 11 and 12 students from Kulin District High School. The students, like their peers, demonstrate enormous open-mindedness and also critical thinking. They are prepared to listen, but they rightly demand to have a say. They are the ones who will be creating the path for our future, and it is important we engage with them. As I look to that next generation, it gives me enormous confidence that, despite the political argy-bargy that can sometimes surround the topics of climate change and energy, we have the capacity as a nation to get this right. Meeting with the next generation is a reminder to all of us that we also have to look to next-generation climate solutions, next-generation energy solutions and next-generation technologies to get us there. Thank you very much, Kulin District High School. Housing Affordability 53 13:52 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Earlier this year I joined the Member for Warringah to visit Mosman House, a facility run by Women's Community Shelters. They have pioneered an innovative temporary housing model where they identify buildings slated for redevelopment but which are awaiting development approvals. These properties can sometimes sit vacant for years. With the help of industry, they have turned these buildings into temporary accommodation for women and children at risk of homelessness. I met the extraordinary women who run this program and representatives from an industry like Lend Lease who provide the resources to make it possible. I also got to meet some of the women who rely on the program for temporary shelter while they look for more permanent housing. While they are all grateful for the few months of accommodation they get while they find their feet, the key message from everyone has been the urgent need to find more permanent housing solutions, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is getting on with doing. We're getting on with the job of building more affordable and social housing. It's just such a shame that in this place people are using our housing policy as a political football. Despite the calls of the construction industry, the Property Council and community housing providers, those opposite and the Greens have united to oppose the Housing Australia Future Fund. I urge them all to back our housing bill because the women at Mosman House cannot afford to wait any longer. Wine Industry 53 13:54 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker There is a crisis facing Riverland wine grape growers. The loss of the Chinese market has resulted in a severe red wine oversupply. Those opposites have done nothing to help the industry, as I outlined last week. Of the Riverland's almost 1,000 growers, around 600 supply 200,000 tons of grapes a year to Accolade Wines via a grower cooperative CCW. Most growers finished picking their 2023 harvest in May—it's now mid-June, and Accolade it is yet to finalise a price for cab sav and shiraz wine grapes. With an average cost of production of around $300 to $400 a tonne, you can imagine the stress caused by this delay. I met with Accolade last year and impressed upon them the need to provide timely clarity around price. More recently, invitations extended by my office to facilitate meetings with Accolade have been refused, and the cooperative's attempts to negotiate with Accolade in recent months have also been unsuccessful. Riverland growers are a vital part of the Australian wine industry, and it goes without saying that these small businesses are integral to the local economy of the Riverland. It's about time that Accolade, as one of the largest wine companies in the world, honours the contracts with growers and accepts and abides by the independent experts' determination around— (Time expired) FIFA Women's World Cup 53 13:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong In a few week the FIFA Women's World Cup will kick off, and I'm very excited that the world game is coming to Australia. The FIFA Women's World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world, and this year's event is on track to become the most attended standalone women's sporting event ever, with over one million tickets sold. Global superstars Sam Kerr, Ellie Carpenter and Caitlin Foord will be selling out stadiums in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. This tournament will be epic and will give us all the opportunity to celebrate women in sport. In my time as mayor of Ryde I saw firsthand how fast women's football is growing. This world cup and all its glitz and glamour will no doubt spur on women to play the beautiful game. I encourage everyone to get out and watch the game if they have the opportunity, even if Australia isn't playing, and, for those sold-out Matildas games, to try and get out to a live site. Thanks to Councillor Bernard Purcell and the Labor team in the city of Ryde, Meadowbank Park in Bennelong will be broadcasting Australia versus Ireland on the big screen on 20 July. It will be a great event, with food trucks, heaters and beanbags, where you can take the whole family and cheer on the Aussies. We will wipe the floor with the Irish! Be it on television, at a live site or at the game, I'd encourage all to get behind the Matildas on the road to lifting the world cup. Ransley, Mr Francis, OAM 54 13:57 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Wynyard has lost a trailblazer and an entrepreneur with the passing of Francis Ransley OAM. I've known Mr Ransley, an electrical engineer by trade, since I was a kid. In fact, everyone in that community has. I remember the day when, at the age of 13, I bought my first clock radio off him. It was made in Australia—how's that! Mr Ransley's passions were speedboat racing, vintage cars and his beloved community. His service in each of these pursuits was recognised when he was awarded the Order of Australia medal. His 20-year career in powerboat racing started with dinghy races in the Wynyard regatta and culminated in 1983, when he set the national water speed record of 228.46 kilometres an hour in his hydroplane, ironically called Road Runner. This 40-year national record still stands. Forced to give up his passion because of a medical condition, Mr Francis Ransley turned his hand to his other love, restoring vintage cars. In 2005 he opened Wonders of Wynyard, which houses his wonderful vintage car collection. His vision was to develop an attraction that drew tourists off the main Bass Highway and into his township. That vision has been realised and acknowledged by Tourism Tasmania. Francis Ransley will always be held in high regard with them, as he is with all of that community. He will be deeply missed. Vale, Francis Ransley. Member for Dickson, Member for Melbourne 54 13:58 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Last night at the midwinter ball there were a couple of good mates dining together. There were a couple of good mates sitting at the same table talking about politics, talking about how they can work together to defeat government policy and defeat government legislation. Of course, the two mates sitting at the same table were the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Greens. They were sitting together, talking about how they can block housing not just once, not just twice but three times. They want to block the Labor Party's housing bill to build 30,000 affordable rental properties, including 4,000 homes for people who are escaping domestic violence and want a safe place to live. Not only that, they were also working together to vote for Senator Canavan's motion to have an inquiry into the ACT Greens. I'll be very interested to hear what the ACT Greens think of that. Then they also voted together to block the Labor Party's Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, which puts an intrinsic value in protecting our environment and protecting the very precious things that we need to pass on to future generations. Well, we're not going to work together with the Leader of the Opposition. We want to deliver for the Australian people. We don't want to play political games. We want proper policy for the people that we are privileged to represent. We're not going to be sidetracked by this new chummy friendship between the Leader of the Opposition and the Greens. We've got real work to do to deliver for the people who put us here. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 54 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Canada: Wildfires 54 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Prime Minister Trudeau was deeply grateful for the help that is being provided by Australia to deal with the dreadful fires that are currently ripping through Canada. It was late at night there in Canada, but he wanted to speak to me to convey his thanks to our firefighters and to our nation, and I committed to passing on his thanks here to this chamber. There are currently 422 active fires burning across Canada, with 199 of those considered to be out of control. Over 3.3 million hectares of land have burned, and tens of thousands of people have been displaced. Unfortunately, we in this chamber are familiar with these scenarios, which are coming more often and with more intensity around the world. I am so proud, as all Australians should be, that there are currently 364 Australian firefighters and incident management specialists on the ground and that additional crews of 124 are preparing to leave in coming days. These Australians come from every single state as well as from the ACT, and they are making an enormous difference on the ground. I say to the Australians: please keep yourselves safe. We know that in 2019-20 that not only did so many Australians lose their lives but American firefighters who were here to assist lost their lives as well. So, to our firefighters, we say: we are proud of you. We now return that favour to our friends. Canada provided 100 firefighters here during that summer of 2019-20. We spoke this morning with Prime Minister Trudeau—and I have had these discussions with President Biden as well—about how, increasingly, with climate change leading to more intense and more frequent events, we're going to have to have these exchanges more and more, most tragically. We say to our firefighters: thank you. You do our nation proud. 14:03 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I associate the opposition with the Prime Minister's fine words and send our very best thoughts, wishes and prayers to those who are fighting in our country's name on behalf of Australians, alongside their brothers and sisters in Canada at the moment. Australia is renowned around the world for those men and women who wear the uniform of our Australian Defence Force, but there are also those paramedics, those firefighters and those police officers who are quite often deployed internationally to hotspots of difficulty in our region and right across the world because of the reputation that they have earned over a long period of time. The training that is done conjointly and the shared values that we have with a country like Canada come to the fore in an hour of need. Canada knows—and no doubt Prime Minister Trudeau would have conveyed this to you, Prime Minister—that when Canada is in need of help we stand up and provide that help to her, as Canada has on so many occasions provided it to us. We say to the families of those Australian firefighters who are deployed at the moment that this will be a period of anxiety for you and for those colleagues who are left behind, who will be worrying about the safety of those officers who are fighting these fires in Canada. We wish them every success. Godspeed, and may they return safely and quickly. No doubt they will provide support to the Canadians to save life and property in their quest there. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 55 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, your government has delivered two budgets that have weakened our economy. Taxes are up and electricity and gas bills are getting out of control. We have higher inflation than the US, France and Germany. Australians are worse off today than when you came to government 13 months ago. When will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for his economy-destroying policies? 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The fact is, under this government we have turned a $78 billion deficit into the first projected surplus in 15 years, of $4.2 billion. We had the strongest jobs growth in the first year of any new government: 465,000 new jobs created, and, for the first time, more than 14 million Australians have a job. We have a record number of women in jobs, and more women working full-time. We have pay packets growing at the fastest rate in more than a decade. The gender pay gap has fallen to an historic low of 13.3 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition raises international comparisons, and I'm happy to do so too. The GDP growth of Australia is higher than all of—all of!—the G7 countries. It's higher than Canada, higher than France, higher than Germany, higher than Italy, higher than Japan, higher than the United Kingdom and higher than the United States. The participation rate is higher than in all of those countries as well. Employment growth is higher than every single country in the G7. We are the only country that is in surplus—all G7 countries are in deficit. And, of course, because of this government more than one million Australians will pay less for child care next month. Eleven million Australians will pay less to see a doctor. Because of our budget, another six million Australians will pay less for their medicines; 480,000 Australians will pay zero for TAFE—will pay nothing for TAFE; five million Australian families will get relief on their power bills and one million small businesses will get relief as well; 111,000 households will pay less to make their houses more energy efficient; and, of course, 250,000 aged-care workers will get a pay rise. People on the minimum wage we'll also pay more. This government has put forward a constructive budget. Those opposite still have not put a costing on the one thing that they announced in their budget reply. (Time expired) Budget 55 14:08 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. What approaches have the Albanese Labor government changed to make budget management more responsible, and why is this so important? 14:08 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Boothby for her question. The Liberals and Nationals made a mess of the budget, and we are cleaning it up. Our responsible budget management is rebuilding our nation's finances and leading to smaller deficits, less debt and lower interest costs. We are returning 87 per cent of revenue upgrades. We found $40 billion in savings and reprioritisations, compared to zero dollars in the last budget from those opposite. We are forecasting a budget improvement of more than $143 billion over the four years to 2025-26 from the last budget they delivered. The improvements in the budget are a direct and a deliberate result of the actions taken by this Albanese Labor government. As we've said, a stronger budget isn't just an end in itself; it is a foundation for everything we want to do for our people and for our society. It allows us to provide responsible cost-of-living relief to people who are doing it tough and to invest in the capabilities of our people and the capacity of our economy into the future. Importantly, our responsible budget takes pressure off inflation, a fact acknowledged by the Reserve Bank governor. A week before the budget was handed down on 9 May, the member for Hume issued a press release that said: The test for this Budget will be to balance the budget … We are now eight days before the end of the financial year, and we are on track to deliver the first surplus in 15 years. Those opposite were forecasting a $78 billion deficit for the same year. What's clear is that we wouldn't be anywhere near a surplus without our spending restraint, our savings and our decision to return most of the revisions of revenue to the bottom line. When those opposite came to office, they promised a string of surpluses. They said: … we will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that. We all know how that turned out: they went zero for nine—doughnuts! The great irony of Australian politics is that the Liberals talk about surpluses and the Greens talk about social housing and in the last decade neither has delivered any of either. In fact, those opposite delivered more consecutive deficits than any government since the 1920s. They delivered the biggest deficits since Federation. It was a decade of debt, a decade of deficit and a decade of disappointment. That's because surpluses aren't made of mugs and they aren't made of memes. They're delivered through the responsible economic management and spending restraint that would be unrecognisable to the economic failures who sit over there. We take responsibility for cleaning up the mess that they left with the budget. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 56 14:11 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Professor Megan Davis, a member of the government's referendum group, has written of the Voice: 'The Voice will be able to speak to Reserve Bank.' Minister, would the Voice have the power to offer advice to the Reserve Bank on interest rates? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Wannon will cease interjecting. The member for Riverina was heard in silence. So shall be the Minister for Indigenous Australians, who has the call. 14:12 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The Reserve Bank is independent. Not even the Prime Minister can influence the Reserve Bank. Environmental Conservation 56 14:12 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to protect and restore nature while rewarding landholders is for their good environmental work? What has been the response? 14:13 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Wills for his question and for his support for the Nature Repair Market Bill, which passed through the House of Representatives last night. This is a bill that's designed to make it easier for Australian businesses, individuals and philanthropists to invest in projects like planting trees, restoring stream banks, getting rid of feral species, dealing with weeds on farmers' properties and making our land, our beaches and our seas more resilient. It's great for farmers, for First Nations communities and for other landholders that have already been doing this work on their land, protecting and restoring nature. It's a way of getting more money into nature restoration. No government has done more for the environment or for climate change than this government. No government has invested more in the environment and the Albanese Labor government. This project is not designed to replace government effort but to enhance it, to join with it to better improve nature. That's why the World Wildlife Fund, for example, have said they support initiatives that recognise and reward real improvements in conservation outcomes. It's why it's supported by the Northern Land Council, Landcare, Farmers for Climate Action, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and the National Farmers Federation. I thank Labor MPs and those on the crossbench that worked so constructively to pass this legislation, but I am perplexed that, once again, we have the coalition teaming up with the Greens political party to block action to protect nature. On the one hand, the National Party have been saying that this is their proudest achievement. On the other hand, we've got the Greens, who are saying, 'Please invest more in nature; where's the money?' Here they had an opportunity to direct money into the hands of farmers and regional communities and to support more investment in nature, and what did we see instead? We had the National Party voting against money for farmers and the Greens political party voting against investment in the environment. It is extraordinary that they have teamed up once again to say no, because they are addicted to saying no. Instead, please, in the Senate reconsider your position, work constructively with us, as the other members of the crossbench did, and let's see farmers, native title holders and private landholders better rewarded for their protection of nature. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Easson, Ms Mary Louise, Papua New Guinea: Nurses, Christian College: Students 57 14:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to advise the House that in the gallery today are Ms Mary Easson, the former member for Lowe; nurses from Papua New Guinea who are in Australia as part of the international workforce development program; and students from Christian College in the member for Corangamite's electorate. A warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 57 14:16 Ms STEGGAL 175696 Warringah L () (): To the Prime Minister: your government has backflipped and blocked an inquiry into Middle Arm in Darwin, despite $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money allocated to this project, extensive self-interested lobbying and seemingly no independent business case or assessment of risks and benefits to the Australian people. FOIs show the key purpose is as a gas export terminal. Why is the public funding key infrastructure for a private gas company to make record profits from exports? 14:17 Ms 102376 Brand MADELEINE KING (—) (): I think the member was trying to impute that there is a subsidy for fossil fuels in Middle Arm. That is not the case, and we have made it very clear that that is not the case, and it will continue not to be the case. We will continue to work with the Northern Territory government on the development of the sustainable development project there in the Northern Territory, on Middle Arm. It is very important for the Northern Territory to diversify its economy. It does have challenges to its economy, and the Albanese Labor government will continue to support and work with the Northern Territory government. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has said before, this government will have an equity stake in that project, and we'll continue to work right across northern Australia, and particularly in Darwin, where this project is very important for future export industries. Housing 57 14:18 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How will the Albanese Labor government's ambitious housing agenda tackle housing challenges across Australia? What is currently blocking it? 14:18 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Spence for that important question and for his support for our broad, ambitious housing agenda. It is ambitious, but importantly it's also achievable. The $575 million that we unlocked immediately means homes are under construction today because of the decisions that we made. The Housing Accord, in our first budget, meant another 10,000 affordable rental homes, matched by the states and territories with another 10,000 affordable rental homes. In our last budget, we had $2 billion for Housing Australia, to support more social and affordable homes, and changes to build-to-rent, again to encourage more rental homes to be built in Australia. Then of course there was our announcement last weekend of the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause for a moment. The member for Deakin and the member for Wannon are now warned. If they persist with any interjections, they will leave the chamber. I'm not having any more of it. Ms COLLINS HWM The $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, announced last weekend, is investments in social homes—that is, public and community housing—with the states and territories. And of course our Housing Australia Future Fund, which would build 30,000 social and affordable rental homes in the first five years of the fund, is central to our ambitious housing agenda, but it's clearly not the only thing that we are doing. What we are, as a government, is we're about delivering, but what we won't do, as a government, is offer something that is impossible, and that's what we're asked to do in the Senate where our Housing Australia Future Fund is being blocked. We've got the Liberals and the Nationals who are blocking it, because, of course, they no longer believe in future funds, even though they set some up. And then, of course, we've got the Greens political party, who are blocking it for something that actually cannot be delivered. Everybody in this place knows that in the Constitution it shows very clearly that we do not have the power to implement a rent freeze. Secondly, the experts and the evidence tell all of us that it would make the situation worse, that it will not work. Indeed, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute said: It won't work because it will discourage new investment, so new supply won't be brought on. Then, we've got Professor Graeme Samuel, the former head of the ACCC, who said: … they should understand that the fundamental problem we've got is lack of supply. He went on to say: The moment you put a rental cap in place, you just simply exacerbate the supply problem. On this side of the House, we want to get on with the job of building more homes and we want to deal with supply, as I outlined. We also, of course, want to support the Australians that are renting, and we're doing that through the National Cabinet with renters' rights. We did that in our last budget with our increases to Commonwealth rent assistance, the 15 per cent increase, the largest increase in more than 30 years. While we are delivering, those on the other side want to keep delaying and they want to keep blocking this important legislation. They can keep blocking it for things that are impossible, but we're going to keep on delivering for the Australians that need it most. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 58 14:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Australians. If the Voice provides advice to the government to change or abolish Australia Day, will the government follow that advice? 14:21 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I refer to my previous answer on this matter given yesterday. To provide context, I'd like to acknowledge the four land councils from the Northern Territory that join us today—Samuel Bush-Blanasi from the Northern Land Council, Matthew Palmer from the Central Land Council, Gibson Farmer from the Tiwi Land Council and Thomas Amagula from the Anindilyakwa Land Council. They came together at Barunga and issued the Barunga Voice Declaration, which they presented to the Prime Minister this morning. In part, it says: We need to be heard and urge our fellow Australians to stand with us and vote 'yes' in the forthcoming referendum, for the sake of a better future for all of us. Housing 58 14:23 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working to improve access to affordable housing, and why has the Housing Australia Future Fund failed to pass? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Of course, the government does have a comprehensive plan for housing, and we've been acting. Just on Saturday we announced our $2 billion social housing accelerator, and we want that to add to our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which has failed to pass the Senate. I was heartened to see this morning a media release. It came across my desk today, and it said this: 'Greens set to negotiate with government on housing bill'. It said the 'Greens are ready to negotiate in good faith to get the public community the affordable housing Australia desperately needs'. I thought: 'You beauty! They've woken up to themselves.' But then I saw the date at the bottom: 4 October 2022. Since then it's been clear there's no good faith here, just a political party driven by self-interest which is prepared to declare in writing: … this parliamentary conflict helps create the space for a broader campaign … that's prepared to declare: While Parliament has debated the HAFF, the Greens have also launched a national door-knocking campaign targeted at Labor-held federal electorates. that's prepared to declare in writing: 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. Faced with being in parliament and in a position to actually try and address poverty and financial stress, they declare in writing that that would demobilise the movement against poverty and financial stress. Therefore, they blocked the Housing Australia Future Fund. Now, Australians rejected the pathology of political conflict that had defined the Morrison government—always looking for an argument and never looking for a solution—but Australians will also reject the phony political conflict being waged by the Greens political party. You can't say you support public housing while you're voting against it. You can't say that you're serious about protecting vulnerable people in our society while you're voting against public housing. Vulnerable people should not be the collateral damage in your manufactured political conflict. It's time to stop blocking so we can start building. Mr Sukkar 242515 Max is in your head, Albo! Max is living rent-free in there! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). I'm not mucking around today. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 59 14:26 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Referendum Working Group member Thomas Mayo has stated: We need the power of the Constitution behind us so we can organise like we've never organised before. and: … we keep going, we maintain this momentum until we change the system, until we tear down the institutions … Was the minister aware of Mr Mayo's views when she appointed him to the Referendum Working Group? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Assistant Treasurer will remain silent for this answer. 14:27 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I addressed this issue yesterday, and the day before. I am responsible for what I say. The referendum is about two things. It's about recognition and it's about listening. It's about making a practical difference. I simply will not engage in the style of politics that we're seeing today. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 59 14:28 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will the Voice provide better opportunities to close the gap in health outcomes for First Nations people? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the—the House will come to order, because I want to hear from the Minister for Health and Aged Care. 14:28 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Robertson for his question. Later this year, Australians will have the chance to vote to change our Constitution to recognise the place of First Nations people in this country, more than 30 years after the High Court finally swept aside the longstanding fiction that this was vacant land when Europeans arrived more than 200 years ago. Australians will get a chance to give shape to that recognition through a voice to parliament and to the executive, and I can't think of a more important area where we should listen to that voice than health. For too many years the parliament and health ministers of both political persuasions have been confronted with the appalling health gaps that exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, health challenges that unarguably impact Indigenous Australians differently, to use the language of the Attorney General, but also some health challenges that are largely unknown to non-Indigenous Australians, challenges like rheumatic heart disease which was largely eradicated from developed countries more than 50 years ago. It is a disease of grinding poverty. Doctors in our major cities will likely never see a case of rheumatic heart disease but the rates in remote Aboriginal communities are among the highest in the world, higher even than in sub-Saharan Africa. These health gaps are reflected most starkly through eight fewer years of life for Indigenous Australians but they are riddled right through the system and, in some cases, they are, frankly, getting much, much worse. While cancer deaths, very happily, declined overall by 10 per cent last decade across Australia, they actually increased by 12 per cent for Indigenous Australians. None of this is news. We have all known about this for years and we have all worked hard to close the gap. But with the best of intentions and with substantial investment, the current approach simply isn't working and, in the few areas where it is, it's simply not working fast enough. Frankly, we do need a new approach, and I am confident that a Voice to the parliament and, frankly, a Voice to the health minister will help find better, more effective, practical ways to close the gap and allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to live longer, healthier, happier lives. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 60 14:31 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Yesterday the minister told this House that subsection (iii) of the Voice constitutional amendment means parliament will determine the functions and the powers of the Voice. Isn't it the case that subsection (iii) explicitly deprives parliament of that power to make laws, where those laws conflict with the Voice's powers under subsection (ii), and interpreting the scope of those would be a matter for the High Court, not this parliament? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW I am not sure if it is possible to have a question that is more directly seeking a legal opinion than the one that was just asked. The standing orders have very few prohibitions but that is one of them. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B This is a question that goes to matters that the minister put to the House yesterday, so it's perfectly standard to ask the minister to explain what she was saying in her answer yesterday. The SPEAKER 53517 The part of the question regarding a legal opinion, obviously, is not in the standing orders. The question regarding the minister's answer yesterday is in order, so she is able to refer to that part of the question, and I give her the call. 14:32 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I absolutely stand by my response yesterday. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 60 14:33 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the education gap between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? How will the Voice help to close that gap? 14:33 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the sensational member for Tangney for his question. This year all Australians have a chance to make history, to put our history in our Constitution and to recognise the fact that Australia didn't begin when Captain Cook arrived but that the Australian story—our story—goes back more than 60,000 years. We have a chance this year to give that history a voice. Why are Indigenous Australians asking us for that voice? To answer that question, imagine this: imagine a life where your brother or your sister dies a decade younger than they should. Imagine a life where your children don't go to preschool, or where they fall behind at primary school, a life where they will never finish high school. Imagine a life where your children are more likely to go to jail than to university. Just imagine that for a second. That's not a life that you would cop, but that's a life that a lot of Indigenous Australians live. If you lived that life, you would know that this is about people, not parking tickets. It's not about interest rates. This is about things like this. At the moment, 56 per cent of young children start prep or kindy developmentally ready to start school, but only 34 per cent of young Indigenous kids do. And that number's getting worse, not better; the gap is getting bigger, not smaller. At the moment, Indigenous Australians are three times more likely to fall behind at school than the other kids in the classroom. At the moment, 82 per cent of students finish high school in Australia, but only 57 per cent of Indigenous kids do. One in two young Australians in their 20s have a uni degree but only seven per cent of young Indigenous Australians do. We all want this to change. Everyone who is good, fair and decent in this country wants this to change. But if we want it to change, we have to change not just what we do but the way we do things. And that's what the Voice is about. It's not me saying that. It's not us saying that. It's what Indigenous Australians are saying. They're asking us to listen, asking to be heard—asking for something that will have no impact on most of us but could just change the lives of a lot of other Australians. As Noel Pearson has said, ultimately, the Voice will demand better results out of school education. If that's not a reason to vote yes, then I don't know what is. Housing 60 14:36 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Prime Minister. Regional Australia is suffering from a disastrous lack of housing supply. In Wangaratta, people are sleeping in tents because there's nowhere for them to go. Last week the government said it was going to give $2 billion to the states and territories to build thousands of new homes. Did the government impose any conditions or receive any assurances that some of this money must go to regional Australia? 14:37 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Indi for her question. Certainly, when I was having discussions with each of the premiers and chief ministers, as well as at the virtual meeting that we held last Friday afternoon, all of the premiers—including the premier of Victoria, with whom I announced the program at Moonee Valley on Saturday. I had a meeting with him afterwards. He's very conscious about the need for homes to be built not just in our capital cities but in our regions as well. Ms Ley 00AMN He doesn't even know where regional Victoria is. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting or be warned. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I just said, 'Don't interject or you'll be warned,' and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition immediately interjected. I don't know how much clearer I can be to her. She is warned and will remain silent for the rest of question time. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Victorian premier certainly knows where regional Victoria is, because he holds the seats throughout regional Victoria. Ms Catherine King 00AMR He's from there—Wangaratta! A government member: He's from the bush! Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 And he happens to be from the bush as well. Each of the states and territories wants to use this additional funding—on top of the $1.6 billion that we allocated for the one-year extension of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement and on top of the additional $2 billion that's been provided for community housing—to ensure that we deal with the issue of pressure, particularly on our major capital cities on the East Coast. That is something that we have had serious discussion on, and when we meet again next time around there will be a focus as part of planning, which the states and territories have agreed on, to ensure that zoning is appropriate, to make sure that we can get more houses built and that they can be built in appropriate places. One of the drivers of that is the increased need to have more housing in regional communities. I'm happy to work with the member for Indi on an ongoing basis, as I'm sure the housing minister is, the infrastructure minister, who is responsible for cities and regional development policy, is and the local government minister is. A lot of this is about working with the three levels of government. We know that many of these communities are suffering from a failure to fill the labour markets that are available because there is enormous growth in these communities. Mr R36 So, I thank the member for her question, which is similar to the question raised by the member for Kennedy yesterday, and I look forward to working with her on an ongoing basis to make sure that it is delivered. (Time expired) Defence 61 14:40 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Defence. Following a wasted decade in the defence portfolio, what action is the Albanese Labor government taking to clean up the mess? 14:41 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. Front and centre, one of my responsibilities over the course of the last year has been cleaning up the mess that has been left by the single worst government on national security in our country's history. We inherited a capability gap with our submarines as the former coalition government were in and out of a deal with Japan, in and out of a deal with France—giving rise to a decade of indecision. We inherited 28 different programs running a combined 97 years over time. What we've now learnt is that in their last five years, the former government effectively engaged in $20 billion worth of cuts to the Defence budget, including taking billions of dollars secretly from the defence budget in a single strategic reserve adjustment alone. The Leader of the Opposition was the last defence minister in that government but, to be fair, it was not all his fault because what preceded him was a revolving door of defence ministers: Johnston, Kevin Andrews, Senator Payne, Pyne, Senator Reynolds. It's hard to remember them all! But what is really clear about that revolving door is that the former government regarded the defence portfolio as a trophy, and they saw the Defence Force as an opportunity simply to raise money for the Liberal Party. The Liberals believe that they had a brand advantage— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Prime Minister will just pause so that I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B As well as being a widely inaccurate melange of factual misstatements— The SPEAKER 53517 What's your point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B The point of order is on relevance to the question. This minister has spent well over a minute on matters carried out under the previous government. Your ruling has been that the appropriate thing for the minister to do is to speak about what he's doing, and I'd suggest to you he should be brought back to that requirement. Mr Chester IPZ And we're telling Christopher too! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland is warned! The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the objection that the Manager of Opposition Business is making is actually an objection to the question. The question was in order, and they didn't object to it. The Deputy Prime Minister is certainly being relevant to every part of it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition? Mr Dutton 00AKI Whilst you're considering the matter, Mr Speaker, there was an improper imputation that the minister suggested, and he should withdraw that. He should withdraw that unparliamentary remark that was quite offensive, quite separate to the other valid points made by the Manager of Opposition Business. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW To what was just raised—because I know there's an increasing trend to try to seek anything be withdrawn if it upsets someone, even in a political sense—what the Deputy Prime Minister did was explain a point of fact about when donations were sought, and points of fact should not be sought to be withdrawn. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to remind the Deputy Prime Minister to be careful with his language, so it's within standing orders. On the point of order: the question was about 'following a wasted decade in defence, what action the government is taking to clear up the mess'. Whilst the minister is allowed some compare and contrast, he needs to remain his answer within standing orders. I'll listen to him carefully to make sure he is complying with that. I'll hear from the member for Wannon. Mr Tehan 210911 Mr Speaker, there was an imputation. I would ask you to look at it. It would help the House if the minister withdrew. If he doesn't, I would ask you to look at that and come back and advise us why he hasn't. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member is entitled to raise a point of order. I shall review what the minister said and write back to the member for Wannon. I give the call to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr MARLES HWQ Astonishingly and infamously, they actually tried to do it. The Liberal Party think they have a brand advantage on national security, but that has made them lazy. Theirs is not a party of defence strategists; it's a party of defence dilettantes. If they ever did have a strategic advantage on national security, one achievement in the last decade is that those opposite totally and completely obliterated that. The country has moved on. This government has now removed the capability gap when it comes to our submarines. We have re-tasked our Defence Force for the first time in 35 years. We have got the defence budget back in order, focusing the defence spend on where defence needs it the most. We are serious people running a serious government, making serious decisions. The proper reading of Australian history is that, when times have been difficult for our national security, Australians have always looked to Labor. The First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War—Fisher, Curtin, Hawke. As our country faces the most complex strategic circumstances since the Second World War, another Labor government, the Albanese government, is committed to keeping Australians safe. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina can now be warned alongside the member for Gippsland—two of you! Floods: New South Wales 62 14:47 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Prime Minister. It's been more than seven months since flooding hit Central West New South Wales. In towns like Eugowra, more than 100 people are still living in temporary housing with no government support to rebuild their homes. Prime Minister, when will communities in Central West New South Wales get this support? 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. I visited Eugowra, of course, with the then New South Wales Premier, Dominic Perrottet, and the member for Calare as well as the local mayor—just as I visited communities such as Lismore and others that have been affected by flooding just as tragically. I visited the area of the Riverland, with the member for Barker in attendance as well, and, tragically as well, attended floods in northern Tasmania and floods in Broome and around the Kimberley. This has had an enormous impact. Of course, I am certainly not just willing; I want to work with the member, as I've worked with other members. On issues in Lismore, we worked to purchase some properties as well and make sure—but I know that the mayor of Lismore, who I met last week when I was at the Australian Council of Local Government, indicated there were still ongoing problems there. Where there are problems, it is not good enough—simple as that. We need to do better. Governments of all persuasions need to work together. These aren't partisan issues. I don't take a partisan approach to this, as the Leader of the National Party will know. That's why I have always informed—I visited seats with the member for Page, the member for Barker and the member for Calare. Wherever these occur, I'm willing to do whatever it is that the Commonwealth will do. Of course, by and large, it is the states that provide housing. There is no Commonwealth public works department that builds housing and provides support. Some of the issues that we need to work with are issues of insurance for people, and we know that has been a challenge—too many people who have lost everything find themselves in disagreement with insurance companies. We're working on that with the Insurance Council, and I think there has been significant progress there. I worked very closely with the Perrottet government at the time. We worked in a completely bipartisan way at different levels of government. I'll certainly raise issues that the incoming Minns government and the Premier of New South Wales have raised with me. I'm happy to work with him over the break, as well as with the Leader of the Nationals. The local member for Calare has been very diligent in standing up for his community that has suffered so much as well. Commonwealth Procurement 63 14:51 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is for the Minister for Government Services. I refer to the Minister's previous answers concerning prior lack of probity and procurements in contracts in government services. What have we learned about these previous practices in the portfolio which have been rejected by this government? 14:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On 24 November last year I first updated the House on the disturbing reports in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age alleging Mr Stuart Robert used his status as a federal MP to help Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 sign up corporate clients with a promise of helping them navigate government bureaucracy and parliament and meet key decision-makers, including coalition ministers. As further details have emerged, I have updated the parliament subsequently. The initial report detailed how Mr Robert personally intervened in contracts worth $274 million awarded to Indian software giant Infosys. Mr Robert met with Infosys, a Synergy 360 client, in December 2019 at the Gold Coast home of his political fundraiser Mr John Margerison. Leaked emails show that he had given insights on progress of Infosys and future opportunities. Flowing from these disturbing revelations, Services Australia and the NDIS investigated potentially tainted contracts linked to Synergy 360. The review, led by eminent former public servant Dr Ian Watt, found that of the 95 procurements reviewed 19—or one in five—had real deficiencies. Since then, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, chaired by the member for Bruce, has heard more disturbing allegations against Synergy 360 and Mr Robert. The JCPAA heard evidence from Mr Margerison explaining how he instructed his accountant to direct Synergy 360 profits derived from Commonwealth contracts to a trust to which Mr Robert was a beneficiary. Paragraph 44(v) of the Constitution covers disqualification of parliamentarians. It states that anyone who: has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. To be clear, at this point we don't know if that threshold has been breached. What we do know—and I'm sure I speak for most members of the House—this conduct is not business as usual for most members serving in this place. Furthermore, despite these revelations, Mr Robert remained on the frontbench until his sudden resignation immediately prior to the formation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission next month, in turn causing the Fadden by-election, costing millions of dollars and inconveniencing 109,000 Gold Coast electors. Still, fundamental questions remain. One: was Mr Margerison installed in Synergy 360 to secure Mr Robert's influence in govt procurement? Two: was Mr Margerison installed in Synergy 360 to channel funds through related entities to Mr Robert? And, crucially, three: was Mr Robert a shadow director of Synergy 360? Housing Affordability 63 14:54 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning on Radio National, when asked about limiting rent increases, the Treasurer said, 'We're prepared to show leadership at national cabinet on renter rights and other aspects.' We know you oppose a rent freeze, but even limits on rent rises would make a massive difference to millions of renters in crisis. With the ACT Greens-Labor government limiting rent rises and the Victorian government now looking at rent caps after a deal with the Greens, will you show leadership at national cabinet to help make unlimited rent rises illegal? 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. I note that the member for Melbourne and the Greens political party say that this is a stumbling block for them voting for the Housing Australia Future Fund, which would deliver 30,000 additional public and affordable housing units, including 4,000 that are reserved for women and children escaping domestic violence, including funding that would deliver assistance for veterans at risk of homelessness and including Indigenous housing. They say that that's the case, but the truth is that every single state and territory leader has said that they do not support a rent freeze—every single one. In the ACT, the only jurisdiction in which there is the measure that the member referred to, it is for inflation plus 10 per cent. That is over just a one-year period. The fact is that we are organising with the states and territories work on renters' rights and will continue to do so constructively. But I say to the member for Melbourne that there is legislation before this parliament, now— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 before the Senate, that can be passed with the Greens' support today and then can return to this House. It is legislation that would guarantee that at least $500 million a year, additional to everything else that we are doing, would go into social housing. That would, because the key is supply, put downward pressure on prices. I say to the member for Melbourne: if the member for Melbourne has been a part of deferring this legislation not once but twice until October and therefore ensuring that the legislation effectively— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Australian Greens on a point of order? Mr Bandt M3C Yes, on relevance. We're two and a bit minutes in, and the Prime Minister has not addressed the central question about whether at national cabinet he will support and advance limits on rent increases. That has not been addressed. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister, under the standing orders, needs to be directly relevant, which he is being, so he is in order. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll tell you what would have a devastating impact on renters. That would be, in June, to say, because the Greens political party have blocked this legislation even from being debated until October—if you said to every property owner out there, 'You've got till October till a rent freeze comes on,' what do you think would happen? Do you think they'd put up their rents or do you think they'd decrease them? That is why your propositions are so ill thought out and opportunistic. Get on with the program; vote for social housing. Do it today. (Time expired) Early Childhood Education 64 14:58 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Why is the Albanese Labor government so focused on delivering cost-of-living relief to Australian families by making early childhood education more affordable? 14:59 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Fraser for his question because I know that, like me, he's incredibly excited about the fact that 6,600 families in Fraser will benefit from our boost to the childcare subsidy. The member has asked me why we are so focused on delivering this. Quite simply, it's because it's the right thing to do. It's because this government knows that the first five years of a child's life set the foundation for their future. It's because this government knows that the cost of early learning and care has put it out of reach for so many families for far too long. It's because this government wants to lift productivity and increase workforce participation. And it's because investing in early learning is an investment in our economy and an investment in our future. That's why, on every day since the Prime Minister used his budget reply speech to make our government's commitment to more affordable early learning, we have been working to deliver on that commitment to the Australian people. Our changes will boost the childcare subsidy for over 1.2 million families right across Australia, and that includes 265,000 families in rural and regional Australia. That's real cost-of-living relief. That's real money back in the pockets of Australian families. We know that there is more work to do, because we're also looking to the future and taking steps to consider how we build a world-class, affordable early learning system that works for every Australian child. That means children in Cowan, children in Fraser, children in Swan, children in Gellibrand and children in every Australian electorate right across the country. We will build a system that is flexible and responsive to children and their families' needs. Parents like Lauren, who is a teacher from Victoria, told me how important early learning is. This is what Lauren had to say: 'Access to affordable and quality early learning is essential for me if I am to achieve the career I desire. I am so thankful that we have a quality local centre that allows me to achieve the balance between what I want professionally and personally'. Our reforms are going to assist people like Lauren and families across the country. We will continue to make early learning a priority for this government. (Time expired) Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 65 15:02 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Can the minister confirm that the Voice would have the power to advise the government on taxation policy? 15:02 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I am not sure how many times I can say this. The provision makes it very clear that the Voice will advise on matters that effect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and matters that effect Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people differently. That's things like life expectancy, things like baby birth rates, things like self-harm. These are the things that we are referring to. I cannot be any clearer than that. In terms of context, can I say that the referendum is about two things. It's about recognition and listening. It's about making a practical difference. We have seen 'no' campaign postings on social media that are clearly false, including an image of Bob Hawke saying that he did not support recognition. His widow sent me this: 'There are many joys but also many tears in politics'—that was Bob speaking—'Bob once said to me, "Yunupingu is a soul in torment. He grieves for his people." Bob grieved to. His greatest disappointment as a Prime Minister was that he could not deliver his promise to Yunupingu and the Indigenous people of Australia for recognition.' The SPEAKER 53517 The member or Hughes? Ms Ware 300123 My point of order goes to relevance. The question was very tight. We are now halfway through, and it was a question particularly on whether or not the Voice is going to be able to advise the government on matters of taxation policy. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being directly relevant. I will listen to the remainder of her answer. She will be heard in silence. Ms BURNEY 8GH I have been extraordinarily relevant. I've answered the question, and, as Bob would have said, we should grab this with both hands. I suggest you do. Albanese Government 65 15:05 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Prime Minister. As the end of the budget parliamentary sittings approaches, what actions has the Albanese Labor government taken to build stronger foundations for a better future? 15:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Pearce for her question, and I thank her as one of the four new members from Western Australia, which is part of the reason why we were able to form government and have a vote for a better future. We've worked every day since May last year to deliver for them. Six weeks ago our Treasurer handed down our second budget, our second budget within the first year of us being in a position to form government. That budget builds a stronger foundation for the better future that we committed to. It was about taking pressure off families while not putting pressure on inflation. It was about helping Australians with real relief right now when they need it, whilst building for the long term. The budget built on the achievements of our first year in office, turning a $78 billion deficit into a $4.2 billion surplus; boosting bulk-billing, with a tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, helping 11 million Australians see a doctor for free; halving medicine costs for more than six million Australians; funding an extra eight Medicare urgent care clinics; investing in a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers; providing $3 billion between us and states and territories on energy-bill relief; increasing JobSeeker; increasing rent assistance; increasing the single-parent payment. During all of that, those opposite have said no to absolutely everything. They're defined by what they're against, defined by their negativity, and we see it in the way that they approach question time, where last week they spent it going up a dry gully, and this week they've done the same thing. In less than 10 days, on 1 July, another one of our commitments will become a reality, cheaper child care. Medicare urgent care clinics will start opening. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will start. Our reformed Safeguard Mechanism will come into force. The energy incentive for small business will take effect, and the extra $2 billion for social housing will start running as well. We'll keep on with the job, while those opposite just keep saying no to everything. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 65 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Workplace Culture 65 15:08 The SPEAKER 53517 I wish to make a statement to the House, and I ask all members to remain silent. At the beginning of the year, I presented to the House the annual report on the implementation of recommendations from the Set the Standard report. The Prime Minister then moved a motion to the House to endorse the draft behaviour standards and codes from the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards. This endorsement was an interim measure pending the establishment of the agencies and framework for enforcement of those workplace standards and codes for parliamentarians and parliamentary staff. Members across the chamber made heartfelt contributions to that debate. We must continue in that same manner, and as this is the final sitting before the House adjourns for the winter, I thought it was timely to remind members of our shared responsibility in relation to developing a safe and respectful culture at Parliament House. Our general demeanour and the courtesy we show one another in the chamber matters. From the language we use to the tone and volume of our contributions, the standing orders guide and support respectful dealings in the chamber. As a House, we have changed our standing orders to facilitate more family-friendly hours. Further, as all members have seen, I have been firm and consistent in asking members to withdraw unparliamentary terms when raised by other members. We have clear guidance too about general responsibilities from the safe and respectful workplaces training program, as well as those draft behaviour standards and codes for parliamentarians. We need to act individually and collectively to enliven those values in our culture. Before the House returns on the last day of July, I want to encourage each of us to genuinely reflect on our own behaviour and consider what contribution we are making and could make towards a safe and respectful workplace environment for the parliament. I thank the House. STATEMENTS 66 STATEMENTS Personal Explanations 66 15:10 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Today in question time the Prime Minister selectively quoted an article and then impugned meaning to those words that were the complete opposite of those words. I don't mean to explain it in full but I would like to quote some of the words before and after that selective quote. The SPEAKER 53517 The member will just resume his seat for a moment. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The Prime Minister. Mr Albanese R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. A personal explanation has to show where a member has been misrepresented. The member has just stood up and said that I quoted him, which I did. I tabled his whole article in the Hansard yesterday, which he wasn't capable of doing, because I want people to read exactly what it is that they are saying, which is that the motivation for the holding up of the Housing Australia Future Fund is all about politics. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the Australian Greens. Mr Bandt M3C The member, especially on a question of misrepresentation, where the appropriate form is not to intervene while the statement is being made during question time but to wait until afterwards, should be entitled to make that point. If after that, anyone considers that that is a misrepresentation, then the Prime Minister has other forms that he can take, including making his own, as he did yesterday. But at minimum, especially after what you just said, Mr Speaker, about appropriateness in this chamber, he has to be able to make his statement in full. The SPEAKER 53517 Members will resume their seats or leave the chamber quietly. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Just to the point of order, the normal practice on personal explanations is that someone provides a quote and then explains that that quote is inaccurate. That is the normal process. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, the deputy leader of the opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN I certainly felt very uncomfortable with the bullying attitude of the Prime Minister to a first term MP, not just at the dispatch box yesterday but on the way— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members will cease interjecting immediately. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor is warned. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Firstly, I put that that was an abuse of a point of order. Secondly, the concept and allegation of bullying is a serious allegation and should be withdrawn. And words like that, when they're used simply when someone takes a point of order, actually create a problem for when real instances occur. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for the Environment and Water, on a point of order. Ms Plibersek 83M In response to the deputy leader of the opposition's point of order, I feel profoundly offended and worried when the deputy leader of the opposition constantly interjects when ministers on this side are responding to questions. Her interjections are constant, they are personal and they are nasty. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the Australian Greens will resume his seat. I want to deal with what the deputy leader of the opposition said. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left and my right! If interjections continue, people will leave the chamber immediately. I'm going to ask the deputy leader to withdraw that comment so I can assist the House to deal with this point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I stand by my comment and my allegation, and, Mr Speaker, I will not withdraw it. The SPEAKER 53517 To assist the House, I'm going to ask the deputy leader to withdraw what she said, in light of my remarks before—just to assist the House. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the deputy leader of the opposition for assisting the House and for her graciousness. I want to deal with the member for Griffith, but the Australian Greens leader has another point of order. Mr Bandt M3C Very briefly, in response to a point raised by the Leader of the House in the first point of order, just to advise, I will say that the member did summarise the statement that he said amounted to the misrepresentation, and it shouldn't be incumbent on the member to requote a whole answer. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I'm going to ask the member for Griffith to be short and sharp and explain to the House where he has been misrepresented, not read out the quote that the Prime Minister said, because that's a quote, but just explain where you believe you have been misrepresented. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 The Prime Minister selectively quoted to the extent, and then impugned meaning to those quotes, that it implied the direct opposite of what the article was arguing. I just wish to make one quote from that article, if that's okay, that puts those word in context. The SPEAKER 53517 You've explained where you've been misrepresented. I thank the member for Griffith. Just so we're clear: we've dealt with this matter. You've explained where you've been misrepresented to the House, and that's enough. I thank the member. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 67 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 40 of 2022-23 67 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 40 of 2022-23, entitled Comcare's administration of its workers' compensation scheme claims: Comcare. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Presentation 67 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 67 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 67 15:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. In speaking to the motion, I indicate to the House that, at the end of the discussion of the matter of public importance, I will advise of where we're up to, in terms of transmission from the Senate. We won't know until then, in terms of where we're at for this afternoon or tomorrow, but I'll report as soon as the MPI is over. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Government Response to Report 68 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of the status of government responses to committee reports as at 20 June 2023. The schedule will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows: Speaker's Schedule of the Status of Government Responses to Committee R eports As at 20 June 2023 The Speaker's schedule to the House of Representatives on the status of government responses to committee reports is presented at six monthly intervals, usually in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings. The last schedule was presented in the House on 1 December 2022. The schedule presents a list of committee reports that contain recommendations requiring a government response. Government responses received during the period are included in the schedule and the report it relates to is then removed from subsequent schedules. The timeframe for government responses to committee reports in this schedule is determined by the resolution adopted by the House on 29 September 2010, in which government responses to House and Joint committee reports are required within a six month period from the presentation of the report in the House. The Senate has resolved to require government responses to Senate and Joint committee reports within three months of a report being tabled.[1] This schedule does not list reports that do not require a government response. In the past, the practice was to include all reports tabled in the Speaker's schedule. However, the intent of this schedule is to provide an update to the House on the status of government responses to committee reports. The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations that are wider than the provision of the bill and would therefore be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to bill inquiry reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' regular scrutiny reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments are not listed, as the timeframe for a response is specified in correspondence to the relevant minister. Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report. Executive Minutes are included in this schedule and are listed as (Partial response) The table below provides a summary of government responses received and outstanding to committee reports of the 43rd to 47th Parliaments inclusive: The following table lists responses received (since tabling of the last schedule on 1 December 2022) and outstanding (as at 20 June 2023): Notes [1] This practice has arisen from a Senate resolution of 14 March 1973, in which the Senate declared its opinion that the government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of tabling. Successive governments have affirmed their commitment to providing such responses. [2] The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date. [3] If the source for the government response date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote. [4] The Government has undertaken to respond to committee reports within a six-month period—see House of Representatives Standing Orders, resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six-month period. The period from when the 44th Parliament was prorogued on 9 May 2016 to the commencement of the 45th Parliament on 30 August 2016 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 45th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2019 to the commencement of the 46th Parliament on 2 July 2019 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 46th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2022 to the commencement of the 47th Parliament on 26 July 2022 is not included in the response period. [5] In his second reading speech on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022, delivered in the House of Representatives on 8 September 2022, the Attorney-General referenced this report, stating that 'This bill would extend the relevant [police powers'] sunset dates by 12 months so that there is sufficient time to consult on, and then implement, the government's response to the committee's bipartisan recommendations over the coming months.' [*] Presented out of session MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 75 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 75 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's inability to explain what the Voice is and how it would work. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:19 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson This week the parliament has been on view to the Australian public. The public are very curious about a very significant issue confronting our nation—that is, the Voice—and the question will be put to the Australian people, presumably in the first or second week of October. I think the Australian public were watching this week, expecting answers from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and, indeed, from the Prime Minister, perhaps even from the Attorney-General. There were over 20 questions put to the Minister for Indigenous Australians and not a straight answer given. Let's be very clear about it: there was not one straight answer. The Australian public viewing this week in question time could be none the wiser in terms of the operation of the Voice if it is voted upon successfully in October of this year. This is the most significant proposal to amend the Constitution since 1901. This is the insertion of a new chapter into Australia's rule book. When the forefathers established the Constitution, they put in place a double test. If there was to be a change to the Constitution, it required a majority of states and a majority of Australians. They didn't do that lightly. They didn't think a 51-49 proposition would be viable to change the Constitution of our country. They thought through it and put it into black-and-white lettering in the Constitution that that double test would be required, because they wanted to protect the sanctity of that document. They wanted to make sure that the stability that we have thus enjoyed since 1901 as a democracy, as a country, went into perpetuity. They wanted to make sure that, through any event, internal or external to our country, the rule book would be the guidance for this chamber and for the other place. There is no law that can pass this House, no law that can be agreed to by this parliament—even if there is every member of this House, 151, sitting on the one side in support of the bill—that can be passed that is in contravention of that national rule book. The Constitution has primacy over this place. To the extent that there is an inconsistency, the High Court will deal with it. They will rule on it. We saw it only a couple of years ago in relation to section 44, where, almost inconceivably in the minds of many Australians, people who were sitting in this parliament were ruled to be ineligible because of their heritage. The High Court can sit for years in relation to a particular question that might hinge on a single word, a single sentence or a single paragraph within the Constitution. So, if the proposal is before the Australian people that there should be a change to that rule book, a change to the Constitution, a change to the way that government operates in this country, it needs to be for good reason. I think that's why millions of Australians at the moment, even if their instinct is to support the Voice, or to support a situation that might improve the lives of Indigenous Australians—they would instinctively do that—have a significant hesitation in their minds. And the deliberate strategy of this government is not to answer that question or to allay that concern that millions of Australians have. In fact, we've seen from the Prime Minister, quite openly, contempt towards Australians. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has used language suggesting that some Australians aren't smart enough to understand the proposition being put to them. It's completely shameful. I think it's completely regrettable that our country has been put into a position where we are being divided, not united. Let's look at a little bit of the history in relation to this debate. Previous governments—Liberal governments, Labor governments—have worked with the opposition of the day to try to find consensus around these issues, to try to find a bipartisan way forward so that we can have the '67 moment, so that we can have 80 or 90 per cent of Australians coming together at a point of national unity. That's what we all crave, because we want a better outcome for people in Alice Springs, in Laverton, in Leonora, in Tennant Creek. We want those kids to lead the same life that we expect to be provided to our kids in capital cities, in outer metropolitan areas, in regional areas. We want an outcome for those Indigenous Australians. We want improvements in life expectancy—of course we do. We want to see educational standards improve. We want to see every Closing the Gap statement and measure improve. Every Australian has that in their hearts, but the question is whether the Voice can provide that. The Prime Minister has said that, if the Voice fails, it will tarnish our international reputation. If the Voice fails, he says, it will set back reconciliation. Well, I agree with him on the second point, and this is the point that we need to concentrate on now as a country. It's clear in all of the published and private polling that the government will not achieve success at the time of the next election in relation to the Voice in October of this year—at the constitutional election. It is clear that there is a lot of emotion in this debate and the government wants Australians to vote on a vibe. That much is very clear. I believe very strongly that reconciliation will be harmed in this country if the Voice fails, and it's incumbent on the Prime Minister to address this very important issue. It's incumbent on the Prime Minister to recognise the facts in relation to this debate. The Prime Minister stepped away from the bipartisan approach when he came into government and he saw a wedge. He saw a wedge opportunity: if the vote went down, he could blame that on the coalition parties. That's the political objective, the underbelly of this debate. That's the reality. If the Prime Minister is going forward with a constitutional change that he believes is going to fail, that will set back reconciliation, then it is incumbent on this Prime Minister to stop that course of action. The best outcome achievable, according to many pundits and many experts observing this debate at the moment, is that the nation is split evenly down the middle in October of this year. It should be incumbent on any Prime Minister to provide the leadership to prevent that from taking place. We have proposed that there should be constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. We believe that that is the 1967 moment of unity for our country. We believe that Australians could stand together in October of this year, supported by the Labor Party, supported by the Liberal Party, supported by the Nationals, supported by the Greens, the teals and the Independents—every member in this place. We believe that's the moment that the Prime Minister should grasp, because the Australian public is not ready to vote for the Voice. The Voice hasn't been explained to them—that has been very clear—and, as I say, it's a deliberate strategy to starve the Australian people of that information. Consider this reality. The Prime Minister's proposal is that people will vote in October, presumably the seventh or the 14th at this point. They will be asked to vote on the Voice to change our nation's rulebook. The design of the Voice will commence on the following Monday. Australians are being asked to vote before the Voice has been designed. Six months of consultation will take place, we're told. The construction of the Voice, which will be the most significant change to our Constitution in our nation's history, will take place after people have been asked to vote. There are no words that the Attorney-General can include in his second reading speech that will override the words inserted into the Constitution. Let's be very clear about that. The Attorney-General knows that. This legal nonsense that was put forward by the government this week that some sentence inserted by the Attorney-General into the second reading speech will somehow override the provision in the Constitution is a legal nonsense. This Prime Minister owes it to the Australian people to be honest with the Australian people and to stop being tricky. Stop being tricky, Mr Prime Minister. What we are seeing at the moment is a government that is deliberately keeping information from the Australian public. It is hoping that, because of their goodwill that the government seeks to exploit and because of the vibe of the thing, it will pass. This will be the most significant change made to the way in which our government operates in our country's history. The Prime Minister of the day has the option before him now to work with us, to say to the Australian public that we will go forward in a unifying, not dividing, manner in October this year. That is the hand of friendship that we extend to the government today. We proposed to legislate the Voice. Let's do that. Let's sit down and work together on the drafting of that and make sure that Australians can understand how it works—good and bad—but let them be informed. Don't treat the Australian public with such contempt. That's the duty of the Prime Minister of the day, and at the moment he is sadly lacking in his fundamental duty to the Australian people. 15:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler What we just heard was 10 minutes of misinformation, 10 minutes spent trying to create confusion and spread division, 10 minutes totally devoid of empathy, 10 minutes completely unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this country. Mr ALBANESE R36 In 2017, Indigenous Australians met and agreed on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Leader of the Opposition has just given a statement without a heart. This is very clear. The question that Australians will be asked at this referendum is clear. The exact wording of the constitutional provisions is clear. The eight design principles explaining what the Voice will do, and what it won't do, are clear. All of this information has been available, in some cases for many years. Most of it was developed when the former coalition was in government. What's just as clear is that some of those opposite are not interested in answers. They were always set on saying no. The Nationals said no before they even saw the question, and the Liberals said no before the parliamentary process even started. The question before the Australian people is simple: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? Yes or no? Then there are the provisions which are there: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: 1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; 3.— importantly, the one that maintains the primacy of this parliament— 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. In addition to that, the Attorney-General's second reading speech made it very clear that they would advise on 'matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' and, importantly, on 'matters … which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community.' The eight principles that were developed under Calma and Langton are clear as well: independent advice; chosen by Indigenous people themselves; representative of Indigenous communities; empowering and community led; the need to be accountable and transparent; working alongside existing organisations; importantly, not a funding body; no program delivery function; and, also importantly, the Voice will not have a veto power. They used to talk about the Solicitor-General's advice. This is what the Solicitor-General's opinion said: The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax is getting close to being warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 It went on to say: … it seeks to rectify a distortion in the existing system … in my opinion proposed s 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system. It went on to say it: would not alter the existing distribution of Commonwealth governmental power … instead operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government. The Voice clearly has no power of veto. It went on to say: … if proposed s 129 is introduced into the Constitution, representative government will be unaffected. That, of course, is consistent with what people such as Justice French and Justice Hayne have said. Today, the four land councils of the Northern Territory came to present to me the Barunga Statement, calling for a vote for yes in the referendum. In the history of our federation we've had 122 years of decisions being made about Aboriginal people, without Aboriginal people. With the best of intentions, we have presided over an expensive, well-intentioned failure. It's been 122 years of doing things for Indigenous Australians; this is our chance to do things with Indigenous Australians. With respect to the Leader of the Opposition: when he appointed Julian Leeser as the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I said to colleagues, and I thought, that someone who had been a part of this process for far longer than myself—going back to at least 2012—and who had supported a voice so strongly was able as a legal practitioner to give advice as well to the now opposition, making it very clear that this scare campaign is completely unworthy. This morning the Leader of the Opposition was on Ray Hadley's show, speaking about the Voice dealing with where defence bases would be. I mean, seriously! Indigenous people have an eight-year gap in life expectancy, a suicide rate twice as high, and rates of disease and infant mortality and family violence so much worse than in the general community. Young men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. They have among the worst incarceration rates in the world. Only four out of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. Something is broken, and fixing it should be above politics. The idea of recognition through a voice did not come from here in Canberra; it came from Indigenous Australians themselves, from the ground up, from the people who know the difference that change can make. Aunty Pat Anderson said this on Monday: It is a universal truism when you involve people you make decisions for, you make better decisions … That is what this is about—listening to people, working with people, getting better at decisions. All we need to do is listen. That is the opportunity this referendum represents for all of us—not as members of a political party, or, indeed, as members of parliament, but as Australians. We can answer the gracious, generous, optimistic request from Uluru: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. It went on to say: In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. That's what Australians are being asked to vote for—to say yes to recognition and yes to listening. I go to all the scare campaigns we've heard before. The Leader of the Opposition, in 2008, said: 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. 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 occurred—nonsense then, nonsense now. The Leader of the Opposition didn't just sit there and tell Brendan Nelson he was opposed to it; he actually stood up and walked out. That's the Peter Dutton that I know. That's the Peter Dutton that Australians know. And we're seeing it played out again. I finish where this historic opportunity began—with the final words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart: We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. Churches, sporting organisations, civil society, business and Indigenous people themselves are out there saying yes. And I am optimistic that Australians will also say yes. (Time expired) 15:39 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker One of the great privileges of this place is we get to speak to 24 million to 25 million Australians. But I want to address my comments this afternoon to the seven million Australians who were born overseas. My parents were born overseas. These are Australians who have had the great privilege of holding an Australian citizenship certificate. I know members in this place all share my pride in attending those events and speaking at those events. You can see the pride in the eyes and on the faces of those individuals as they hold that certificate. I love speaking to those newest Australians and taking the opportunity to tell them that, in becoming Australian, not only have they joined the greatest club on earth but they are as Aussie in that moment as Albert Namatjira, Bob Hawke and Don Bradman—in a more modern context, perhaps John Howard, Steve Smith and Cathy Freeman. The point is that there is only one class of Australian citizenship, but if this proposal is acceded to by the Australian people I will never be able to say that again. Australians like my parents, who held that certificate of citizenship, will never be able to claim they are as Aussie as Indigenous Australians. Exclusive rights will be conferred on those individuals. Yesterday in this place, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs accused me of being someone who can't read. I appreciate she withdrew that statement, but the truth is that some of those seven million Australians can't read English. My father is perhaps one of them—I might get a serve when I get home! The reality is that's why we're in this place asking questions. We asked the minister 20 questions this week, and it's for her to answer those questions so that Australians who don't have what my parents worked hard to give me—a fantastic education—can understand this proposal. Instead, what we've heard from the minister is, 'We don't want to engage in the culture wars,' and, today, 'I'm not going to answer that question.' Give them the information they seek. What do you have to hide? Australians deserve that information. Don't try to hoodwink them to change something no less important than the Australian Constitution. Right now, if the Prime Minister wants to show leadership, he should pause; he should accept the Leader of the Opposition's invitation. Let's move forward as they did in 1967. Let's enshrine the recognition in the Australian Constitution. Let's move forward together as one nation. It is an opportunity to have that moment. But the Prime Minister doesn't want that moment; he wants his moment. He wants his Vincent Lingiari moment. He wants to be Gough, pouring the handful of sand into Vincent Lingiari's hand. He wants his Redfern-Park-speech moment. That's not leadership. Leadership right now is understanding that we can move this forward. Accept the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition. I myself prefer the words 'Indigenous heritage', 'British foundation' and, importantly, 'immigrant character'. That would bring us all together. Best case scenario right now is that we wake up on 15 October and Australians are suffering a referendum hangover. It will be a deeply divided Australia, which will put the cause of reconciliation backwards. Don't be that Prime Minister; be a prime minister that takes this debate forward—one Australia moving forward towards reconciliation. This is his choice now; it's the Prime Minister's choice. Does he want an Australia, on 15 October, that's deeply divided or one that can celebrate its unity and move forward? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me! Time has expired. I'm going to call a halt to these unruly interjections that continue in this House. I'm putting you all on notice. You just had a statement read to you less than 40 minutes ago. Show me that you actually heard something. 15:44 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I am very disappointed in the matter of public importance moved by the Leader of the Opposition today. For more than a year the Leader of the Opposition has been looking for excuses to oppose the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. He's not been looking for answers to genuine questions. He's been asking questions which he knows have already been clearly and fully answered. The Leader of the Opposition has not engaged in this process in good faith. We know this because of the Leader of the Opposition announced his opposition to the Voice before the parliamentary inquiry into the proposed constitutional amendment had even been commenced. We know this. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has not engaged in good faith, because this Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly called for the government to release the Solicitor-General's opinion on the proposed amendment and then, when we released the Solicitor-General's opinion, he ignored it because it did not suit his narrative. We know this because multiple members of the Liberal Party have stood up in this place and deliberately misrepresented the views of former High Court judges, and the Leader of the Opposition backed them in. We know this because this Leader of the Opposition has persistently spread misinformation and disinformation about this referendum proposal. The Leader of the Opposition wants to make this a debate about politics. He wants to create division and negativity just like he did when he walked out of the apology on 13 February 2008, except now we have a leader of the opposition who wants to use this referendum to shore up his leadership of the Liberal Party. This referendum is not about the Leader of the Opposition's leadership of the Liberal Party. It's not about party politics at all. This referendum is about two things. It's about recognising and it's about listening: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, with over 60,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land, and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to laws and policies that affect them. When you listen to communities, you get better outcomes, making a practical difference on the ground in areas like jobs, health, education, housing and justice. That's what the voice will deliver. The Leader of the Opposition has tasked the shadow Attorney-General in the other place with inventing ever-more-hyperbolic claims about the Voice, but nothing that the shadow Attorney-General has said about the proposed amendment to the Constitution can change the fact that this proposal has been extensively scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in the country. That includes the Constitutional Expert Group and the Solicitor-General. They have concluded that the bill is legally sound. As I noted, the government has released the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the proposed amendment. I know that the opposition does not like the opinion. They don't like the opinion, because it doesn't suit their narrative. They don't like it, because it effectively draws a line under the wrong and baseless arguments from the Leader of the Opposition and other senior members of the Liberal Party. Contrary to the nonsense that's been spouted over the last couple of weeks by the shadow Attorney-General and by this Leader of the Opposition, including today, the Solicitor-General says: The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system. The Solicitor-General has also said the proposed constitutional amendment 'would not alter the existing distribution of Commonwealth governmental power'. He said the proposed constitutional amendment 'imposes no obligations of any kind upon the Voice, the parliament or the executive government'. The Solicitor-General said the Voice will operate alongside the existing structures of Australian's democratic system. The Solicitor-General's opinion is consistent with the views of the overwhelming consensus of constitutional experts, which is that the proposed constitutional amendment is constitutionally sound. Australians can have confidence that constitutional recognition through a voice will work. This referendum is the best chance we've had to address the injustices of the past and create change that will deliver a better future. The Voice can do no harm, only good for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and our country more broadly. (Time expired) 15:50 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies With the Attorney-General being here, I want to compliment him on his second reading speech for the bill. I actually thought that speech addressed a lot of the risks that many of us think exist in that drafting. The problem is, it doesn't solve the problem of those risks because of the wording that you have used, and we've heard it in answers to many of the questions this week on scope, words like 'specifically affect' or 'treats people differently'. If that was so important that you put it in your second reading speech, why aren't those words in the actual draft? They're so important because you know that risk exists on scope, yet it's not present in the actual wording. And you don't need to be an experienced lawyer or a former High Court judge to know that your second reading speech can only be used in specific circumstances, and those circumstances are where there is ambiguity. So the question I would like to put you, Attorney General, is: where is the ambiguity in the drafting? If the ambiguity exists, fix it. If the ambiguity doesn't exist, then your second reading speech has no effect and no work to do, so the constant reference to it throughout the week was pointless. It's a well-crafted speech that does not address the risk that we had identified in the joint select committee. This is not about the vibe; it is not about recognition, which has bipartisan support; it is not about seeking better outcomes, which we all want to happen—all of us want that to happen, and we should not pretend otherwise. And if there's a particular person in this place or the Senate who doesn't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, I'd love to hear who that person is. I'd love to hold them to account. Our job here is to listen to and represent everyone in our electorates. This place, the House of Representatives, is the voice of Australia. We represent everyone whether they voted for us or whether they voted against us. Whether they have been here for multiple generations or they came one year ago, we are their voices here and we should be listening to them. So when we say, 'Of course we can do better, of course we can,' is there an underlying assumption there that there's something wrong with our democracy? That there's something broken in Australia's democracy? It's not perfect, but I tell you what: it's one of the best democracies on earth. And we know it's one of the best democracies on earth because people all around the world, when they have a choice of what country to go to, do you know what's top of their list? This country. Australia. And when you see people with tears running down their faces, so proud to become citizens of this country, it's not just because they've gone through all the hoops and hurdles to become a citizen, it's because they know what else is on offer in the world. We are an ancient country but as a democracy we are quite new. We are also one of the oldest and most stable democracies. One of the key ingredients for that is our Constitution. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we deliberately made that a hard document to change. Australians are very protective of it, and that's why it has been changed on so few occasions. And in the copy of the Constitution that we all have—I think if you pull your desk drawers out, you'll find a copy of it—it says this: Australia's Constitution contains little of the soaring rhetoric which is familiar in the constitutions of many other lands. That is one of its strengths. It is a practical, matter-of-fact, unpretentious but effective document. As such, it reflects the pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude which we like to think is among the most attractive features of the Australian character. It's a functional document and it has served us well. We haven't had civil wars. We haven't had blood on the streets. We have been a stable and effective constitutional democracy and we should be very, very proud of that. We didn't have a constitutional convention—and let's not pretend the Uluru dialogues were a constitutional convention. They weren't. None of those words that were put forward to the Australian people in October were tested or discussed in those meetings. They weren't. It did say there was a desire for a voice, but it didn't have any discussion of the detail. So the substitute we had was a few weeks, five days really, for us to hear evidence. And that was treated with contempt because at the end of that process not one word, not one comma, not one syllable was changed because you had made your mind up. You had decided that it was perfect. If the Constitution is amended in October, it is inevitable that the High Court will be asked to decide whether the executive has certain duties under part II. Let's not pretend that part III fixes it, because you fought so hard to keep part II, and you fought so hard for a reason—because it has real power. 15:55 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I want to start this MPI by telling a bit about my story. I grew up in a little town called Whitton in the Riverina. I learned to swim in irrigation channels. We shared that water with yabbies and red-bellied black snakes. I was born at a time when a white woman having an Aboriginal baby was shocking, and doubly so if that woman was not married. My Great Aunt Nina and her brother, Billy, raised me. It was not easy for them, but through their love and kindness they keep me the solid start in life and laid the foundations for the life I have today. In 2010 I returned to Whitton. I was a New South Wales cabinet minister at the time, and a man a little older than me said to me, 'You know, Linda, the day you were born was one of the darkest days this town has ever seen.' I was so shocked. That someone with my unlikely story could be a minister, the first Indigenous woman in federal cabinet and the minister for Indigenous Australians is not lost on me. But what matters is what this represents for Australia, how far we've come and how far we still have to go. I was 10 years old when Australians voted in the '67 referendum. Today I am responsible for another referendum, despite the fact that for the first decade of my life I didn't count. This time it is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution. This referendum is our chance to do better, to make lasting change that will make a practical difference on the ground in communities. Just last week we saw new data that shows 15 of the 19 targets are not on track. If we needed any more evidence that the same isn't good enough, this is it. We have to do things better, and that's where the Voice to Parliament can help, because the Voice will be the mechanism for government and parliament to listen. It will be a resource of local knowledge and can help to make better policies. But instead of listening to these ambitions, we have spent years and billions of dollars on poor outcomes, and this has happened because there is no structural accountability—no voice. Regardless of your own opinion, we should all be able to agree that we need to do better. This MPI concerns how this Voice will work, so let's be clear—the Voice will be an independent representative advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It will be chosen by local communities. It will give independent advice. It will allow local voices to be heard. It will be gender balanced and include young people. It will be accountable and transparent. It will cooperate with existing structures. It won't deliver programs. As the Prime Minister has made clear, it won't have a veto. It is forward for everyone. Friends, how often do we get the chance to put a shoulder against the wheel of history and push? For 65,000 years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been speaking 363 languages but have had no voice. This year, you have the power to do something about it. This whole idea of Constitutional recognition through a Voice began with Aboriginal and Torres Islander peoples themselves. History is calling—it's calling on us to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and it's calling on us to vote yes for the Voice. 15:59 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. This MPI addresses the failure of the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the failure of the government to answer questions that have been put this week in this place. These are genuine questions. These are questions that the Australian people have. These are questions that all of us, including on your side, all have constituents that are asking these questions— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Please address your remarks through the chair. I remind the member for Hughes that when she uses the word 'you', she is directly reflecting on me. Ms WARE 300123 Many constituents throughout Australia are asking the same questions that we have put this week to the minister. These are questions that need to be answered. This referendum is very important. This is very important for Indigenous Australians and it's very important for non-Indigenous Australians. I don't know that there is anyone in this country who is not appalled at this absolutely appalling gap between the health, welfare and education standards of Indigenous Australians and those of non-Indigenous Australians. My husband's family comes from a remote community right out in western New South Wales called Lake Cargelligo. I have seen firsthand the way that a lot of Indigenous Australians live. I may represent a city electorate that does not have a very high Indigenous population—however, with family that are Indigenous, I feel very strongly about Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and about doing something real to address the appalling standards of many Indigenous Australians in this country. Therefore, when I first spoke on this legislation I spoke about us needing to wake up as a nation the day after the referendum and being able to look at ourselves in the mirror and at our fellow Australians—for non-Indigenous Australians to be able to look at Indigenous Australians, and for Indigenous Australians to be able to look at non-Indigenous Australians—and be united. The way that this process has been handled to date by the Prime Minister is not leading us down that path. It is dividing Australia. I believe that if it continues this way, it is setting our country up for a dreadful problem with race relations going far into the future. That is not something that I want. That is not something that anyone in this place wants. Changing our Constitution has been made very difficult by our forefathers. The drafters of this document deliberately made it difficult. There is a reason thousands and thousands of people each year travel across the world and choose Australia as their home. That is because we have one of the oldest democracies, and it is based on a founding document that is simple in its language and that is very difficult to change—and that was done deliberately. We have only had eight occasions since Federation where this document has been changed. Therefore, if the government is going to the Australian people and saying, 'We are now asking you to change this document, to make a fundamental change to our Constitution,' I again say that this is not the way to go about it. This should have been two questions. It should have been done so, so differently. We could have had 80, 90 or maybe 95 per cent of Australians commit to Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. That would have been a day for celebration. That is how that day would look the day after the referendum. If we continue down this path, with questions failing to be answered, we will wake up the morning after this referendum a divided nation and a very sad nation. 16:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson This debate is about how we respond to an invitation— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Does the member for Fisher have something to say? Mr Wallace 265967 No, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I expressly asked the House to stop the interjections. If the member wishes to defy me, I will ask him to leave the chamber. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr BURKE DYW This debate is about how we respond to an invitation—an invitation that came through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. When we hear from those opposite about what efforts could be made for bipartisanship, can I say the pattern that we've seen this time is not unfamiliar to people who've followed some of these debates over many years. I remember what was said in the fear campaign that was run during the Mabo debate. I remember what was said for years. A lot has been made of the walkout during the apology, but let's not forget the years between the Bringing them home report, when it was argued, again and again, what a disaster it would be if the apology happened. And now, in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, what we're seeing is the same thing again. I think those opposite underestimate the generosity of a whole lot of Liberal Party and National Party voters. I really do. If you think about the process of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, none of us knew where it was going to end. It's a political game to try to say, 'This is the government's idea.' None of us knew where the Uluru Statement from the Heart was going to end up. When it was delivered, it was delivered to us all at once, and there was actually a time when the Liberal-National government was considering how it would respond. This goes back a very long time. This is not a process of a few months, as previous speakers have claimed. When the Uluru Statement from the Heart came forward, one of the things that was extraordinary about it was that, for all the things it could have asked for, the ask was so modest and the language was so generous. In terms of explaining the problem, a lot has been quoted from the end, but let's not forget the problem being described in the middle of that statement: Proportionately, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. Faced with all of that, what the statement asks is that recognition occur through a body called a Voice. Why is the government asking for recognition through a Voice? It's because that's exactly what the process requested—a process that was supported by the previous government while it was happening. You say, 'These are the questions that are being asked.' How could you look at the circumstances that so many communities are facing and think that when adult incarceration is 14 times higher the Voice will come back wanting to talk about the Reserve Bank? Or that when children in out-of-home care are almost 12 times higher that it's going to want to make recommendations about Fair Work Commission appointments? Or that when year 12 attainment is so low—for non-Indigenous it's 90 per cent and for Indigenous it's 68 per cent—that it will want to make recommendations about submarines? Life expectancy for males is 71 if you're Indigenous and 80 if you're non-Indigenous. We all know that gap is there, and we all know that every single person on the Voice will know that it's there. Do we really think they're going to want to advise not on that but on the location of defence bases? Do not pretend that those opposite are doing anything other than what they are doing. I know some people have been caught in a party decision, but this is an attempt to undermine something which is a modest proposal. It is simply saying, 'After all of the history and all of the challenges, we want to be recognised and we want to be listened to.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, I'll ask you to leave next time. Mr BURKE DYW And with that, there are two ways of responding to the invitation. Australians are generous. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, I will remind you in particular, given the multiple interjections just then, of the very modest request that was made of us all during a statement that was read to the House an hour ago. Let's be a little bit mindful. I have asked for no interjections. I have tried to make sure you are not being interjected on your side. So, please, show respect. I give the call to the member for Braddon. 16:10 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon It is clear that too many Indigenous Australians still are experiencing unacceptable disadvantage. That is clear. That breaks my heart. It breaks our collective hearts. It is unacceptable. Now is our defining moment to work together to bring about real change and to close the gap. The question before us is not about whether our First Nations people should be heard. Of course they should be heard. The question before us is not whether we should recognise Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution of Australia. Of course, we should. That is a fact. The question before us is whether altering the Constitution is the right mechanism to bring about lasting improvement on the ground to those heartbreaking statistics that we hear and to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples so that they live a better life in a better community. As Australians make their deliberations, I urge them to look inside their hearts and to ask themselves this question: Am I 100 per cent sure that making this decision on this referendum is the right decision? And am I certain that that will change outcomes on the ground for Indigenous kids in the next generation? Changing the Constitution is an appropriate mechanism and that will bring about, as I said, improved outcomes for our First Nations people. I do so from a very heartfelt position. I think back to my time in NORFORCE. NORFORCE is an Army unit which is responsible for surveillance and reconnaissance in remote northern Australia. It is where we involve our Indigenous communities, our Indigenous soldiers. We sign them up, and they protect our coastlines. We are trained to live in the bush there, mostly by the aunties. I remember looking into their eyes, as they taught me schools that kept me alive. I can't explain to this place the amount of love and respect that I have for those aunties. I still today remember them. I still today remember some of those diggers that I took on who had no future at all. I had one bloke who came to me with a torn pair of jeans, a T-shirt and a toothbrush. He had no future at all. He was in trouble with the law and they gave him to me to sort him out. Well, that soldier, after some training and some leadership, led a team from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment into Afghanistan and won a medal for gallantry for leading a team. He now has the respect of his community, and young kids from the community are also signing up for NORFORCE. So you see what I mean about the infectious nature of lifting self-esteem, of raising the confidence level, of showing that leadership. But it needs to happen on the ground. It needs to happen where the herd is. That leadership needs to come from those leaders on the ground, and that is where we need to focus, not on some elitist committee in Canberra. On the ground where the herd is. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sorry, member for Braddon. I'm going to ask for a little bit of quiet from the member on my right. I will ask you to show the respect that I have been asking of the opposition. Let's hear this debate through. Member for Braddon, please proceed. Mr PEARCE 282306 Deputy Speaker, the clock was still running while you were speaking. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give you an extra five seconds. Mr PEARCE 282306 Thank you. The second point I want to raise is this. We talked about division. I'm very passionate about the people that I represent, my constituents. A lovely lady who's 89 came up to me in the street the other day; she's a beautiful woman who's raised half a dozen foster kids—some of them, Indigenous—and she whispered to me, 'I don't think I can support this Voice, Gavin.' And there was no-one around. The fact that that beautiful person, who didn't have a racist bone in her body, thought that she had to whisper because of the shame of having a different opinion to what she was, supposedly, supposed to have—that is division, and that is division that we can't live with. 16:15 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This referendum is an opportunity for this country to take a step on the road towards justice for First Nations people. But what is clear, from motions in this place, from speeches in this place and from the interviews being given to right-wing shock jocks, is that there are those in this country who want to deny justice to First Nations people. Unfortunately, and sadly, the Leader of the Opposition has taken this opportunity to divide, instead of to unite—to continue to use a long and tragic tradition of seeking to use race to try to win votes. And why is this? Well, let's remember that the Leader of the Opposition claims there's sexual abuse in Alice Springs but refuses to report it to the police. The Leader of the Opposition opposes lifting the age of criminal responsibility, which currently sees First Nations children locked up at record rates. That is what is driving this and these contributions to this debate and his effort to divide this country. The Uluru statement was presented to the last government when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He vigorously opposed it then, as he vigorously opposes it now, because, if there's one thing about the Leader of the Opposition that's worth noting, it's that he doesn't change. Last time he was in opposition, when there was a formal apology made to members of the stolen generation, he turned his back and walked out, and said he couldn't support the apology, and was deaf to the cries of anguish. He has built his career on attacking those in a weaker position than himself: calling people seeking asylum 'illegals', and fearmongering about different racial groups, trashing them in the media and in his public comments, and seeking to further his lot through the marginalisation of the weakest in our world. It's the sort of approach that you would expect from One Nation, but it is coming from someone who wants to lead this country. That is his record on immigration. He built and ran prison islands, which saw human rights abuse on an industrial scale. When women were raped, he accused them of trying it on. When people were left with no other option but to set themselves on fire, he claimed it was hype. And he accused refugee advocates of coaching self-harm. That is the history which is leading us to this point. And he has denied the climate crisis, siding with coal barons and urging gas corporations to continue to pollute— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, is there a point of order? Mr BANDT M3C and then attacked those— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sorry, Member for Melbourne; I'm taking a point of order. Mr Chester IPZ A point of order on relevance: I do invite the Leader of the Greens to address his comments to the subject matter before the House today in the MPI. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 He is. I'm sorry; I'm overruling you. The member for Melbourne and Leader of the Greens is being entirely relevant to the topic. Mr BANDT M3C He's attacked those who've been the victims of the climate crisis with his unforgettable 'water lapping at your door' joke. The Leader of the Opposition falsely claimed that people in my home town of Melbourne were afraid to go out to dinner because of African gangs, and I can't begin to tell this parliament the anguish, the distress and the hurt that that caused people in my community—to hear someone who was aspiring to be Prime Minister telling falsehoods about what was happening in our home town, using fear, that then turned on the most vulnerable in our community who needed our support at a time of unity. He claimed that allowing Lebanese Muslims to immigrate was a mistake, and— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, Member for Melbourne. I'm giving the call to the member for Riverina, on, I expect, another point of order? Mr McCormack 219646 And I respect your position; I respect what you said. But this is a matter of public importance about the Voice, not about what the member for Melbourne is raising right here— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 No, no, no— Mr McCormack 219646 and I do ask you to bring him back to the subject matter. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I am just going to speak to that. Stop the clock, please, for the member for Melbourne. I have heard a lot of wide-ranging debate on the voice—a lot—and the member for Melbourne is being entirely relevant to this topic. You were all heard in a respectful silence. I'm asking you to afford the member for Melbourne the same privilege. You have a right to raise points of order. I have dealt with them both. I would hope that you would allow the member for Melbourne, in the less than one minute that he now has remaining, to complete his statement. He gets the full five minutes that each of you got. If I were to pull—anyway, let's move on. Member for Melbourne, you are being relevant, and I'm sorry for those interruptions. Mr BANDT M3C It is critical to understand what is behind the coalition's approach to try and divide this country, because it is part of a history of trying to use race to win votes. We need a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution because of people like the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Hanson, because without a First Nations Voice too many will continue to talk about First Nations of this country as criminals and not as equals. They will ignore how the laws of our parliaments have disproportionately impacted First Nations people. The coalition see the Voice as a threat. They see justice, liberty and equality, according to the far-right-wing Liberals and One Nation, as a threat. But this country is changing. We want a different future. We want to be more than a prison island. We want to come to terms with how we all came to be here. We want to punch up and not down. We want a country which treats everyone fairly. We want to be brave and bold, not weak and cowardly. We want to be proud of our future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. STATEMENTS 85 STATEMENTS Consideration of Legislation 85 16:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I promised I would advise the House where we're up to. During question time, transmission was complete on the one bill that we need to deal with, so that will be dealt with immediately by the minister at the table. If you can get through that debate in seven minutes then we will leave at the normal time. The DEPU 248181 Well, that is an incentive, if ever I heard one, for members. BILLS 85 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 85

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

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

Returned from Senate 85 Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 85

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 85 16:23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. 16:23 Ms HWA Kingston RISHWORTH (—) (): I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I welcome the message from the Senate that they've considered the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 today and passed it with amendments. This bill builds on the changes made by the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, which establishes the enhanced income management program and the repeal of the cashless debit card program. I've followed the debate in the Senate closely, and I thank all senators for their contribution. The amendments made to this bill by the Senate were supported by the government, and I'll briefly summarise these for the benefit of my colleagues in the House. The first amendment requires me as minister to regularly provide an estimate of the costs to the Commonwealth of the enhanced income management scheme. While I note the details of the SmartCard contracts, including their total value, are already available on AusTender, the government welcomes the opportunity to provide more clarity on this issue. The second amendment requires the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to conduct a review of compulsory income management within 12 months and every three years thereafter. The PJCHR regularly engages with this matter. I acknowledge my colleague the member for Macnamara, as chair of this committee, and the committee for the important work they do. The PJCHR's Human rights scrutiny report: report 4 of 2023 includes scrutiny of the income management reform bill. It sought my advice on a number of provisions. I was pleased to provide a response to the committee on 18 April 2023. The third and final amendment requires the Senate Community Affairs References Committee to review each legislative instrument made by me, as the minister, within three months of the day the instrument is tabled in the Senate. I welcome that oversight, and I further note instruments to be made under the bill will be disallowable in the parliament, providing much opportunity for debate and scrutiny. With the passage of this bill we will take another step towards reforming income management in Australia. More than 25,000 Australians will have access to enhanced income management and the SmartCard, increasing choice over where and how they spend their money. But we know there's still a way to go. As I've said on a number of occasions, we will continue consulting and listening to a wide range of stakeholders, including First Nations leaders, women's groups, service providers, communities, people receiving welfare payments and our state and territory counterparts. These diverse perspectives on local needs will strongly inform the future of income management and what it looks like. Consultation is central to everything we do as a government. We want to ensure changes or measures we implement are helping those in need. Our focus and our objective as a government remains clear: to empower people and communities and to provide individuals and communities with a range of supports, and they can choose to use which suits them best. 16:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The coalition will be supporting these amendments. These amendments, thankfully, provide greater transparency and help hold the government to account as it dismantles the former very successful cashless debit card program. It is disappointing to note that, in the other place, the government didn't see fit to support a range of other commonsense amendments to publish details of key metrics, sadly, of social harm that we are now seeing as a result of the cashless debit card being abolished: rates of violent crime; presentations to hospital emergency departments; ambulance callouts; drug or alcohol related callouts; reportable incidents of domestic violence—sadly, all of which we're seeing now rise as a result of this government's decision to abolish the cashless debit card. As I've said all along, the coalition will always work to strengthen income management, and we've committed, and today I'll recommit, to reinstate the cashless debit card in communities who seek to have it, so that payments that taxpayers make can be spent on food for children—not on alcohol, gambling and drugs, which is being allowed by the actions of this government. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 87 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 87 Membership 87 16:28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mrs Andrews as a member for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in place of Mr Pearce. Welcome back to that committee! 16:28 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That Mr Pearce be discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that, in his place, Mrs Andrews be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The ayes overwhelmingly have it. Congratulations! ADJOURNMENT 87 ADJOURNMENT Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 87 16:29 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I think it's incredibly important that the National Party have their say on the Voice. It's a crucial issue for us because we live in the areas where there is a high Indigenous—in my area they call themselves Aboriginal—population, in our electorates. In fact, there are about as many people of Aboriginal descent in my electorate as there are farmers. They are incredibly important. So we come to this debate not from any sense but the most informed—informed that we need to make sure we close the gap. We know that we have issues with regard to health, education and opportunity, but we don't believe that this Voice is the grand elixir, that somehow something that seems to very closely replicate ATSIC except that it's going to be in the Constitution is going to have this marvellous effect, fixing all the problems. Even in its description, we cannot put a line of sight to the legislation that underpins this. Surely the Australian people, including Indigenous people, deserve the respect of seeing the legislation before the referendum. It is not that difficult. If there's one thing any government is capable of, it's drawing up legislation. We have a right—in fact, we have a duty—to oversee that legislation. The Senate has a duty to refer it to a committee and go over that legislation. But to say, 'You're going to vote for this, and then afterwards we'll tell you what you actually voted for' is an anachronism to the democratic process. I truly believe the process this has gone through under the Prime Minister is hubristic, and hubris precedes nemesis. That would be a very bad and divisive outcome for Australia. I implore the Prime Minister to put aside hubris, to be the better man, to come forward in a bipartisan way and to say, 'Let's make sure that, if we have a referendum, it succeeds.' He has the capacity to do that. He must grow to such an extent that he's prepared to do that. There are other issues that we see. One of the big issues is that it goes into the Constitution. That is the key to the High Court. As it is the key to the High Court, what happens in a second reading speech is basically not relevant. The extent of its powers is determined by learned judges down the road, not by politicians in this chamber. Even in the question itself it is quite clear. It says, on the subject of the Constitution: if a consultative process is not abided by, it can be challenged in the High Court. So we were correct that there is no veto and there is a capacity to call a decision of this chamber void, as if it never happened, because the process has never been properly followed. Whether it is in Kempsey or Coledale, Longreach or Charleville, Cunnamulla or other places we live, we want to make sure that we close the gap. The Nationals have been at the forefront of that. With Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Warlpiri woman from Central Australia, we make absolutely that we have line of sight and are completely and utterly informed of these problems. One has to respect the voice that says there's a better way. If we do not have enough confidence in ourselves in this chamber to deal with the myriad problems brought before us, what difference will yet another body that sits beside us to instruct this chamber make? We go away for five weeks. After five weeks, we come back, and the debate will be in full flight. I honestly believe and have believed from the start that the referendum will not be successful. That really concerns me and my colleagues in the National Party, because, as I stated, we live in the areas with high Indigenous population and we'll live with the consequences of what this has turned into: the most divisive time in my experience in this parliament. Jagajaga Electorate: King's Birthday Honours, Jagajaga Electorate: Community Events 88 16:34 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I'm pleased to acknowledge the members of my community who were recognised as part of the King's Birthday Honours last week. Congratulations to Miranda Armstrong OAM and Maria Dopheide OAM from Eltham for their service to the community through social welfare organisations and especially their work assisting refugees through Our Lady Help of Christians Church; to Dr Virendra Berera OAM from Ivanhoe East for his service to the Indian community of Victoria; to Anthony Calandro ACM for his service to the state through his work with Corrections Victoria and providing help to those in their post-sentence phase; to the late Kevin Elms Sr OAM and his family, formerly of Heidelberg Heights, recognised for his service to the community through the love of our national game—that's AFL—and involvement in the North Heidelberg Sporting Club; to Ian Godfrey OAM from Heidelberg for his service to tertiary education and to music; to Mary McBride OAM of Greensborough for her service to the Irish community of Victoria; to Dr Paul Power OAM from Macleod for his service to the nation through psychology; to Dr Margaret James OAM for her service to the nation in the higher education field, particularly for her service to women; and to Imam Alaa Elzokm OAM, recognised for his service in my community since he came to Australia from Egypt several years ago. Alaa has been a great role model as the imam at Elsedeaq Islamic mosque in Heidelberg Heights. There are two more OAMs in my community, locals who I am particularly proud to call friends: Gwen Rosengren OAM of Ivanhoe and Sandra MacNeil OAM of Greensborough. Gwen is recognised for her service to people who are deaf or hard of hearing and to education. Everyone who knows Gwen knows what a wonderful and community minded person she is. Congratulations, Gwen. Sandra, who actually prefers to be known as Macca, is recognised for her service to the people of Greensborough for over 40 years, through local sport, education and the environment. She is a true legend of the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Congratulations, Macca. I also celebrate another local included in this year's honours, who would be known nationally: Marina Prior AM, recognised for her significant service to our country as a singer and performer and in musical theatre. Marina is, of course, one of our country's great performers. I'm proud that she's part of my community. I'm sure we all have a Marina story. Mine is being awed by her performances in shows such as Phantom of the Opera and West Side Story in the early nineties. Congratulations, Marina. Finally, I would like to acknowledge and recognise my predecessor, the former member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin AC, who has been appointed a Companion of the order of Australia. Amongst her many achievements—many of those in this place are aware of her many achievements—she spearheaded the creation of the NDIS, aided in the apology to Australia's First Nations people and was a driving force behind our country's first paid parental leave scheme. I know that neither Jenny nor any of the other people on this list did any of the work they did for recognition, but it is absolutely appropriate that both our community and our country recognise them. So congratulations to Jenny, congratulations to all of the locals recognised in these honours, and thank you for all you do to make our community and our country a better place. It is fitting that we recognise that with honours and here in the House as well. In the time I have left, I also want to highlight the work of some organisations in my community who are doing particularly important work at the moment—and have been doing so over many years—for First Nations people and for reconciliation. Barrbunin Beek, meaning 'happy place' in the Woiwurrung language, is a space in Heidelberg West in Banyule City Council that offers a place for local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to gather. I was really pleased to attend their Family Open Day recently and to catch up there with all the members of Barrbunin Beek and my friend Uncle Charles Pakana. Barrbunin Beek provides connections to local council and health services, as well as opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to have a direct impact on the local community and to celebrate their culture. I thank them for their important work locally and for the outreach they do. I also recognise the two local reconciliation groups in my community, Reconciliation Banyule and Nillumbik Reconciliation Group, who are both made up of committed and engaged locals who have been part of reconciliation work locally for years. The Nillumbik Reconciliation Group, in fact, recently celebrated their 25th anniversary with an event in Eltham, so that shows you what a long and proud history there is in my local community of people working together for positive change to take our country forward. I commend all their efforts. Herbert Electorate: Infrastructure 89 16:39 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I want to begin by addressing some very concerning comments made by the state Labor member for Townsville last week. Those comments were regarding the construction of a concert hall in Townsville, a world-class performing arts facility that is set to cement our city's position as the events capital of northern Australia. Together with the community and through the Townsville City Deal, we were able to secure a coalition government commitment for a business case to investigate options for what it would look like and where it would be located as well as $98 million to fund the construction. To firstly address the business case, this has now been in the works for more than 12 months and is still not complete. I wrote to the minister for infrastructure in November of last year to request an update on its progress, and she responded that, due to delays, the business case was expected to be completed in early 2023. Earlier this month I contacted her again to seek an update on the business case, and I thank the minister for meeting with me yesterday and providing me with an update that it will be complete in July of this year. However, there was a further development earlier this week about the project. On Monday, the state Labor government announced a further commitment of $50 million for the construction of the concert hall, contingent on Townsville City Council ratepayers also stumping up $50 million in matched funding. What's most concerning about this is the state Labor member for Townsville, Scott Stewart, said, on Channel 7, that the $98 million had been reneged. Well, in the meeting with the minister yesterday, she confirmed that the funding was still there and will remain committed to this project. Not only this; the minister also said that she had no idea why the state Labor government was also contributing funds to the project, particularly when the business case hasn't been completed. So the state member for Townsville has some questions to answer. Was he lying when he said the federal government reneged the funding? Was he playing political games at the expense of the truth? Does he have no idea about the project or how to work with the federal government of his own party? To be extremely clear, it has been confirmed by the federal minister that the $98 million that I worked hard, with the community, to get committed through the Townsville City Deal will be staying with this project. We had the state Labor member for Townsville, who is also a minister in the Queensland Labor government, tell the community on TV, on Channel 7, that the funding has been reneged. Now, the minister for infrastructure here in the federal parliament, who is a member of the same political party, has said no, it hasn't. I think the state member has some answers that need to be outlaid to the people of Townsville. I don't think it's good enough to have someone intentionally mislead the community to try and land a political point. We saw that with the Haughton Pipeline. We got funding for that project, and then the state government reneged on that deal and said: 'We don't want your money. We'll go at it alone.' Now that project is three years late. The ratepayers have to front up most of the bill, and the Labor state member for Townsville is not telling the truth. So I would say to Scott Stewart, who is the state Minister for Resources, the state Labor member for Townsville city: tell the truth to the people of Townsville. Did you mislead them when you said the money has been reneged, or are you just not communicating with the federal minister, who has carriage over the city deal? I have the people of Townsville contacting my office—and I'm sure many other offices in Townsville—to say, 'Where's this $98 million that was there to fund this concert hall? The state member said it's reneged.' They then find out that that's not the case. I wouldn't say that's misleading; I'd say that's a lie. We're also concerned about the 90-day review. There are projects that are absolutely beneficial to the community of Townsville that need to go through. One of them in particular is 24 urban streets on Palm Island to allow for adequate drainage. That's a great project. You don't need a 90-day review for that. You know it's good. We need a minister to tick off on it. It creates jobs, drives our economy and is good for Townsville. Rainbow Community Angels 90 16:44 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Before I make my remarks, earlier today I misspoke in the House. I seem to have snipped the wrong part of my question, but, alas, we move on. It's been a long few weeks in parliament, and I'm looking forward to going home. Earlier this year, we saw confronting sights on the streets of Melbourne as anti-trans activists were supported by a squad of hooded Neo-Nazis giving Nazi salutes. Since this time, we have seen a rise of far-right extremism in Victoria. The most recent targets of their threats have been the LBGTIQ+ communities, including drag story time. These targeted threats have forced local councils, in fear for the safety of staff and participants, to cancel pride events and drag-story-time activities across the state. These events are designed to promote inclusivity, diversity and acceptance, and they've been subject to hateful attacks by those who seek to spread division and fear. As a society, we cannot allow this dark undercurrent to prevail. That's why I stand here in this place, in the House of Representatives, to say that I'm proud of the Rainbow Community Angels. The Rainbow Community Angels are a group dedicated to protecting LGBTIQ kids and youth events from being shut down by far-right extremists. Community members receive training and are marshalled on the day of events to form a peaceful line of defence, dressed as angels and spreading their rainbow coloured wings. Rainbow Community Angels were formed at the Victorian Pride Centre in St Kilda, in the heart of my electorate of Macnamara. So far, 60 community angels have been trained across Victoria to shield attendees at rainbow-family and drag-story-time events. Last Thursday, a scheduled Pride Month drag story time was cancelled at the St Kilda library due to online abuse and threats made to council staff. In response to the Rainbow Community Angels, they held a pop-up drag story time. The pop-up event went ahead without a hiccup. Families, community members and council staff gathered peacefully and happily in solidarity, surrounded by 14 bright and cheerful rainbow community angels. Did the far-right extremists attend? Yes, they did. A small handful lurked around. They took photos and watched from afar as Frock Hudson read a story and led a rousing rendition of 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star'. Prominent advocate and co-founder of Rainbow Community Angels Felicity Marlowe shared with me how important the demonstration was: 'When I was younger, 20 years ago, events for queer and trans youth were few and far between. Over the last decade we've seen a wonderful embracing of diversity and events that are open, free and accessible for all families to attend. Up until this year, drag story times were a celebrated part of the annual pride calendar for local councils. These very recent attacks, inspired by bigots abroad, threaten to see a return to a time when LBGTIQ family events were, at best, hard to find and, at worst, cancelled. These attempts to eradicate LGBTIQ people from community life must be opposed, and the Rainbow Community Angels are here to blow bubbles instead of hatred.' As Fliss rightly points out, far-right extremists are copying what they see in the United States, where the Trump Republicans are whipping up homophobia and transphobia, not to mention significant anti-Semitism, to further their political agenda. In the US, this incitement to hatred has already led to events like the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, where five people were killed. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that nothing like that happens in Australia. My own personal experience in the Jewish community is of security guards out the front of synagogues every single week and security guards outside of schools every single day. To participate in Jewish life in Melbourne, and across the country, it's often a choice between going into a secure environment or not going at all. It's a choice for families to go into a community centre that is constantly having to be under watch and guard. It's a reality for so many people. Fundamental to all of that, the hard work of volunteers and the hard work of the community to keep people safe, is a fundamental belief that, here in Australia, if you hold a particular religion, if you're of a certain sexuality or if you have a particular identity, you should be free to practice who you are peacefully and without restriction in this marvellous country of ours. I say in this place that the rainbow angels are helping to protect their community. I stand in solidarity with them, and I hope everyone can participate in our wonderful community life, free from the fear of persecution and threats. Child Care 91 16:49 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Earlier today, the Minister for Social Services, the member for Kingston, spent some time in this chamber promoting—I would say being very proud—of the government's support of child care and, in particular, cheaper child care. It's a $4.7 billion package, and that could be lauded. For some families it reduces their contribution to their child care to 10 per cent. But I'm here to say that I've got our shadow minister Angie Bell coming to my electorate next week because we have so many centres in Grey that can't access child care. For those towns, the only part they get to play in the government's new plan to subsidise 90 per cent of child care is that they get to pay extra for a service that somebody else can access, generally in the cities or the bigger centres, but they cannot access themselves. It seems incredibly unfair to me, given that the government likes to promote itself as being on the side of those who are disadvantaged, that so many of the people who live in small country towns are at this incredible disadvantage. It keeps good, well-trained people, normally women, out of the workforce. It is running grandparents ragged as they commute, in some cases hundreds of kilometres, to go and look after their grandchildren for a day or two days so their mother can go to work. Next week, we'll be going to Wilmington. Wilmington is apparently about 50 kilometres from Port Augusta, over the other side of the Flinders Ranges. I met there earlier in the year with a group—Emma Brury and her team—and we'll be meeting with that group tomorrow. Wilmington has a population of about 500. Emma has been travelling over 100 kilometre a day, doing a round trip to drop her child off to child care. From there, we're going to Orroroo. Orroroo has a population of 600. There are about 900 in the district council area. They have an occasional care model, which gives three hours on Thursdays, and RICE, which is an outback creche-type service, is there one day a week. This is clearly not enough for people to manage their lives. They've done surveys there and have had returns from 35 families. There are 75 children looking for extra child care. From there we're going to Crystal Brook. This is a bigger town. It's not huge, but there are 1,500. There's no child care at all. Parents take their kids to Port Pirie and back. We'll be meeting there with Tamara Wilson and her team to try to map a way forward for Crystal Brook. Some of these towns have a model called Rural Care which, at least in South Australia, is an arrangement between the Department for Education and the federal government where Rural Care accesses the subsidies and the education department then auspices these services. But it's limited. The education department in South Australia, for whatever reason, will not allow it to go past a staffing model of three. In some place they're limited by space. It could be expanded, but it's not allowed to be expanded. It seems to me that, in small rural towns, perhaps the education departments do have a great role to play in child care. It would certainly be in their interests to have the children coming to those facilities where they're going to be learning for a substantial part of their lives. We're also visiting Kadina on the Copper Coast. They have a population of about 3,000 in the town and 15,000 in the general council area. They do have child care down there, but it's way, way too small and they need a major expansion. Ardrossan has a population of about 1,200. We'll be meeting there with Anna Webb and her team. Ardrossan is another town. It's a beautiful seaside town. It has 1,200 people and absolutely no child care. This is a crisis. It has really reared its head since COVID. I think people are looking to get back into the workforce. Generally speaking, on average, grandparents are getting older and people are having their children at an older age. That means the parents' mums and dads are older when it comes to that stage. People are more mobile, so families have shifted into communities where they don't have that backup. It's holding people away from work. It's holding up Australia's economy. It's holding these country towns back and it's causing disruption in the lives of these people who are doing a good job of raising their families. The government, yes, by all means should support other childcare centres, but we need some serious attention in this area. Housing 91 16:54 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to speak on an issue that is deeply important to both me and thousands in my community—the ongoing crisis in housing. My community is acutely aware of the issues of renting and buying homes. They've been living it for many years, whether they are in social housing, waiting for social housing, renting or first home buyers that have taken out a mortgage. They know all too well that the housing and rental markets are becoming increasingly difficult. Werriwa has suburbs that have seen fast-growing development over the past few years—suburbs such as Austral, Edmondson Park and Kemps Creek. Established suburbs in Werriwa also feel the pressure from the rising cost of living and rental and mortgage stress—suburbs like Miller, Cartwright, Bonnyrigg and Sadleir. Recently, according to S&P Global Ratings, Bonnyrigg was listed as having the second-highest percentage of borrowers who were behind on their mortgage. My community is experiencing all aspects of the housing crisis. The Albanese government understands these pressures and is acting in a number of ways to address the issues. The May budget increased the amount of Commonwealth rent assistance, which will benefit almost 9,000 households in Werriwa. It also provided $2 billion for the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's liability cap, which will support greater investment in public housing; an expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme to help more Australians into their first home; and an additional $67.5 million to tackle homelessness through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement 2023-24. These budget measures were on top of the existing investment of $350 million to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024, through the National Housing Accord, and a widening of the remit of the national infrastructure facility, which will make up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable rental homes. Last week the Prime Minister announced a further $2 billion for the Social Housing Accelerator, which will deliver thousands of new social housing homes throughout Australia. That funding will begin to roll out within the next two weeks. That's $2 billion that will go towards building new homes, renovating and refurbishing existing but uninhabited stock, and expanding programs. My home state of New South Wales will receive $610 million. That is real funding going to where it is needed now. I can't count how many times I've had people come to my office regarding the social housing waiting list. Waiting lists in my community stretch up to 20 years. For those already in social housing, there are growing concerns with the state of their homes, from mould to desperately needed repairs, with some housing stock over 60 years old. This funding boost will go a long way to improve the state of our social housing and help reduce an already record-high waiting list. The Albanese government understands the pressures that face Australians, but we don't pretend that there is nothing that can be done. We act. The Albanese government's investment in housing and homelessness stands at more than $9.5 billion this financial year. Unfortunately there is a roadblock that's preventing further investment into social and affordable housing. There are real people in communities around Australia who are waiting for relief and support. The government understands there is still a lot to do, and passing the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill would start that process. So it has been distressing this week to see the political pointscoring that has seen the Greens political party again vote with the coalition because their demands have not been met—just so they can campaign. It is astonishing. The young woman who contacted my electorate office with three kids, who was escaping domestic violence and was on a long waiting list for housing, will be equally disappointed, through her tears. The Greens have not been supported by social housing advocates, homelessness service providers and housing industry groups, who have urged the passage of the bill. For every day that this bill is delayed past 1 July, that is $1.3 million a day not being spent in the social and affordable housing space. That's $250 million for every six-month delay. The government will continue to find practical solutions to help with the housing needs of Australia, with or without the Greens' support. We won't allow our community to be sacrificed by political pointscoring. We've had enough, and our community deserves better than this. Debate interrupted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 92 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Floods: New South Wales 92 16:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I wish to add to an answer. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr ALBANESE R36 Today in question time the Leader of the National Party asked me a question about Eugowra and support for people still dealing with the impact of the floods. I have spoken with the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator Watt, and I can inform the Leader of the National Party that this morning he had a meeting with the New South Wales emergency services and reconstruction ministers about how we can ensure that recovery can get moving faster, including at Eugowra. The Commonwealth has put forward a range of suggestions to the New South Wales government that they have agreed to consider. I will continue to keep the Leader of the National Party, and also the member for Calare, informed of the progress. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 92 NOTICES Presentation 92

Thursday, 22 June 2023

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 94 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Justice 94 09:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Lots of people in my electorate of Curtin are concerned about youth justice, particularly in Western Australia. In the years since I started this job, I've met with multiple advocates to discuss a fairer, less harmful approach to youth justice. Banksia Hill is the only detention centre in WA for offenders aged 10 to 17. This includes those convicted of crimes but also kids who are on remand and waiting for trial. Eighty per cent of the kids in Banksia Hill are Indigenous, meaning that Indigenous kids are overrepresented by more than 25 times. On 8 June, a report by the WA Inspector of Custodial Services, Eamon Ryan, was released publicly. The report was damning in its assessment of Banksia Hill. Ryan said that every element of the centre is failing with 'young people, staff and a physical environment in acute crisis'. The report said that kids are being locked in cells for excessive time and that this causes a self-perpetuating cycle at the centre, with the isolation increasing anxieties, anger and frustration. Banksia Hill is filled with our most vulnerable children. More than half of the children incarcerated are wards of the state. One university study showed that nine in 10 have a cognitive impairment or a neurodisability, and one in three have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. These kids do not have the neurological development to have the capacity to form criminal intent. Studies show that detention fails to rehabilitate or support children to reintegrate into the community and that early contact with the youth legal system increases the likelihood of poor future justice outcomes, interruption to education, trauma and mental illness. What can the federal government do? The government could provide Medicare support to Aboriginal health services to provide culturally safe developmental assessments in detention centres to determine the extent of neurodisability so that a therapeutic program can be designed for each child. This would be far preferable to health care and mental health care being provided by the Department of Justice. The government could also raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 at a national level and encourage all states to follow suit. And the government could re-fund the 75 Aboriginal community controlled child and family services that were defunded in 2015, despite seeing results. I was pleased to see announcements this morning from WA's new Premier, Mr Roger Cook, that he'll work with stakeholders, in particular the Aboriginal community, to deliver improved welfare, health and rehabilitation services. However, the task is huge, and we need to act swiftly. I urge the federal government to work with the WA state government to provide some hope for kids in detention. Electric Vehicles 94 09:32 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I want to speak today on the government's current engagement in developing a strategy for electric vehicles in Australia and implementing a fuel efficiency standard. The Parliamentary Friends of Manufacturing, which I co-chair with my parliamentary colleague the member for Wright, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union yesterday hosted a discussion on the relationship of Australia's heavy vehicle manufacturing industry to the government's plans and what a sustainable transition for the industry might look like, including workforce and supply chain issues relating to Australia's future sovereign industrial capabilities. I've spoken in this parliament about how the Ford factory in my electorate, which closed in 2016, was more than just an icon of Australian car manufacturing. It was a job creator and a supply chain innovator. Losing these manufacturing plants marked a huge shift in the economic direction of this country because those opposite presided over a policy which chose demolition of industry rather than the transition of industry. And, just as they failed to produce a single coherent manufacturing policy that would safeguard Australia's sovereign capability, thankfully—through ineptitude, rather than purpose—they failed in their attempt at destroying Australia's vehicle manufacturing industry. What has been lost in the narrative over the last decade is the fact that Australian workers in skilled trades continue to make high-quality heavy vehicles. Our domestic bus, truck and trailer industries are currently responsible for approximately 15,000 direct jobs and as many as 34,000 indirect jobs. It is these workers and the communities which they support that mustn't be left behind as we transition. Our economic lifelines depend on a strong local industry capable of designing, building and maintaining heavy vehicles and developing innovative emission-reduction technologies. Manufacturing low- and zero-emissions vehicles mean strengthening the very same economic opportunities and industrial capabilities that allow us to tap into global markets and global automotive industry supply chains. At the same time, Australia is a key source country that can supply the world with the critical minerals needed to power new technologies. This leads us with a choice. We either end up being a quarry or a nation that is innovative or in command of a future made in Australia. In this spirit, I want to pay tribute to former Victorian state secretary of the AMWU, the late Frank Cherry, a giant of the Labor movement, a tireless activist and a champion of the working class. Wherever there was a struggle to improve working conditions, wherever there was a fight against political oppression, wherever there was a place even beyond Australia's shores in which injustice reigned and prevailed, the AMWU stood in solidarity. Vale, Comrade. You can be proud of your contributions and for proving that a struggle worth fighting for makes a life worth living. Canning Electorate: Health Care 95 09:39 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I have spoken many times in this chamber calling on the former Western Australia Premier Mark McGowan to fix our hospital system. We now have a new man running the WA government. In falls to a new premier to answer these urgent pleas. Despite WA's economic surplus, our hospitals are broken. Labor's healthcare record in WA is a disaster. The Peel Health Campus, my local hospital, has one of the worst emergency waiting times in the nation. Just before Christmas last year, ambulance ramping hit an all-time high. The WA Labor government has repeatedly promised upgrades, but a few weeks ago the health minister confessed that these urgent improvements won't begin for another year—more excuses, more delays. This brings me to the new Premier, Roger Cook, who happens to be a former health minister. Many residents in the northern areas of Canning have shared their concerns with me about Armadale hospital. When he was health minister in 2021, there were reports of 30 desperate patients queueing in the street outside for hours before they were finally let into an overcrowded emergency department. The same day at Armadale hospital, an elderly man struggling to breathe in the crowded ED was left in a corridor and told no beds were available in the hospital. At the time, the former Australian nursing union boss Mark Olson said overflowing hospitals, patients in corridors and nurses not being backfilled on sick leave had been the norm. He stressed that the state's healthcare system was 'the worst I've ever seen.' All this was under the watch of the man who is now the WA Premier. Rockingham hospital, in the nearby electorate of Brand, is also no stranger to WA Labor's hospital mismanagement. In 2016, the year prior to the election of WA state Labor, ambulance ramping was at a total of 509 hours. In 2022, after nearly six years of Labor, ramping has exploded to 4,284 hours. That's a total of 177 days that patients spent waiting to get into the emergency department and into a bed. The crisis in our health service runs far and wide. In the words of the Western Australia AMA President, Dr Mark Duncan-Smith, 'WA may be the richest state, but our health system is the sickest.' My concerns do not lie with our dedicated nurses, doctors and hospital staff. They consistently go above and beyond, often in challenging circumstances. We are blessed to have some of the best healthcare workers in the world. But they need the best resources to provide the best possible solution and care for our community. When Mark McGowan resigned, he said, 'The truth is I am tired, extremely tired. In fact, I am exhausted.' A nurse told me the other week that that's a meme going around WA hospitals and they put that up reflecting their own state of mind—they are tired and they need more support from the WA state government. It's all within the power of one man, Roger Cook, the new Premier. I am calling on him to deliver better health services for our state. Fremantle Electorate: Environment 95 09:39 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Fremantle has always been a activist community. It's always been a place where people don't wait for problems or challenges to be solved elsewhere. They put forward answers and solutions and they campaign for those solutions to be applied. Sometimes that starts with the leadership and inspiration of a single person like Rebecca Prince-Ruiz, who created the change phenomenon that is Plastic Free July. This amazing work was recognised in last week's King's Birthday Honours with an Order of Australia. Rebecca's work began in 2011, and the success of Plastic Free July in raising awareness about the terrible scourge of plastic pollution and providing a way for people to start reducing the plastic in their lives has grown to involve more than 100 million people in 190 countries. Globally, participants have avoided 2.1 billion tonnes of waste, including 300 million kilograms of plastic. This week Rebecca and the Plastic Free July movement landed in Parliament House for an event on Monday organised by the Parliamentary Friends of Waste and Recycling—the members for Bennelong, Corangamite and Bass—and Rebecca has challenged all of us to be a part of Plastic Free July by pledging to no longer use disposable coffee cups in Parliament House, noting that last year 252,000 of these plastic lined and non-recyclable containers were wasted in this place. On Tuesday we enjoyed another event with a strong Fremantle element as an extension of a long-running community campaign to save Ningaloo Reef, which has now returned to the unfinished business of protecting Exmouth Gulf. When World Heritage listing of Ningaloo was achieved, following a huge community effort in the early 2000s, the assessment acknowledged that the ideal boundaries of the protected area would include Exmouth Gulf, a stronghold for threatened species, like dugongs, turtles, dolphins and sawfish. Two of the Fremantle people who played key roles in that first Ningaloo campaign are working to lead the next stage of a vital environmental protection effort: Paul Gamblin, who is the Director of Protect Ningaloo for the Australian Marine Conservation Society, and Tim Winton, one of Australia's greatest storytellers and an unstinting activist in the cause of marine and coastal protection. A feature of the event was footage from the incredible documentary that Tim Winton has helped produce to showcase the importance of Exmouth Gulf as a feature of a remarkably precious three-part ecosystem, and I encourage all Australians to check it out on ABC iview. The event was attended by the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef as another demonstration of the Albanese government's determination to make environmental protection and restoration a priority at a time when we know our biodiversity has been hammered and is under enormous pressure. As Tim Winton rightly says: 'I believe in patriotism, but patriotism doesn't always involve waving a flag or firing a gun. It means defending your home place.' That is what those of us advocating for Ningaloo have been doing. There is a lot of love of home and love of country in this show. CanRevive, St George Arts and Culture Festival, Bankstown Basketball Association 96 09:42 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks CanRevive is a wonderful organisation. We are fortunate in these roles in that we get to meet and work with tremendous community organisations. We shouldn't have favourites, but I must confess that CanRevive is one of my very favourite organisations among those I've come across in the last 10 years. CanRevive was founded in 1995 to provide support for people in the Australian Chinese community suffering from cancer, and their families, and for 28 years it has provided incredible support to thousands of families going through that most difficult of times. On 17 June I attended CanRevive's 28th annual dinner, and it was great to see its president, Eric Yeung, the foundation's chairman, Stephen Liu, and all of the other key people who make CanRevive what it is. CanRevive has been in Hurstville since 2008, and last year I was fortunate to assist in opening the new CanRevive centre in Westmead, in Western Sydney. It's a wonderful organisation which has raised millions of dollars from the community over the years, because the community recognises the incredible depth of the services it provides. Well done to everyone at CanRevive. On 9 June the St George Arts and Culture Festival was held at Marana Auditorium. It was co-organised by the St George Community Alliance and the Ocean Dream Cultural Art Centre. I want to acknowledge and thank the organisers: the event's executive planner, my good friend Nancy Liu; and the event's chief director, Helen Payne. The event featured an art exhibition, and Ginger Li, from the Australian Chinese Heritage Paper Art Club put together that exhibition with her customary professionalism. It was a great night. There were hundreds of people there. The plan is for this to become an annual fixture on the St George calendar, and, judging by the success of the first event, I think we can look forward to many more years of this event. Bankstown Basketball Association is coming up to its 60th anniversary, having been founded in 1964. I recently caught up with the CEO, Christian Gobolos, who does a terrific job. We've got literally thousands of people who play at the courts. There are eight courts at the Bankstown Basketball Association in Condell Park. With the Bruins and so many other teams who play there, it is a very professional operation indeed. It's one of the largest basketball centres anywhere in Sydney. So many of the people who play at the centre live in Banks in places like Panania, Picnic Point and Revesby. To Christian and everyone who makes the Bankstown Basketball Association the great success that it is, thank you. Visitor Visa, Lilley Electorate: Community Events 96 09:45 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Last weekend I held my 27th mobile office since the 2022 election. I was pleased to meet the Sankaranarayanan family from Aspley: Ganesh, Sanka, Akshara and Aadhi, along with their grandfather Thennavan. Thennavan was visiting from India and came to say thank you for the assistance that my electorate office gave to help him obtain his visitor visa. When grandmother Sundara passed away suddenly, the family returned to India for the funeral and applied for an Australian visitor visa for Thennavan on compassionate grounds so he could go to Australia and be with his family while he grieved the sudden loss of his wife. Sanka got in touch with my office, who were able to guide the family through what can be a confusing and complex visa process. As a result, Thennavan's tourist visa was approved within a few days, and I was able to meet the whole family in person at the mobile office at Sandgate on Saturday. It's positive evidence that the Albanese Labor government's action on the backlog of one million unprocessed visas left by the coalition is making a real difference for Australian families like the Sankaranarayanans. Since the election, the backlog of unprocessed visas has been cut from one million in July to about 570,000, with 5.4 million temporary visas processed since Labor came to government. With the winter parliament break fast approaching, I'm excited to get back home to my electorate, Lilley, where the fete and festival season is now underway. Last weekend the Sacred Heart Primary School fair celebrated the school's 130th birthday. I was pleased to attend the official opening, along with the acting principal, Sarah McDonald; parish priest Father Joseph; and the member for Sandgate, Stirling Hinchliffe. First festival cab off the rank in Lilley is the much-loved Einbunpin Festival at Sandgate, which celebrates its 31st anniversary in July. Einbunpin is a celebration of the Northside community that attracts thousands of local residents each year. I will be practising my mullet throwing skills in anticipation of this annual rigour. Events like Einbunpin would not be possible without the dedication of hundreds of community volunteers and the festival organisers at the Deagon Ward office led by my good friend Councillor Jared Cassidy. As the federal member for Lilley, I thank you for all of your hard work to make the Einbunpin Festival a reality each year. I look forward to seeing you all there. Over the weekend I joined hundreds of Northside families with Celeste, Osh and Dash at the Nundah State School winter fair for a day full of fun, with many food stalls, far too many baked treats for my children and rides. Congratulations to the epic Nundah State School P&C for yet another successful event. Australian Curriculum: Agriculture 97 09:48 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Today I'd like to pay tribute to teachers and students from local schools in my community who take part in school agricultural programs and, in particular, those schools that are actively involved in showing livestock and competing in agricultural shows. These schools include Bonalbo Central School, under teacher Kim James; Woodenbong Central School teachers Stewart Grimmett and Andrew Hill; Kyogle High School teacher Kathy Doman; St John's College Woodlawn teacher Tani Fraser; St Mary's Catholic College Casino teacher Aaron Kennedy; Casino High School teachers Chelsea Wenham and James Lang; and Alstonville High School teacher Simon McQueen. I'm going to give a special shout-out to two local schools who had great success at this year's Royal Easter Show in Sydney. Richmond River High School, under teacher Sally Ford, won two ribbons in the poultry section. The year 9 students raised some ISA brown hens as a project after the school was severely damaged by last year's flood. The chooks basically became pampered pets and really impressed the judges of the show. Also winning accolades was Maclean High School, under head teacher Chris Kirkland. They took a team of 19 students and wowed both the judges and crowds with their trade steers and Marlowe Park speckle cattle. Speckle cattle are a relatively new breed to Australia, introduced from Canada just over a decade ago. The judges remarked that the livestock presented by the Maclean High School students were the best line-up of speckle cattle anywhere in the world. They came home with a number of trophies and ribbons, as well as the life experience that helps set up students for the future in the beef industry and/or, indeed, whatever career they may go on to pursue. You can't underestimate the value of the experience gained in the preparation of showing livestock, and cattle in particular. They make it look easy, but there's much work and planning to ensuring the beeves are at their best on the day. There's getting up at the crack of dawn to make the cattle look the best that they can. There are the intricacies of judging. There's performing under pressure before a big crowd and keeping the animals calm. There are the highs and lows of winning and losing and then taking it all in your stride. And after that, if you win, you have public speaking and media interviews. The schools did us proud and on all counts were well rewarded for their dedication and hard work. Again, I congratulate all the schools who were involved in this really important area of education. They deserve to be recognised for their achievement in supporting our much loved agricultural shows and developing the next generation of leaders in the ag sector. Operation Chastise: 80th Anniversary, Air Force Bomber Command 98 09:50 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Over recent weeks I was invited by Air Commodore Adrian Maso AM, a senior Air Force officer in South Australia, to attend two important commemorative services at the RAAF memorial at the Torrens Parade Ground in Adelaide. The first service, on 17 May, commemorated the 80th anniversary of Operation Chastise, which is more commonly known as the Dambusters Raid, on 16 and 17 May 1943. The very dangerous operation, which required the extraordinary low-flying skills in Lancaster bombers of 617 Squadron using newly-designed bouncing bombs, destroyed the Mohne and Edersee dams in Germany's Ruhr valley. Of the 19 Lancasters that took part, 18 were lost and another two were seriously damaged. 53 airmen lost their lives. Of the 13 Australians that took part in the daring mission, which included three from South Australia, two died and one was taken as a prisoner of war. Two of the South Australians, Flying Officer Frederick Spafford and Flight Lieutenant Robert Hay, died later in the war. Squadron Leader David Shannon survived the war, passing in 1993. His daughter, Nikki King, participated in the commemoration service. The second service was the 2023 Air Force Bomber Command Commemorative Service held on 3 June, which was also attended by the member for Adelaide, Steve Georganas. Almost 10,000 Australian Air Force personnel served in very dangerous World War II Bomber Command operations, of which over one-third lost their lives. Of the total of 125,000 allied aircrew who served in Bomber Command sorties, 55,573 were killed, 8,403 were wounded, and 9,838 became prisoners of war. Over 8,300 aircraft were also lost in action. The extraordinary feats of Bomber Command, including the Dambusters, became the inspiration for films and books. Australia has a proud history of heroic aviation feats dating back to Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and the Smith Brothers' military and civil aviation groundbreaking exploits a century ago. The heroism of Australian aviators should be a source of pride to all Australians. Those commemorative services were both a solemn but proud reminder of those who served and risked or lost their lives. The proud Air Force tradition, built on over a century of service to Australia, endures today, with around 14,000 full-time and 5,000 part-time personnel continuing the professionalism and precision of our Air Forces that serve this country. Wright Electorate: Agricultural Shows, Road Safety, Schools 98 09:53 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright The electorate of Wright is just under 8,000 square kilometres. As you drive into Queensland, the country on the left-hand side of the highway is one of my borders. The New South Wales-Queensland border is one, and the top of the Toowoomba range escarpment is the other border. It's quite a large and diverse electorate. It's difficult at times to get around the whole lot of it. Often with the road infrastructure, you've actually got to leave the electorate to get into other parts of it. But there are a few things that unite my electorate, and the show circuit is definitely one of them. I'd like to firstly congratulate the Boonah Show for their recent success of a show. With over 8,000 patrons coming through the gates, it was indeed a spectacle. At the Boonah Showgrounds, they have the new Teviot Park upgrade facility, which is an equestrian undercover arena which is going to bring prosperity. That asset, which we funded in the last government, will stand for 100 years. I'd like to encourage all in the electorate to consider attending both the Kalbar and Mudgeeraba shows this weekend. They're over a hundred kilometres apart, but both will be attended with exactly the same amount of enthusiasm. I'll take this opportunity to say that you can tell the vibrancy of a community by the way its show is conducted. Both Mudgeeraba and Kalbar are shows that are extremely well attended, especially for their night activities. There are such a large number of dedicated volunteer hours that go into these shows. I want to take the opportunity today to acknowledge, without naming individual personalities, the people who contribute to regional shows. With the Queensland school holidays coming up can I say, as a former road safety minister: no-one intends to leave their destination and not to get home safely. I am always perplexed when I'm told by our first responders, who are onsite, that most accidents are avoidable. So don't drink and drive. They tell me they're surprised at how many accidents could have been avoided if people had just put their seatbelt on or chosen not to be distracted by their phone or something in the car. Please: do our community a favour and get yourself and your family home safe, because the consequences of you not being there are terrible. With these school holidays approaching I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge our school teachers in our state primary and secondary schools, private and public. They do an enormous job. As we see the breakdown of the family unit and schools being asked to take on more and more responsibility, I acknowledge what they do and wish everyone a safe holiday. Housing and Environmental Legislation 99 09:56 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I stand in this place today a little more energised than usual. I'm glad to see the end of the winter sittings. Describing this window of time as being in Canberra for five weeks between May and the end of June makes it sound precisely as difficult as it is to be away from our electorates and our families for such a long period. I can't help but feel a bit of a spring in my step when the countdown timer on my phone tells me the flight home is getting that little bit closer. Even watching the Blues lose resoundingly last night couldn't deflate my spirits. But what I really came here to speak on today is the state of the environment. I'm not talking about the report that the Minister for the Environment and Water handed down not long after the Albanese Labor government took office, which—though I digress—was a masterful display of work delegation from the member for Farrer, in sitting on that report for months, knowing it would be someone else's problem as long as she could run the clock down before anyone else asked too many questions about it. The state of the environment I'm talking about is the one in the 47th Parliament. Instead of reading about the scourge of blue-green algae infesting precious aquatic ecosystems, we instead are hearing about the blue-green scourge on some of the legislation during this winter sitting period. It's something we haven't seen the likes of since 2009, and, much like the algae that shares the same colour scheme, it has been spreading. We first saw this with the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation. Those opposite are taking great pride, along with the Greens, in delaying consideration of the bills until the Albanese government manages to get the state and territory governments to do something that is entirely within their power. They're delaying a fund that would bring sorely needed investment in social housing. I get why the opposition would oppose this. If they had any enthusiasm for social housing, if they had made any attempts to address it in their nine years in government, investment in this space might not be so urgently required. But the Greens joining the opposition to block this legislation in the other place makes me realise that the smugness of the Greens is quite astounding. Do they consider this a win for themselves at the government's expense? In delaying the building of much-needed social housing, 'Sucked in, Labor,' is what the Greens must be saying to themselves over a deconstructed breakfast at inner-city cafes across the nation. To borrow a word used by a member at the forefront of this hypocrisy, it is absolutely cooked. This flows through to the Nature Repair Market legislation too. We saw the bromance between the Liberal National Party and the Greens rear its ugly head yet again. With friends like these, it makes me revise the mission statement from fighting Tories to now include their 'tree Tory' mates. I hope they have a good hard look at themselves over the winter break. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 99 CONDOLENCES McKean, Ms Mildred Geraldine Joy, OAM 99 10:00 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I am very honoured this morning to rise and recognise and pay tribute to the life of Joy McKean. Joy was born in Singleton in January 1930 and became a very famous early country act with her sister, Heather, the McKean Sisters. In 1951 she married Slim Dusty. Slim had already been on his way as a country star; his first hit, 'When the Rain Tumbles Down in July', I believe, was in 1947. So this was the start of a duo, a team, that dominated country music in Australia for decades to come. In their private life, Slim and Joy had two children: Anne Kirkpatrick, who is a very accomplished recorded country music star; and David Kirkpatrick, who is a doctor. Joy is probably best known for her songwriting for many songs that Slim performed. She won one of the first Golden Guitars at the Tamworth Country Music Festival in 1973. I remember it very well; I was actually a student at Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School in 1973, and that was the very first Tamworth Country Music Festival. Up until the point where Slim and Joy started to dominate, country music in Australia was considered hillbilly song that was heavily influenced by American performers, and Joy's words and Slim's singing put a real Australian slant on it. Her famous first Golden Guitar winning song, 'Lights on the Hill', was inspired by her driving through New England on a rainy night, with the lights dazzling her as she was in a car towing a caravan. It really sums up their life. They didn't play major stadiums and they weren't on Countdown every Sunday night, but they travelled extensively around regional Australia, and particularly to remote Aboriginal communities. The greatest fans of Joy and Slim were the Aboriginal communities in quite remote locations. Many of her songs and have been covered by others, such as Lee Kernaghan, Keith Urban, Lee Greenwood, the Wolfe Brothers and even Mental As Anything. Her words are timeless. Sometimes my enthusiasm for country music and the work of Joy and Slim is not shared by everyone in my family or indeed my staff. Now that my car no longer has a CD, we are on the Spotify account. The beauty of these songs is that you can hear them time and time again, and they tell a story. They're entertaining, they're easy to listen to and they are very quintessentially Australian. There's 'Kelly's Offsider'; one of the songs that I think could be a theme song for many in this House, 'The Biggest Disappointment', which goes around and around; 'Ringer from the Top End'; 'The Angel of Goulburn Hill'; 'Christmas on the Station'; 'Wind-Up Gramophone'; and one of my favourites, 'Peppimenarti Cradle'. They are great stories and great songs. The passing of Joy is really the end of an era. Those who have followed along in the country music scene have a lot to look up to and be grateful for, because they really pointed out that it wasn't a cringe to be Australian. We didn't have to replicate Americans and we didn't have to have big black cowboy hats to be a country star; we could just be Australian. In this place some years ago I pushed to make 13 June a national holiday to recognise Slim Dusty's birthday, with some very strong support from a very small number of people. We weren't successful in that, but I would like to see some sort of permanent reminder. I'm sure that the country music fraternity will do something ongoing to recognise the work of Joy, and also her partnership with Slim, because there's no-one else in Australia who can say that they have published 106 albums. That's hundreds of songs. One-hundred-and-six albums—no one has come close to that. Vale, Joy McKean, you were truly an Australian legend. Your legacy will live on for generations to come, and I'm deeply honoured to be part of this commemoration in parliament this morning. 10:06 Mr JOYCE e5d New England 'It's a long straight road and the engine is deep. I can't help thinkin' of a good night's sleep. And the long, long roads of my life are a-callin' me'—that's the start of one of the most famous songs, one of the most iconic songs, in country music, and it was written by Joy McKean. As has been said previously, Joy McKean was born in Singleton. Her mother was a dairy farmer and her father was a school teacher. At a young age she learned to play the steel guitar, the accordion and the piano. Her sister played the ukulele. This is an incredible songwriter, and what has been mentioned and what we love about Joy McKean, who married Slim Dusty, but I will just focus on Joy, is that she was Australian. There was no doubt about it. Her songs—'Ringer from the Top End', which she wrote the lyrics for; 'Indian Pacific', which she wrote the lyrics for—were Australian. They showed that we didn't have a cultural cringe, that we could be our own people and write about our own circumstances, and we didn't have to try to be Roy Rogers. That's what we liked. Joy McKean and Slim Dusty in their tours around Australia would just hook up the caravan and off they'd go. Probably where they had their biggest following was in Aboriginal communities, Indigenous communities. They really had a big following there. People saw them with lyrics that talked to Australian people, that talked to people in outback areas. When I was growing up—I grew up, obviously, at Woolbrook and Limbri—I grew up with country music songs. They were part and parcel there. A lot of kids—their dads were truck drivers and they really did culturally identify with a lot of the music. On 'Lights on the Hill', there is a memorial in Gatton in Queensland for truck drivers and bus drivers—we think of the tragic people killed lately, unfortunately, by the alleged actions of a person who wasn't driving well. For the Gatton memorial, they asked if they could incorporate the lyrics, because that song spoke to people on long hauls. That song spoke to their lives. Joy McKean was no fool. She went to Sydney university; she was no goose. Her first time on radio was when she was 10 years old. It was on 2GB. She went on to have a show on 2KY. It was one of those things that a lot people who liked country music tuned into, to hear the music that spoke to them. There is a statue of Joy McKean with Slim in Tamworth. She won six golden guitars in her own right and Slim won every other one. Here's the thing: on some nights it wasn't so much the Australian country music awards as the Slim Dusty commemoration—but so he should. A lot of people, because of the style of the music, were attracted to it and were attracted to her song writing skills—even Mental as Anything. People could see the wordcraft of this person was something that they could borrow from and utilise. Later on, in the other direction, to be frank, Midnight Oil wrote lyrics for Slim Dusty in one of their songs. I think both of them—and I say this although Midnight Oil has a strong connection to the other side!—spoke on an Australian narrative, and that's why people like that sort of music. One of the things I think Joy McKean gave us and that I hope we don't lose is that Australian lexicon, that Australian fingerprint in our music. With country music now, at times—not always—I listen to something and I think, 'You're not Nashville!' That's great, if you want to play Nashville—fine. But I don't hear an Australian song there; I hear a country music song, but I hear basically a Nashville country music song. My cousins live in Nashville, so I've got a pretty good idea of how that show works as well. As I said, this is commemoration of the work of Joy McKean. Obviously she became Joy Kirkpatrick. Slim Dusty's real name is David Kirkpatrick. David came from Kempsey, and Joy came from Singleton, and obviously they were one of the greatest combinations in country music in Australia's history, without a shadow of a doubt. Fortunately she had a good life. She lived to 93. When she was young she had polio, and she was part of the treatment group—I can't remember the name of that nun—which at the time was pretty dynamic and controversial and others might say revolutionary. But obviously that treatment worked for Joy, and she actually went on to be quite a good swimmer as well. What we get from this is that there's so much to a person. Sometimes you see one section. And I think where she could have been undersold is that people thought of Joy as 'Slim's wife', but Joy was vastly more than Slim's wife. She was Slim's wife and proud of it, and they had long marriage; I think it was about 50 years. But she was quite dynamic from a very young age and all the way through her life. For people in my area, yes, she had an influence on them. Every time you hear one of those songs—without making a total fool of myself by singing one at the start!—if you sing it, people say, 'Actually, I know that song; I've heard that song; I know that.' That's why I sing the songs. They're part of the narrative. I also identify them as talking to me about the Australian experience. As I've said before, 'Lights on the Hill' came from a trip from Tamworth to Warwick and up the New England Highway. Gosh, I don't know how many times I've done that run. The song is about the idea that you always see—a really simple thing—someone who doesn't dip their lights when they see you coming forward. It's this thing that is probably about Australia more than anywhere else, because of our long hauls. Slim and Joy were pulling a caravan, but obviously the empathy was for those who do long-haul truck driving. So, I hope Joy is with her maker and back with Slim, penning songs and keeping the people around the fireplace behind the pearly gates well and truly entertained at night. All the best, and God bless Joy. 10:13 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I join in this condolence motion on Joy McKean and point out that in 1977 the little town of Sale, my home town, hosted a royal visit—but the royalty was Slim Dusty and Joy McKean, with the Travelling Country Band. It was the first concert I ever went to. It was at the Sale Memorial Hall—Slim Dusty and the Travelling Country Band and Joy McKean in support. And I take up the comments from the member for New England, particularly in relation to Joy's status as Slim Dusty's wife. Without any doubt it is a bit unfair that she would be remembered as such, because we've always had strong women in the bush, and Joy was one of them. It is important to remember the pioneering spirit that took Slim Dusty and Joy McKean around Australia time after time after time. They appeared in small country towns and country shows, often entertaining Indigenous communities. They were, without doubt, pioneers—a travelling country band being prepared to go out there and meet their fans, create new fans and be inspired by new stories, which they would then turn into authentically Australian songs. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to listen to any of Slim Dusty's 106 albums to take the time to tune in and hear this extraordinary voice of Australia supported by Joy McKean and her incredible songwriting skills. I'd also encourage people to take the time to go online and watch a documentary about Joy McKean made several years ago by my good friend from Gippsland Tim Lee, the ABC journalist. It really does tell the story of what trailblazers this family were in putting the caravan on the back of the car, travelling on rough roads that were even poorer than they are today and meeting their fans in some of the most remote locations in Australia. Both the member for Parkes and the member for New England highlighted something that I think is incredibly important about the Slim Dusty-Joy McKean story, and that was their authenticity. They were authentic Australian voices. They didn't pretend to be anything other than Australian songwriters, storytellers and bush balladeers of the highest quality. Some of the songs that the members for Parkes and New England mentioned were also favourites in my household growing up: songs like 'Walk a Country Mile', 'Lights on the Hill', 'Indian Pacific' and 'The Biggest Disappointment'—all of which were written by Joy McKean. They were an incredible songwriting duo, and they were live performers of the highest order. There is a small Gippsland link which I want to raise today as well. When they took breaks from the road, the family often stayed just down the road from my house in Lakes Entrance, in a little town called Metung. The family had a property there, and their breaks from touring were often spent around the Gippsland Lakes. Slim was known as a keen fisherman. He had good mates down there for many years. For many years, the family spent time around the Gippsland Lakes, so much so that one of their songs, 'The Johnsonville Dance', is named after a little country dance about seven or eight miles down the road from Metung. That song is still proudly sung and played today throughout Gippsland. It is a great pleasure for members of the House to have the opportunity to say a few words in recognition of Joy McKean and her incredible life. The legacy of their music will obviously live on for decades to come. There is no question that every campfire, every truckie and every country dance will end up with a few Slim Dusty songs at different times. We look forward to hearing those songs again and remembering some incredible pioneers—country music royalty in this country—and we extend our condolences to their family and friends and, of course, the many millions of country music fans across Australia. 10:17 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The McKean sisters were very famous in their own right before the coming of Reg Lindsay, who married one of the sisters, and Slim Dusty, who married the other sister, Joy McKean. For those of us who love those yodelling tunes, they were arguably the best yodellers in the world at the time. Joy—and I think if he were alive, Slim would agree with me—chose his material. She wrote his material, and she rewrote the material that he used. A lot of the great songs came from Manilla in the honourable member's electorate, from Stan Coster. Stan, like me, is a bit of a rough person, and there needed to be a little 'fining out'. But, if you want to know about Australia, then listen to Slim Dusty songs. My mother was a very sophisticated city person, and she brought us up on Slim Dusty songs. At Slim Dusty's funeral, there were two former prime ministers and a prime minister. There were three ministers. That will never ever happen again. The first time I went along to watch a show was in Charters Towers. For 20 or 30 years, we had as big a music festival as Tamworth had later on. The singer Sherrie Austin, who ranked at No. 3 in America, got her start at Charters Towers. Lee Kernaghan got his start there as well. When I went along to see Slim that night, I couldn't get into the hall, with 500 people. It's a town of 10,000 people. I couldn't get on the footpath! I was in the middle of the road, and I thought that we've just got to ride with Slim and embrace being an Australian and being proud of being an Australian. For the Olympic Games in Melbourne, we wanted an image for Australia and so people were in elastic sided boots, Driza-Bones and rough-rider hats. Whether city people like it or not, the essential image of Australia lies in the heartland—as it does in every country in the world, actually. If you want to know about Russia, go to the steppes. I want to quote from one of the songs. It was written by Coster, actually, but rewritten by Joy. He was in a pub speaking to an old returned serviceman, and he went home and wrote down what the serviceman said: 'You say you belong to Australia, my friend, and, like me, you'd die for this land to defend. But let us be honest, it's sad but it's true: Australia, my friend, doesn't belong to you. We've been sold out by the powers that be, to big, wealthy nations way over the sea. They tried to take us with bayonets and lead, but now they've decided to buy us instead. I wonder if the ghosts of the fallen can see the crime and corruption and vast poverty—a lost generation of youth on the dole adrift on life's oceans without any goals. I once had a dream of my country so grand, where rivers outback irrigated the land, with dams and canals in that wasteland out there, and big inland cities with work everywhere. But then I woke from dreaming to reality: Australia's wealth, it goes over the sea.' If there's a reason why I'm in this place, it is in Slim Dusty's words, which of course were written and inspired by Joy McKean. God bless you, Joy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution. There being no further statements at this time, I call the Clerk. COMMITTEES 102 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee 102 Report 102 10:22 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I take great pleasure in joining the debate on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: Interim report. I want to say from the outset that we have every right, in this place and throughout our nation, to be very proud of our electoral system and the democracy that it protects. I would say that our system is not broken, but that does not mean that our system can't be improved. The whole point of JSCEM, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, conducting a review of the 2022 federal election is to look at how the election was conducted but also to then offer constructive ideas and practical solutions to any challenges that have been presented, by the community, to us in hearings. People have a great deal of interest in this topic. The committee then provides those recommendations to the government of the day to see where we can find some level of consensus and, where there are areas that are disputed, how we can reach a negotiated outcome. I do say, quite sincerely, that our system isn't broken, but it can certainly be improved, and what it requires is eternal vigilance. In this place, there are excellent members on both sides of this chamber who appreciate and value our democracy above all else. The fundamental challenge in the conducting of a federal election is to maintain the trust and the confidence of the Australian people, particularly in the outcome. Regardless of who wins, the Australian public must have confidence in the outcome and that their voice is being heard. They may not agree with the result, but they must have trust and confidence in the fact that their vote has been recorded and counted and the winner has been declared. It is a great tribute to this nation that, in the 15 years I've been here, there have been changes of government which have occurred with no violence, with no protest about the outcome and with a seamless transition—despite the fact that we may disagree on policy areas, transitions occur in a manner which does great credit to the Australian people. That doesn't happen by chance; that requires the eternal vigilance of people in this place and of the Australian Electoral Commission in particular. I want to congratulate Australian Electoral Commission senior staff, in particular, for the way they conducted the 2022 election and for the way they were prepared to call out false information when it was circulated, particularly on social media. Contrast our election result—the outcome here in Australia in 2022—with the most recent United States federal election and how that election result in the US was disputed and allegations that the election had been stolen were allowed to ferment online. It resulted in violence, with a siege on Capitol Hill. Contrast that to what occurred here in Australia last year where there was a change of government but no suggestion whatsoever that the result was anything other than fair. The AEC deserves a high degree of credit, and the candidates who participated in the election overwhelmingly deserve credit as well, for working to maintain public confidence and trust in the result. Although it does have a very boring name, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has an important role, and I congratulate the chair of the committee, the member for Jagajaga, for her careful consideration of the issues and for the report before the chamber today. I do agree entirely with the chair's opening remarks. She said, 'Democracy is best when it's conducted in way that is transparent.' That goes to the heart of the coalition's dissenting report, in relation to this interim report. There is plenty we agree on in the report in terms of how the election was conducted, but the coalition's dissenting report does highlight some areas where there is a level of contention and which I think require further debate in this place and in the broader community. We have a participatory representative system of government which relies very heavily on people being able to participate in an open and transparent way. The participation of Australians as party members or supporters of their chosen candidate is an important part of our system. People need to be able to participate in this system without fear of retribution, such as the boycotting of small businesses, and that's why our dissenting report on recommendation 4 goes to this issue around participation. We're recommending a new offence of electoral violence or intimidation be added to the Electoral Act. The reason for that recommendation is very clear. We are concerned, and I'm sure other members in this place would be concerned, about the risk—in fact, the reality—of intimidation, harassment or abusive behaviour towards candidates or towards their supporters, whether it be at polling booths or when they're out meeting people in the streets. It's important that people understand, even if you don't agree with anything that candidates putting their names forward are saying, they still have a right to nominate, put their name forward and be judged by the Australian people. So our dissenting report recommendation 4 is all about an offence of electoral violence and harassment of candidates or their supporters. Similarly, we in the coalition have a concern in relation to the disclosure threshold of $1,000, which is recommended in the interim report. In our view, that is too low. We believe that is too low a figure, and our recommendation is for $8,000 per financial year, which is effectively the sum of all the states and territories. Most of the states and territories have now had significant reform and have a threshold of around $1,000 in many cases. The argument we're making is that disclosure threshold for a federal election, in the order of the sum of all the states and territories, is a more realistic disclosure threshold and would not discourage participation or that risk of secondary boycotting which we are concerned about. There's another dissenting report recommendation which I think is an important one. It really gets down to the nuts and bolts of how the AEC manages our voting centres. Our recommendation 3 is about limiting the prepoll period. We believe the prepoll period of 12 days is too long. We find that it is an unnecessary burden on candidates and their volunteers, but I also think it's costly for the AEC to maintain those voting centres for such a long period of time. The real risk here, on top of volunteer burden, long nights and security issues for candidates and their supporters, is one the member for Kennedy was referring to. Things can happen in that 12-day period where people are not fully informed when they go to vote. So reducing prepoll voting to a period of time that we're arguing for of one week—maybe with extended hours to accommodate shiftworkers—would give people enough time to still exercise a democratic right in a way which is not too difficult for them, their family or workload but would allow them to be fully informed before they go to vote. We are worried that people are voting too early. It's convenient for them, but they may very well not be fully informed about the issues that are facing the Australian people at that time. So we so think a shorter period for prepoll voting is something that should be considered. Our proposed recommendation 1 in the dissenting report will be contentious. It's something that we will need to grapple with as a democracy and as a parliament, as we go forward. At what point do those who identify as Independents actually become a party? You yourself, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, standing alone as one person, are clearly an Independent. The point we're trying to make is that once you start gathering as a group, conducting yourselves under a common name and common policy areas, such as the teals, are you then in fact a party? At what point do you become a party and have to be caught up in the same rules that impact the party political system? And it's not an attack on the teals by any stretch; it's more of a conversation about when you actually become a party, as distinct from an Independent. The interim report goes to a much broader conversation around fundraising, around campaign donations, around spending caps. I want to make just one quick point in the time I have left. The campaign arms war that we feared and continue to fear—which is the pathway the United States has gone down over many years now—is a pathway to be avoided. I think we have general agreement on that point. But we need to be very careful that we don't exaggerate the risk here in Australia. You need only look at the evidence we heard during these hearings in relation to the United Australia Party. The United Australia Party has been criticised for spending in the order of $123 million in the 2020-21 financial year, and that is pointed out as an example of a campaign arms race. But that $123 million met with very little electoral success. The party spent a lot of money but actually didn't change too many votes; they certainly didn't buy the Australian election. The point I'm trying to make is that the campaign arms war is something to be wary of, but let's not exaggerate the risk or the impact. I do not think Australians have had the election bought by any stretch. But we are right to question whether the money has the potential to distort votes. Big money can come from a variety of sources, but it can also come from unions or other third parties. So I think any reforms we make in this place have to make sure that they catch all the people who might want to make a contribution to the electoral system. The key principles of the dissenting report from the coalition are clear. We want equal treatment for all political participants. We want fair and open transparent elections. We want to encourage more political participation. And we want to make sure any laws or any changes that we make do not unfairly benefit one candidate over another. Here we are all in the business of winning elections. But the overwhelming majority of MPs I meet want a fair fight. They want clear rules of engagement. They want to ensure that the public retains faith and confidence in the results. And, regardless of whether their team wins, the public want to know that they can be confident that the government is going to govern in their interest. I thank the House. 10:32 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I thank the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for this comprehensive interim report on the conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters. As the member for Gippsland has noted, there is much to be admired about the Australian electoral system, and I agree with the member regarding the level of trust and general perceived fairness of the Australian system compared to other countries, specifically the US, where, as a journalist, I've covered elections and politics extensively and where the 2020 poll was disputed. Compulsory voting ensures greater engagement by voters, although we need to do more to encourage people to, once they turn 18, get on the electoral roll, and we need to find ways of making sure First Nations voters, particularly in remote Australia, are able to exercise their democratic rights. In the year of the Voice referendum, this is particularly important. As the Northern Land Council submitted to the inquiry, it is imperative that all eligible Aboriginal people have the opportunity to have their say. It is disturbing that, despite continuing efforts by the Australian Electoral Commission, it's estimated that less than 80 per cent of eligible First Nations citizens were on the roll prior to last year's election compared with the overall total of above 96 per cent. I'm pleased that the committee has considered this issue and will have further hearings and seek further advice as it moves towards its final report. The interim report notes the importance of adequate funding for the AEC to make sure electoral enfranchisement and participation are maximised for First Nations citizens. I trust that the government will act to ensure that the AEC has the money and resources needed to fill the gaps the committee has identified. More broadly, the committee pointed to absence of transparency in our electoral laws as a significant deficiency. Voters should know who is behind the candidates vying for their vote. At the moment they do not. Too little is required to be disclosed, too late. So, I support the recommendation of the majority report for real-time disclosure on all donations above $1,000. As the member for Curtin, who is on the committee, noted, this is a no-brainer, is simple to implement and is a measure to improve public confidence in the integrity of our democracy. The majority report also recommends the introduction of donation and expenditure caps. On the surface, this sounds attractive, but, again, as the member for Curtin says in her additional comments in this report, the devil is in the detail, especially if caps become a further barrier for entry by non-party candidates, making the playing field even less even. It's worth noting that in Victoria, where there are caps, the Melbourne Age reports Labor sources as saying that, as the ALP contemplates running a candidate in the forthcoming state by-election in Warrandyte, it would still cost half a million dollars to run a credible campaign. In Victoria, candidates are nominally limited to a donations cap of $4,320, but, because of other administrative and legal arrangements to major parties, have an additional $100 million to deploy to support their election campaigns. In effect, as the Age put it in September last year, it's: a $100 million, taxpayer-funded wall that protects those already represented in parliament against those seeking to get in. At the federal level, we know that the major parties enjoy significant financial advantages even though at the last election more than a third of voters did not vote for either of them. As the recipient of donations from Climate 200, funded by 11,000 donors, I acknowledge that community-raised funding helped me and others get elected. I'm grateful for this and so, I believe, are Australians who want a more diverse parliament. Having voluntarily declared my own election donations, I would argue we need more transparency about the sources of major parties' income. Loopholes in the current law mean that $90 million in donations to the ALP and the coalition went undisclosed in 2021-2022. Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I would gently rebut the member for Gippsland for his comments in regard to the teals, which is a media construct, and you will note that only yesterday I voted the opposite way to the rest of the so-called teals on a legislative vote in the chamber, which I think puts paid to any suggestion that the so-called teals are a party. I would say much has been made of Climate 200, which is fine. However, the major parties are able to hide much of their funding, receiving tens of thousands of dollars from corporate interests through cash-for-access dinners and business forum memberships. What we also know is that the major parties receive substantial money from the gambling industry. Companies like Tabcorp and Crown have donated $23.9 million to the major parties over the last two decades through associated entities. This creates serious questions about why the major parties have resisted meaningful restrictions on gambling and gambling advertising for so long. Again, having covered Donald Trump's election in the United States, I'm always ready to discuss ways in which we can reduce the amount of money committed to political campaigns and the implications of it, but transparency and levelling the political playing field must be the first step. As the misinformation and disinformation surrounding the debate about the Voice referendum is again demonstrating, we must legislate for truth in political advertising, as we should for truth in media more generally. The committee recommends the Commonwealth adopt the model being used with some success in South Australia. As the South Australian Electoral Commission advised the inquiry: the effectiveness of its handling of complaints during election campaign periods depended on ready access to experienced legal counsel and adequate resources. These are factors the government must keep in mind if it keeps its commitment to act on truth in political advertising, and I acknowledge and support the work of the member for Warringah in this regard. More broadly, given that there appears to be more consensus on improving transparency than other matters raised in the report, I would argue that is where the initial focus should be. We need to take care at a time when support for and trust in democracy is fragile and close to a third of voters no longer support a major party that we do not take steps that inadvertently or otherwise further tilt the playing field away from candidates who have demonstrated support within the communities that they aspire to represent. 10:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I welcome the interim report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2022 federal election. I would note that such reports and investigations have occurred after every federal election and it has been rare that recommendations in such reports have been implemented. So it will be interesting to see, with the change of government in this term, just which of the recommendations get picked up. I welcome the increase in transparency around donations that has been recommended in this report—in particular, the reduction in the disclosure threshold and the introduction of real-time disclosure of donations. There is no doubt that these recommendations will improve the transparency of the funding behind elections and have strong support within the community, who want to know who is funding political campaigns. However, I do have concerns about the potential impact of some of the broader campaign finance reforms that have been touted, in particular around campaign caps and donation caps, because unless these are unilaterally imposed and are done carefully they are ultimately embedding and entrenching incumbents' advantage and major parties' advantage. Some of the recommendations in the report will be counterproductive from the democratic point of view of broadening communities' choice at elections, because we know the major parties have an ability to collude around these types of reforms to make it more difficult for Independent and non-aligned members to mount successful campaign challenges. I was here in the last parliament when I saw that, when the coalition and Labor colluded to change legislation around donations, for example, and around transparency to create an advantage and embed the status quo of the major parties' duopoly. So I support the additional comments made by my fellow crossbencher the member for Curtin in relation to the need to ensure that reforms do not amplify incumbent and major party advantage. Of course, it means the government will need to come to these reforms with clean hands and a real good-faith and genuine desire to improve democracy and not just to embed their own advantage. I support the need for review of probity requirements and a consideration of enhancement of the scope of prohibited donations. The Australian public are absolutely outraged at the impact of big money, especially vested-interest money, when it comes to Australian politics. Benefactors of significant government spending, such as the big four consultancies—PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte—should be prohibited from making donations. We only have to look at the scandals and the allegations of the last month in relation to that incredibly wrong relationship between some of those consultancies and government—contracts for huge amounts of money and then this vicious pool of influence that is reinforced with donations. I note with pleasure that we have the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will be commencing shortly, mostly from the push and the work of Independent and crossbench members to really push the major parties on such measures. These are the areas that must be looked at, the areas of that really vexatious link between interest and influence. There is always a risk that donations will influence policy. Where the source of donations is at odds with broader community values, the barrier to donations and influence needs to be strong. The influence of industries responsible for significant social harm needs to be restricted. The tobacco, liquor and gambling industries, minerals councils and mining cause significant social harm for profit and are areas that benefit from huge amounts of public spending. New South Wales, for example, already prohibits donations from the tobacco, liquor and gaming industries. We should be looking at having some restrictions at the federal level but, in fact, we saw in the last parliament major parties collude to make it easier to circumvent federal rules to have the benefit of state rules when it came to Queensland. Large corporations and registered unions should also be prohibited from making donations to political parties without member approval. Again, there is an influence and a benefit for access that is gained. We still do not have, in a timely way, access to ministers' diaries, for example, or the Prime Minister's diary, for that matter, which has been the subject of freedom of information attempts. The Australian people are entitled to know what link there is between donations and influence, whether it be from the private sector or unions, and decision-making and ministers who are making decisions when it comes to large spending. Large corporations and registered unions should therefore be prohibited without member approval, and member approval requirements should be developed similar to those in place in the United Kingdom. I do welcome in this report the focus on the progress made in relation to misleading and deceptive political advertising. I must say that when I came into politics in 2019 it was a shock to discover that whilst we have protections for consumers when it comes to misleading and deceptive advertising when it comes to goods and services, there is nothing, no protection, when it comes to citizens exercising the most important right they have during elections. The report recommends that the Australian government develop legislation or seek to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide for the introduction of measures to govern truth in political advertising, giving consideration to the provisions of the South Australian Electoral Act 1985. I'd like to remind the government that the work has been done to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and I have proposed a private members' bill which is still on the Notice Paper, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. The bill is heavily informed by the South Australian Electoral Act. I have consulted widely with eminent experts across academic and think tank communities. It's seen as a responsible and proportionate response to the threat of misinformation and disinformation that is increasingly pervading elections in Australia. It also attempts to cover referendum advertising, but sadly the government voted with the coalition against debating the bill prior to the referendum advertising kicking in. Almost three-quarters of Australians came across false political advertisements during the 2022 federal elections. Australians were relentlessly targeted with SMS advertising making all sorts of wild claims. A sceptic might claim that lies have always and will always be part of politics, but research shows that the sheer quantity of false political advertising is going. Nine in 10 Australians want truth in political advertising laws legislated before the next federal election, according to the nationally representative polling from the Australia Institute. Importantly, the bill that I proposed also seeks to capture disinformation and misinformation spread in referendum campaigns. In his review of every Australian referendum, Scott Bennett concluded that a great deal of exaggeration and distortion is standard fare. Already, baseless claims that the Voice would constitute a third chamber have polluted the public debate. For this reason, Professors Gabrielle Appleby and Lisa Hill recently recommended enacting truth in political advertising laws to protect the legitimacy of the referendum. Adopting the bill already on the Notice Paper could, I respectfully suggest, quickly ensure a more respectful and honest debate in the upcoming referendum. Recommendation 12 of the report recommends that the government establish a division with the Australian Electoral Commission to administer such legislation. I think that is a sensible recommendation. In the bill that I've proposed, the Australian Electoral Commission is responsible for the receipt and initial assessment of complaints, with the ultimate recourse to the courts. This approach is consistent with the South Australian approach. The key concerns raised are resourcing the Electoral Commission, and that can certainly be taken care of; recommendation 12 addresses it. Similarly, restriction of the bill to matters pertaining to statements of fact will restrict the ability of parties to prosecute concerns around political bias. Any legal remedy to address misinformation and disinformation must not violate the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed under the Australian Constitution. Freedom of political speech and expression is the lifeblood of a thriving democracy, but that does not give carte blanche to provide misleading and deceptive facts. There is a vast difference between opinion and fact. This must be legislated to protect the Australian people as soon as possible. 10:49 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy A number of speakers here are representing or supporting the teals. I don't know what we spent in the last campaign, but I would be very surprised if it was over $200,000. One of the teal members got $1.8 million, another one got $1.75 million dollars, another got $1.6 million, another got $1.3 million, and another got $1.9 million—and now they get up and talk about donations! I represent families that are struggling to pay off mortgages and are working in the coalmines. Twenty thousand families work directly in the coalmines in Queensland. These people want to close the coalmines down so that they have no income and no jobs. If you live in Moranbah, where the hell are you going to get a job if the coalmines are closed down? Intelligent people, starting with the minister herself, Plibersek, know that technology has moved on. I'm sorry, ladies! Technology is way past you. Intelligent people in the world know that you have algae ponds which absorb CO2. I'm not crying about saving the planet. I have made my contribution, of course, and I'm still making my contribution, but I don't cry at night about it, and it's not my policy. Surely, you should know—as the minister, Tanya Plibersek, knows—the names of the algae that you use. I am told that, in Israel, hardly any CO2 is going into the atmosphere at all because of algae ponds, so don't tell us we've got to do this. I'm sorry: you're 10 years behind the game. The game has already moved on. That little piece of coal contains an immense amount of energy. There's nothing really much outside of atomic power that contains that much energy. Alright, it's been creating a problem. I would agree totally with the teals that there is a rising problem. I don't share their view on climate change. It may or may not be happening, but I most certainly know what's going to happen in the oceans— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I interrupt the member for Kennedy and remind him that he needs to be speaking to the report specifically. I also remind the member for Kennedy that, when referring to the minister, he shouldn't refer to her by her name. Refer to her by her title, please. Mr KATTER HX4 Most certainly, Mr Speaker. I respect your view in this matter. With all due respect, a philosophical point of view is being funded by massive amounts of money. Our point of view is being funded by nothing. The coalmining union in New South Wales is run by a bunch of wokes. Double degree, done nothing in their lives—that's how I describe them. They slither out of a university with two degrees—and I'm not saying all the executive fall into that category and most certainly not our coalmining executive in Queensland. It's just the opposite. All of them worked in the mines. They have dirt under their fingernails. But these people slither out of university, and they slither into positions of power. They only have one compass direction in life, and that is their own personal ambitions. Unfortunately and sadly, this place is comprised mostly of those people. We're talking about money for funding campaigns. I doubt whether my little party—to my knowledge—has a single significant funder or a significant amount of money. To meet the very onerous requirements of the act, our four members of parliament have had to put our hands into our own pockets. The requirements are drawn up for a major party spending $50 million per year. Our little party, to be fair, would spend $200,000 a year, yet we've got to meet the same onerous requirements. We have to pay a lawyer and an accountant to come in. We can't possibly meet these requirements, and they're not created for us. There is a machine created that really excludes people like us. I don't want to deny that a lot of people who have come in under the teals banner have made a very excellent contribution, and they are not part of an ugly system of corporate CEOs who run society and run it for themselves. I would hope that, as they mature as a political philosophy, they will come more and more into line with me, the Greens and you most of all, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, in not bowing the knee and carrying out the will of the powerful and super-rich people in society. Everyone in this place should read Piketty's book. I know a lot of people on the planet have. It is not the 'haves' class anymore; it is the CEO class. These people are paying themselves $10 million a year. If you're the head of a big corporation in Australia, you'll get $10 million a year. The great Christine Holgate was flabbergasted when she found out she had to pay herself $8 million a year and she cut that amount of money by 70 or 80 per cent. Money is controlling this place. In that I would agree very strongly with the Teals and the other crossbenchers, such as yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would agree very strongly that money is controlling this place. You have to look no further than the current decision on pharmacies. There is no doubt that a quarter of the pharmacies in Australia will vanish. They're going to halve the amount of money going to a pharmacist. They will halve the amount of money that we, the people who use pharmacies, have to pay, so they're saying, 'We're doing it for you.' I'm sorry. I've been in these places for 50 years. Follow the money trail. What happens here is about the 15 per cent—and these are the people financing the political campaigns, Mr Deputy Speaker. Twenty per cent of the pharmacies are going to vanish, and that 20 per cent will now be occupied by TerryWhite and Chemist Warehouse. The minister was stupid enough to say in the estimates hearings, 'We have spoken to Chemist Warehouse but we haven't spoken to the guild.' They haven't spoken to the pharmacists but they have spoken to the corporation! Therein tells you, Mr Deputy Speaker, why over a third of the people in Australia voted for people like you, people like me and people like my colleagues on my right-hand side here. They will again, and they will continue to do so until those opposite stop carrying out the will of the people who run society—the powerful CEOs. They slither out of universities and slither into positions of power. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I would just remind the member for Kennedy to stay relevant to the committee report. Mr KATTER HX4 Mr Deputy Speaker, please, it is most relevant to the report. Please understand that what I'm asking here is: who finances the political parties, the big machines? I'm not having a go at Clive Palmer—I've always considered him a friend—but where does his money come from? I'm not here to denigrate Clive, I can assure you of that. I regard him as a friend. But $123 million? Alright, it didn't succeed in getting him very far, but there is no doubt that money is lethal in politics. Speaking as a person who has never had any money to run a campaign in their whole life, I have personal feelings about it, but more important is the bigger picture. It would be interesting to see how much Chemist Warehouse and the TerryWhite corporation gave to political parties in the last election. Terry White was the leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland. He's out of the company now, but I'm sure his relationships live on well after he has left the scene. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 108 CONDOLENCES NEAL, Mr Alfred, OAM 108 11:00 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I was very controversially appointed the minister for what was then called Aboriginal affairs in Queensland. I had a fairly radical reputation. As one of the more radical people in parliament, I was given the task of bringing forward the most radical of legislation to the most conservative of parliaments in Australia. In fact, I think a lot of people would describe the Joh Bjelke-Petersen government as 'archconservative'. To speak about Alfie Neal, you have to put it in a political context. I wrote a moderately best-selling history book, and I have a very unique position in so far as I come from a town called Cloncurry, which is one of the very few conventional towns in Australia where the predominant ethos is First Australian. We refer to ourselves as a 'Murray from the Curry', and that's pretty true. Some racist people used to put on the reservoir coming into Cloncurry 'Coon Curry'. My father used to explode during a rage, because that's a denigrating term, but the fact is that it was the predominant paradigm of my hometown. It's a very interesting town, because the Kalkadoon Wars—if you're talking about tribes, you're taking an English or Scottish concept and applying it to an Australian situation, and it just didn't work like that. I'm not going to go into the details of that, but there is no doubt that the word Kalkadoon referred to all the First Australian peoples that occupied the land between Cloncurry and Mount Isa, right up to the Gulf Country, including Mornington Island. There is no doubt in my mind about that, and I can speak with great authority, because I lived in the bush with my partner—not my partner in the modern sense of the word—my mining partner. We were fifty-fifty in our mining operations, and he was always referred to as the last of the Kalkadoons. His mother is one of the very few piccaninny survivors from the big battle on Battle Range, which is in all the great history books. So I have a unique vantage point. In my book, I didn't want to portray us as losers. I wanted to portray us as winners. There was great violence in that area, and you can't speak about Alfie Neal without talking about this. The great violence is clear. Just look at a map and the names of the creeks—Spear Creek, Police Creek, Massacre Creek, Gunpowder Creek. I mean, you wouldn't need a lot of imagination as to what was going on there, and the fighting went on and on for 40 years. White fellows killing black fellas, black fellas killing white fellas. Ironically enough, it ended up about even. Over a hundred people on both sides died in the Kalkadoon Wars. You can say, in the end, your mob lost, the Kalkadoons lost. Well, hold on a minute. There are only a few thousand of us and we got three million acres in above 24-inch rainfall area. I don't know that we lost at all. I would say that we may well have come out on top. We went through a period of warfare, and then came the second period. The determination to obliterate the First Australians is real. Australians may not like it, but it's real. Then, in came the much-maligned Christians—the people who abolished slavery, abolished communism, created the Renaissance, people called Christians. They came in and they protected us. They gave us huge areas of land. They reserved for us over three million acres in the peninsula alone, and they said, 'You white fellas are not coming in here shooting black fellas. That's over.' That was the Christianity period, but, at the same time, they said to my mob, the Kalkadoons, 'It was for our protection'. I just can't believe how many times I hear the phrase, 'We're doing it for you.' We don't want you to do it for us! We just want you whitefellas to go away, please. Just go away! We don't want you to look after us. I'll tell you how you looked after us. You put us in chains, the Kalkadoons, and sent us off to a penal colony called Palm Island. I haven't got time, but I think every Australian and every schoolchild should read Under the Act, which were the laws in Queensland. It was probably worse than a penal colony, places like Palm Island, where my mob were sent in chains for our protection. They were protecting us! That's an interesting way to protect people! In 1957, the incoming Country Party—the farmers party, if you like—abolished the act, the pernicious, dreadful, appalling, discriminatory and oppressive act. It was abolished in 1957-58. But we then went into a period of paternalism. When I was appointed minister—and this is where Alfie Neal comes into the story—I first went to Yarrabah, outside of Cairns, the biggest First Australian community in Australia, with 4½ thousand First Australian people. I was taken around by the departmental officials. I spoke to all of the people that were in positions of importance that were running the Yarrabah community. Of the 28, 26 were whitefellas, not blackfellas. This is where Alfie Neal comes in. I thought: 'This is wrong. I think anyone that ascribes to Christianity would say this is wrong, as would anyone that believes in the American Declaration of Independence, the British Bill of Rights or the French declaration of independence—that all men are born free and equal.' That was not the case in Queensland. Even though the act had been abolished, we had a situation where all of the money coming into the community was to public servants or for the dole or some sort of social benefit. So you had to cash a cheque from the government. Of course, if you got offside with the whitefella administration, they didn't cash your cheques. I would say that, at every single one of the 28 communities in Queensland, when I visited them, someone would come up and say, 'What about cashing the cheques?' I couldn't get a handle on what they were talking about. They used that as a form of control. I realised that we had to get out of this. I thought: 'Why improve it? Why not just go to where we should be, which is self-management? Let the people go back to running their own affairs and having the power to run their own affairs. No state government, no federal government.' It has to come from the people themselves. There's a great scene in the movie Burn! where Marlon Brando cuts the rebel leader free and says, 'Run away! They're going to kill you. Run away! You'll be free.' He says: 'No, if my freedom depends upon you cutting that rope, I'm not free,' and he sat there and waited for his execution the next morning. Good call! Great call! You are not free unless you yourself seize that power. That's Alfie Neal. One person in 4,000 said, 'We run our own affairs, not you whitefellas.' A great leader of the Torres Strait. I've only met seven truly great people in my life. The first name I would mention would be George Mye, a very deeply committed Christian. Every aspect of his life was run by his Christianity—love your fellow man and work hard to make the world a better place—and he did so with very great courage. There are only two others: Tommy Geia at Palm Island, a descendant of the bloke that wrote the great book Under the Act; and Alfie Neal—which brings me to the subject today, Alfie Neal. A very big family. Alfie didn't hate people. He didn't hate the Uncle Toms; the coconuts. He didn't hate them. He didn't hate whitefellas. He didn't hate being black. But he stood up. I had no power at all, but three great leaders stood up. There was no doubt that every one of the 4½ thousand people at Yarrabah would follow Alf. When he stood up, Tom Geia stood up on Palm Island, which is the second-biggest community in Australia, with 2,000 people. George Mye, representing the Torres Strait— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 109 ADJOURNMENT Refugee Week 109 11:10 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney World Refugee Week acts as a reminder to us all to stop and consider those who have had to flee their home country, and to recognise the significant impact they have gone on to make and the many societies they have ultimately enhanced. It is also an opportunity for us to reflect on current commitments to refugees and asylum seekers and what we are doing well or otherwise, and on those who are currently literally stuck in an asylum seeking system that can see their children grow from toddlers to teenagers. Australia prides itself on a history of providing resettlement to refugees and others who are displaced through conflict, persecution and human rights abuses. The government's decision to end the abhorrent and destabilising system of temporary protection visas for some 19,000 refugees who arrived in Australia since 2012 is long overdue. Ninety-four per cent of those eligible have now submitted applications for permanency, and I call on the government to ensure the resolution of status visas are issued as quickly as possible. There remain some 12,000 people seeking asylum who in many instances have lived in Australia for over a decade but who continue to be punished and denied the basic rights of recognition as a human being worthy of our compassion. In many instances, despite what the system may say of their origins, we have fundamentally shaped who they are today, and our country should bear the responsibility of assisting them to step back into a full and recognisable life here in Australia. Meanwhile, it's estimated that 120 million people are displaced worldwide. While the minister recently reported that we are on track to fill our quota for this year, Australia's humanitarian intake remains at a historic low of 13,750 places. As a nation with boundless plains to share, we can and must do more. People seeking asylum come from all corners of the world, but today I would like to draw attention to those impacted by the current crackdown of the Iranian regime. Since the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in September, the situation in Iran is increasingly volatile, and a burden of responsibility rests on the international community to respond adequately. The unacceptable loss of life and freedom, and the unimaginable pain felt by Iranian communities here in Australia and their families, is something that cannot be ignored by our wider society. At least 282 people have been arbitrarily executed since the beginning of 2023 to May. That's an average of three executions a day. At least 16 other protesters are in detention, accused of capital offences, and at risk of the death penalty. In all, over 20,000 protesters have been arrested and over 520 people killed, 71 of whom are children and teenagers. While many would like us to think that the protests have now stopped, they haven't; they have simply changed form, not because the Iranians lack the courage but because the loss of life is unbearable and will only get worse. My community of North Sydney has been shaken by many of these events, including the recent execution of Majid Kazemi. Iranian authorities executed Majid, Saleh Mirhashemi and Saeed Yaghoubi just last month, on 19 May, on the basis of a vaguely worded and overly broad charge of 'enmity against God'. Recently I attended a vigil for Majid alongside his North Sydney family, whose advocacy had been tireless and heartbreaking to witness. I want to particularly pay my respects to Majid's cousin, Mohammad Hashemi, who fought to the very end to see his cousin reunited with his family. While Australians have responded to these atrocities with three packages of sanctions, have voted with 28 other countries to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women and have demanded an end to executions, I believe there is more we can do. For this reason, I call on the government to step up and uphold their commitment to expand our humanitarian program by increasing the intake of Iranians under various visa programs, with a particular focus on women, girls and persecuted minorities who are seeking to escape the Iranian regime. We can and should expand on the Magnitsky-style sanctions against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials and individuals. These efforts would be in line with those already taken by other democracies. And we must step up as a world democratic leader and harden our opposition towards the Iranian regime. It's been nine months since Mahsa lost her life one month since Majid lost his. Still, the Iranian people stand and call for women, life and freedom. I'm committed to amplifying these calls wherever and whenever I can. Housing Affordability 110 11:15 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I'm pleased to stand today and speak on housing as a proud member of the Albanese Labor government, with an unwavering commitment to serve the Australian people by delivering more houses for those who need them most—what we took to the election. What I'm not pleased about is what we've witnessed in the Senate this week. We've seen that policy has been cast aside, politics has been elevated above people and decisions have been delayed. This obstructionism has a human cost. Every day that progress is held back in the Senate after 1 July equates to a staggering $1.3 million that is not being invested into social and affordable housing in Australia. To put that in perspective, that's $250 million for every six months that this decision is delayed. The lives affected by this delay are real. There are families who are desperately waiting for a public house. There are key workers, like nurses, police officers and ambulance officers—and let's face it, who can afford to live in Sydney these days?—who want to be close to where they work. They need affordable housing that is close to their work. As the saying goes, history repeats itself, and the Greens have form in this area. You only have to look back to 10 years ago, when they again sided with the Liberals and played politics on climate change. Because of these avocado activists, Australia saw a decade of inaction on climate change. And now they bleat at us about emergencies—seriously. Now they want to set housing reform in this country back and force more suffering—to amplify a crisis—just so another decade can slip by and they can say: 'Oh, but we dreamed of something better. We held out for the Holy Grail of housing.' Yeah, thanks for that, Greens! I'll tell you what: it's all or nothing in this crapshoot with the Greens at the moment, and it's not good enough. They posture to their inner-city electorates like ecocentrics, purporting to care for social justice, the environment and people, but when the rubber hits the road for the cars they 'have to drive', based on coal, they simply run away and obfuscate. They want to eat the fresh avocados but leave the rotting ones for the rest of us. Well, it's just not good enough for real Australia. At the very centrepiece of our ambitious housing reform agenda is the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is set to deliver 30,000 social and affordable rental homes for Australians who are most in need. This is not a theoretical proposition, like most of the Greens policy platform. This is a concrete, tangible lifeline for thousands of Australians struggling with the rising tide of house prices. Despite this, the Greens pursue an all-or-nothing approach. They refuse to see the bigger picture—the progress we could make together. They don't want to take part in any solution. They just want to amplify the problem. They withhold support, forgetting that progress is a journey of steps, not leaps. They're fixated on the perfect and are willing to reject the good in pursuit of it. We argue that it is better to improve the lives of our people in increments than to stagnate, paralysed by ideological purity. Every election I hear people say, 'Oh, Labor are in bed with the Greens!' Let me tell you: that's a very long, old, cold bed! We've seen elections where the Greens have preferenced the Liberals and now a Senate where they vote lock-step with them—the Libs and the ones who are well and truly shacked up in a cosy little house. It's a very dysfunctional arrangement, I want to say, that stops decent Australians having a place to call their own. That's the truth of it. Since taking office, our government has consistently sought to expand our housing agenda. The immediate release of $575 million, the introduction of the housing accord in our first budget, changes to build-to-rent, the improvement of Commonwealth rent assistance and more financing for social and affordable homes in the last budget all demonstrate our commitment. We just want to get on with it. Last weekend, we announced a $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to work alongside states and territories. We are doing this. We want to take the Greens with us, and they've got to get on the journey to get Australia housed. Technology 111 11:20 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey There's no doubt COVID created many challenges for everyone right across the country, but it also created amazing opportunities. As my former CEO said, 'In 10 weeks, we saw an uptake in digital technology that we thought would take 10 years.' Overlaid with this, the amazing progress that we're seeing in AI, quantum and medtech means that there are amazing opportunities for the Australian economy. We all know that we are going through a cost-of-living crisis at the moment, and one of the key things we can do to drive down inflation is to ensure we have productivity gains across the nation. Recently, the Productivity Commission released their five-year report, and that showed that digital technology is one of the key pillars that is going to drive productivity into the future. It is disappointing that this government has missed that opportunity by not appointing a minister for the digital economy. We saw an amazing 2030 digital strategy implemented by the former minister, Senator Jane Hume, that was making progress. Industry was excited about it and seeing results. You talk to industry today, and it has ground to a halt. It has profound impacts for our economy. When we look at AI as an example, one of the consequences of not having a minister is the discussion paper that the government has just released. Minister Husic has released a good discussion paper, but it looks at it from a scientific point of view, and the scope of the paper focuses on the risks of AI. It does not talk about the economic opportunities. It's important that we do look at the risks but also at the economic opportunities. That's why we need a minister driving this policy and this strategy every day, because it's the people of Australia who will benefit from the economic growth and the productivity gains of AI. AI also has a really important role to play in the medtech sector. Medtech is an exciting space. There are over 17,000 jobs directly in medtech in Australia and 34,000 jobs that support and supply the sector. I was talking to industry representatives this week. They talk about how AI will be an important part of their journey. And that's the reality with AI—yes, there are risks that we need to mitigate, but we can't lose sight of the opportunities. It's likely that we will all be saved from cancer or other diseases through the uptake of AI in the medtech sector. So it's important that we get the balance right in this discussion and look at the opportunities. When we talk about medtech we also need to have a discussion about these opportunities and make sure that people have timely, equitable access to technology at the right time to save lives and ensure patients can recover quicker. We need to value the health outcomes that medtech can achieve and ensure there's a sustainable investment and regulatory process to ensure that we can get products into the country to serve all Australians as quickly as possible. Quantum is an amazing opportunity for our country. From a national security perspective, it's a key part of pillar 2, but it also brings significant economic opportunities for our country. BCG estimates that the market value of quantum by 2040 will be $850 billion, but 90 per cent of the value capture will be early adopters. This is one of the challenges that I spoke about in my first speech: the speed that technology goes, relative to how government moves with policy. We've seen with the quantum fund the government have announced that applications will open early next year, with the first feasibility studies expected mid-next year and the demonstrations to commence in late 2025. That's too late for the industry, and we're going to miss this opportunity. To understand this opportunity, a great example is a local company here in Canberra called Q-CTRL. They're five years old. They employ a hundred staff. They're focused on defence but also on new industries, and they work with large players like Airbus, IBM and Amazon Web Services, servicing those companies. They are a key business in building the tech ecosystem locally that we need to continue to grow and prosper. They're creating highly skilled jobs. But businesses like Q-CTRL and others in quantum, AI and medical tech need support, and they need the government to move quicker, because every day there are greater developments in this industry. I urge the government to employ a minister for the digital economy. (Time expired) King's Birthday Honours, National Anti-Corruption Commission 112 11:25 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the long list of meritorious and military award recipients in Bean who were recently recognised in the King's Birthday 2023 Honours List. Firstly, I would like to congratulate two outstanding members of our first responder workforce—Commander Joanne Cameron, on being awarded the Australian Police Medal, and Mr Jason Jones, for being awarded the Emergency Services Medal. I thank them for their ongoing dedication to keeping our communities safe. In Bean, 13 residents received recognition for their commitment to public service and have been awarded the Public Service Medal—Mr Bobby Antoniou, for outstanding public service to public health as the liaison officer for the ACT COVID-19 Clinic Health Emergency Centre; Mr Graham Archer, for outstanding public service through leadership to deliver nationally significant measures and reforms; Ms Margaret Hayes, for outstanding public service in providing culturally safe access to aged care for First Nations people; Mr Dac Ho, for outstanding public service in providing data extraction for reporting during the COVID-19 pandemic; Ms Vanessa Hoban, for outstanding public service to public health in the ACT's clinical response to COVID-19; Mr Daniel Lalor for outstanding public service to public health as the director of pharmacy at Canberra Health Services at Canberra Hospital; Ms Stacey Matthews, for outstanding public service in supporting the ACT's whole-of-government COVID-19 response; Ms Margaret McManus, for outstanding public service to public health as the nursing lead for the ACT COVID@Home program; Mrs Melissa O'Brien, for outstanding public service to public health through leadership and practical assistance to the ACT's COVID-19 response; Ms Melissa Ryan, for outstanding public service through leadership and implementation of complex reform and policies to assist vulnerable Australians; Mr Ajay Sharma, for outstanding public service in strengthening accountability and transparency throughout the ACT public service; Ms Emily Springett, for outstanding public service in leading Access Canberra's COVID-19 response; and Ms Cathy Toze, for outstanding public service in leadership and commitment to support Australia's COVID-19 response. I thank these outstanding public servants for their selfless dedication to serving Australians and Canberrans. Additionally, I would like to recognise and congratulate the following Defence personnel on being awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal—Commander Gary Page of the Royal Australian Navy and Group Captain Catherine Wallis. Commander Page was awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for his devotion to duty in training and education delivery for the ADF. Group Captain Wallis received her Conspicuous Service Medal for her devotion to duty in managing inquiries and investigations in the Office of Inspector-General in the ADF. A community is made when people help others, and I commend these outstanding recipients for their work in making our community a better place. In just over a week, the National Anti-Corruption Commission comes into operation. This was a key commitment of the Albanese Labor government, and it was a high priority for my constituents in Bean. The former Liberal government promised to legislate a federal integrity commission that would regulate government integrity. Instead, they gave us the sports rorts affair, secret ministries and the illegal Robodebt scheme, and so much more, as we find out every week. By the time of the 2022 federal election, trust in government had diminished and our global corruption rankings were at historic lows. My electorate of Bean voted for Labor because they wanted greater transparency, greater integrity and greater accountability in public life, whether at a representative or an administrative level. The NACC will reduce government corruption by detecting, investigating and publicising corrupt conduct. The NACC will have timely investigation of corruption issues, capacity to publish reports on the investigations and education programs for the public sector on how to prevent corruption from occurring in the first place. The commencement of the NACC on 1 July, is evidence that the Albanese Labor government is delivering on better federal transparency and accountability for the Australian people and doing that incredibly important task of rebuilding trust in government. Forrest Electorate: Awards 113 11:30 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I would like to congratulate the winners of the Shire of Harvey annual community awards and also the residents in the Forrest electorate who were recognised in the King's Birthday honours. The Shire of Harvey annual community awards recognise our volunteers: the ones who make the Harvey shire the caring community that it is. The prestigious Meritorious Service Award was presented to Marion Lofthouse who has a record of community service that is absolutely inspiring. Much of what you see around the town of Harvey is a credit to Marion's work. She has held leadership roles in the Harvey Mainstreet Committee, helped coordinate the Harvey Harvest Festival and has put art into the streets of Harvey. She is a longstanding member of the Harvey Historical Society, has helped with the preservation of the Harvey railway station building and its transition into a museum, and is also a member the Harvey Town Hall Preservation Committee. The Shire of Harvey Appreciation Award for residents who've made really significant contributions was received by three local people. Daryl Fishwick volunteers with the local Leschenault volunteer bush fire brigade and Eaton-Australind Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service. He coaches and referees local basketball and junior footy, as well. Maureen Foss, another Appreciation Award recipient, has a deep love of music and has supported the Harvey Catholic Parish with her talent with guitar and choral works. She also cooks many meals for the Harvey Community Dinner, which feeds up to a hundred people. Taarna Cam is the third Appreciation Award recipient. She loves swimming and wants to make it inclusive for people with disability. She also volunteers for the Australind Swimming Club and helps members with their training. The Youth Award went to Taya Larkman who's a member of the shire's youth collective and volunteers at Our Lady of Mercy College in Australind. The shire's Community Group Award went to Lot 208 Youth Inc, which is a safe and inclusive place and space for youth in the community aged between 12 and 18. Up to 60 young people use Lot 208 Youth every Friday night. Congratulations to all of these people. A number of very dedicated people were recognised in the King's Birthday honours. Dan Norton was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to agriculture and the community. As the chair of the Harvey Water cooperative, Dan was instrumental in establishing the co-op and the piping of the Harvey and Waroona irrigation districts, a pipe system which has created enormous water efficiencies. Senior Sergeant Heath Soutar, officer in charge of the Australind police, was awarded the Australian Police Medal. He's held in very high regard for his integrity and drive, at times in challenging roles, in Australind, Collie, Laverton, Merredin and around regional Western Australia. Our local arts community is celebrating the recognition of local leaders, artists, Leon Pericles and Caroline Wood with their appointments as members of the Order of Australia. A local legend dedicated to preserving the iconic Busselton Jetty, Trevor Fitzgerald, received a very well deserved award with the Medal of the Order of Australia, and our very noted Margaret River winemaker Vanya Cullen was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her services to viticulture and oenology. Vanya is absolutely a powerhouse. She's at the helm of one Margaret River's founding wineries and has worked for most of her life on the family farm that was started by her parents, Keven and Diana. She's been Cullen's chief winemaker since 1989 and became managing director a decade later. Cullen is an organic and biodynamic certified winery and was the very first winery in Australia to be certified 100 per cent carbon neutral. She has been named the winemaker of the year by Qantas/the Wine Magazine as well as woman of the year and green personality of the year by a magazine in the UK. She has also been inducted into the Australian Businesswomen's Hall of Fame. Basically, Vanya has helped to put Margaret River on the map. The quality wines that come out of that winery have helped the reputation of Margaret River as one of the fine wine-producing areas in the world. They also host the Cullen Award for Excellence, which is in honour of her parents, who started Cullen wines and brought that focus on excellence that Vanya has continued and enhanced in her time. Albanese Government, Housing Affordability, Medicare 113 11:35 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Last election, northsiders living in my electorate of Lilley sent a clear message. They issued a blunt appraisal. They wanted a government who would work for them to deliver a better future for all Australians. Since the election, every member of the Albanese Labor government has put their shoulder to the wheel, delivering for Australians. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has delivered multi-employer bargaining and is fighting to close labour-hire loopholes. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has delivered cheaper medication, with more savings to come later this year. The Minister for Social Services raised the rate of JobSeeker, youth allowance and Austudy and expanded eligibility for the single parenting payment. This week the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Attorney-General passed the constitutional amendment legislation so Australians can vote for a voice to parliament and constitutional recognition for Australia's First Nations people. The Minister for Industry and Science has delivered the National Reconstruction Fund, to invest in renewables and the manufacturing sector. And the Minister for Housing has been relentless in her work to ease the pressure on the housing crisis, with the introduction of the Housing Australia Future Fund, the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a decade. Our plan includes 20,000 affordable homes, including 4,000 for women fleeing domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness; 10,000 affordable rentals; and $200 million to repair remote Indigenous housing. But this week, before we all go home to our electorates, the Greens and the coalition have teamed up to delay this vital legislation, which I find absolutely shameless. While the coalition and the Greens chalk this block up as a political win, this move has real life consequences for people living in Lilley, in Brisbane, in Griffith, in Petrie and in Dickson. Every day of delay past 1 July is $1.3 million that will not be spent on housing. But while they are blocking, we will get on with building. While they are about delays, we are about delivery. And while they are about protest, we are about practical action that will help people, because we won't forget about the people living this every day on the ground. Our new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator will deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. This investment will build more housing for more Australians in more parts of our nation. The Albanese government knows that cost-of-living pressures are hurting people. That's why we're providing the largest investment in bulk-billing incentives ever, making it easier and cheaper for Australians to see their doctor. Northsiders have told me about their struggles to find a bulk-billing GP. At a mobile office in Everton Park recently, my constituent Ivan, who is 77, came to tell me that he couldn't afford the co-payment to go to a doctor, that he needed a bulk-billing GP. We've announced the largest ever increase to the bulk-billing incentive in the history of Medicare, so that northsiders like Ivan can see a doctor when they need to. This will provide an immediate benefit to 65,989 people in my electorate of Lilley, on the north side. Additionally, we are making hundreds of medicines cheaper by allowing millions of Australians to buy two months worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription. This change will save patients up to $180 per year and benefit more than 37,707 Lilley residents. The Albanese government's early education package, starting this July, will benefit 8,900 families in Lilley on the north side. For every Australian family on about $120,000 with a child in care three days per week, the changes deliver real cost-of-living relief of about $1,700 per year. I recently visited Goodstart Early Learning in Aspley. That centre was devastated by last year's floods, and they couldn't reopen until February of this year. When I spoke with Michelle, the centre director, it was clear that they faced many big challenges, and one of the greatest was recruiting staff. On top of our early education package, a further $72 million will be invested to build and retain the early childhood education workforce nationally, while the Queensland government delivers free kindy for Queensland families, a move that I know will take the pressure off household budgets. With the cheeky 15 seconds I have remaining, may I congratulate the mighty Maroons on closing out the Origin series last night. This is the first time since 2016 that we have taken out the series back to back. A personal congrats to Lindsay Collins, of my electorate of Lilley, who took out Man of the Match. We love you. Well done, Maroons. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:41