2023-08-01 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 1 August 2023

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023, Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 1

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 1

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 12:02 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa On behalf of the federal coalition, I confirm to the House that we will be supporting the passage of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023. The coalition recognises that having a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial to protecting Australia against the threat of pests and diseases. Biosecurity is a critical pillar of our national defence. Having an efficient system in place allows our nation to prepare for, mitigate and respond to the serious risks to our environment, economy and way of life. Incredibly, Australia's environmental assets are estimated to be worth $5.7 trillion. Our agricultural production has reached $90 billion and employs hundreds of thousands of Australians. Before the COVID 19 pandemic, tourism contributed $50 billion to our national GDP. The health, sustainability and resilience of these sectors relies on a biosecurity system that is advanced and effective. However, many of the things we take for granted as a constant of Australian life are at greater risk than ever before. It's a confronting reality that exotic pests and diseases are spreading around the world and putting serious pressure on our borders, especially with current threats like foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. The emergency response in Australia continues to eradicate varroa mite. Responding to this rapidly changing biosecurity environment requires the government to have the controls, partnerships, tools, processes and networks in place to manage these risks. That brings us to the bill before the House today. The Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 by streamlining administrative processes and increasing some penalties to ensure there is compliance with our strict biosecurity laws. This follows a track record of similar changes made to the act in previous years. Since it commenced in 2015, the Biosecurity Act has been amended several times, mainly in relation to increases in civil penalties for breaches. The bill consists of four schedules which apply to both human and non-human biosecurity risks. Schedule 1 relates to assessing biosecurity risks for persons on an incoming aircraft or vessel. The amendments will allow classes of people to be directed to provide relevant information, instead of the current method, which is on an individual basis. The Director of Biosecurity may also require any person to produce passports or official government travel documents to assess the level of biosecurity risk and for future profiling or future risk assessments. These documents can be scanned and retained for as long as necessary to meet the purpose of this provision. It's important to note that there is a penalty for not adhering to this provision and that, currently, under the Biosecurity Act 2015, passports can be requested to be provided. This amendment will formalise this request and include the purposes for providing these documents—for determining the level of biosecurity risks associated with persons and any goods that the person has with them and for future profiling or future risk assessment—and allow for these documents to be scanned and retained. Schedule 2 amends the process of providing notifications to holders of an approved arrangement so as to streamline the process of suspending, changing or revoking these arrangements. The aim of these changes is to cut red tape for biosecurity officers by making this process simpler and avoiding the need to provide multiple notifications. It also introduces a new procedural fairness requirement relating to a notice of proposed variation and an alternative sanction of a reprimand. Schedule 3 increases a range of civil penalties for breaches of biosecurity law to prevent listed human diseases, to manage deceased individuals and human remains and to meet the requirements that apply in human health response zones. Ultimately, we need to have civil penalties which serve as a proportionate deterrent against noncompliance in response to growing human biosecurity threats. Additionally, there are increased penalties for providing false and misleading information. Schedule 4 allows strict liability provisions and infringement notices to apply to a number of penalties where there is no way to deal with low-level noncompliance other than by prosecution or civil litigation. This will ensure that non-compliance can be addressed swiftly and effectively. The federal coalition notes that this bill has undergone extensive consideration, with it having been referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 22 June. This committee has now published its report, and has recommended that the bill be supported through the parliament. We also recognise that through this committee process the bill has the support of industry and major agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers Federation, GrainGrowers, Australian Dairy Farmers, Australian Pork Ltd and NSW Farmers. Ultimately, it comes down to this: we must ensure that people who seek to enter Australia and bring goods into this country—those who present a biosecurity risk at our borders—are complying with their obligations and responsibilities to keep our nation safe from pests and diseases. So, while the coalition are supporting the passage of this bill, we are concerned with Labor's approach to other elements of its biosecurity policy. In her second reading speech on this bill, the minister spoke about the government's sustainable funding model. We know that it's absolutely vital that Australia has a biosecurity system that is adequately and appropriately funded. That's why in government the federal coalition always supported a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, taxing farmers was never considered to be a part of the mix. The coalition's approach to the sustainable funding model was targeted at the risk creators—the importers. We believe that an import container levy is the responsible and fair way forward. In government we were making progress on this model, but it has not been implemented by the Albanese government. Instead of implementing an import container levy, the Albanese government has decided that, from 1 July next year, Australian farmers will be slugged with a new $153 million tax, which amounts to a bill that is equivalent to 10 per cent of their existing industry-led agricultural levels. Why would any Australian government tax its own farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors to bring their product into this country? It doesn't make sense. It's profoundly unfair and it's the wrong approach to ensuring that our biosecurity system is properly funded into the future. The Australian people can be assured that under a federal coalition government, in contrast to Labor, our hardworking farmers will never be punished for the biosecurity risks that their international competitors pose. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the federal coalition support the passage of the bill through the House. We support it because we need to have a biosecurity system that is strong, robust and fit for purpose, a system which has in place penalties that reflect the severity of any breaches or noncompliance by individuals who would willingly place our unique environment, our economy and our society at risk. That's how serious this is and that's why the federal coalition is proud of our track record in government. Biosecurity was always a priority, and we achieved a lot. Under our government, we made more than $1 billion available for biosecurity and export programs in 2022, a funding increase of 69 per cent compared to 2014. In the last year's budget we committed to strengthening the northern Australia biosecurity front line against animal diseases, state and territory governments were to be given support to undertake surveillance and control activities and funding was announced to improve livestock traceability. In government, we increased fines and penalties for people breaking biosecurity laws and partnered with New Zealand to develop world-leading biosecurity risk detection technology, such as 3D X-ray machines. Ultimately, our measures in office ensured that Australia remained a world leader in biosecurity, with strong controls in place offshore, at our border and within Australia. When it comes to the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, the federal coalition believes that the measures outlined in this legislation are sensible and reasonable, and we commend it to the House. Debate adjourned. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 3

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 12:10 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The coalition will be supporting this bill, as it has a positive regulatory impact and gives effect to technical improvements identified in the 2021 whole-of-government review of regulator performance initiated by the former coalition government. The bill seeks to legislate changes that were originally contained in the Regulator Performance Omnibus Bill 2022, first introduced by the former coalition government in February 2022. The omnibus bill sought to update or remove outdated administrative provisions across Commonwealth legislation that impose unnecessary regulatory burden and prevent regulators from engaging with business and supporting compliance in a modern and flexible way. The bill subsequently lapsed at dissolution of parliament. I'd like to briefly touch on this body of work and make some comments about its importance. Enhancing regulation is something governments of all persuasions should be focused on because it improves the regulatory environment individuals, businesses and communities must navigate. In streamlining regulation, removing loopholes and working with industry to find solutions, we become more productive and we waste less energy as a result. Better regulation has a multiplier effect throughout the economy. In the context of the bill currently being considered this is critical work, to ensure that we remain forward facing and functional in our intellectual property regulatory environment. Businesses must be able to rely on a clear and responsive regulatory system that governs their activities. The coalition is proud to have contributed to this body of work and is pleased to see it debated in the parliament today. Indeed, in government, the coalition's deregulation agenda has and will continue to deliver dividends, with reforms including simplified business activity statements, single-touch payroll, an online 'Hiring employees checklist' and an employment contract tool that enables employers to generate an employment contract in five minutes. These reforms are expected to generate economic benefits of $21 billion over 10 years. Measures in this bill seek to enhance regulatory functions in the Trade Marks Act 1995, remove spent provisions in the Patents Act 1990 and provide greater legal clarity in the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 to protect Olympic insignia, which is particularly important as we approach the 2032 Brisbane Olympic Games. As we know, some bad-faith operators might seek to file for trademarks well in advance of the Olympics, something which provisions in this bill respond to. The bill amends legislation to clarify that only the Australian Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee are permitted to register Olympic insignia as trademarks in Australia. The amendments will also provide clearer authority for the government to reject trademark applications not made by the AOC or IOC. I note the minister's comments that the Australian and international Olympic committees are supportive of these changes. This will be a big event for Australia and we need to make sure the right regulatory levers are there to be exercised if needed. The bill also responds to a number of minor inconsistencies in the Trademarks Act. Part 2 of the bill deals with inconsistencies in the administration of trademark renewals. Part 3 simplifies and clarifies legislation to ensure that if opposition to a trademark is overlooked in the registration process the trademark is revoked until the opposition is worked through appropriately. Part 4 corrects a gap in the legislation allowing for extension of time during non-use removal applications, meaning that a trademark would be restored if an extension of time is obtained to challenge a trademark removal. Part 5 removes references to an official journal of trademarks and, in doing so, modernises the act and removes the possibility of inconsistencies. This is particularly important as, at present, trademarks are captured on IP Australia's online portal and published within a point-in-time journal. Eliminating this inconsistency through modernising these legacy arrangements is exactly what the 2021 whole-of-government review of regulator performance sought to unearth. The overall changes to the Trade Marks Act will result in a regulatory environment producing more confidence for its users. This bill also makes minor amendments to the Patents Act 1990, repealing transitional and savings provisions in the act that have had no effect from February 2022. This would have no impact on the administration of Australia's patent system. I note that these changes, when originally introduced by the coalition as part of the omnibus bill, received supportive comments from stakeholders, with consultation opening on 13 December 2021 and closing on 14 January 2022. Regulation must serve what it seeks to regulate, and it must be fit for purpose. We believe that the measures in this bill will contribute to that important task. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 4

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

Second Reading 4 12:16 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The coalition supports this bill. The bill draws heavily from the work of the Stevens review, which was originally commissioned by the coalition government. The review considered a whole range of issues in relation to classifications, and this bill deals with some of the less controversial matters related to that area of policy. The changes in the bill are quite straightforward. The primary purpose of the bill is to streamline the classification system to deal with high volumes of content, particularly relating to online films and computer games. The bill aims to achieve this by expanding options for self-classification using accredited classifiers. The new system would be designed to reduce processing times and the costs associated with classification application fees. There would be safeguard mechanisms to deal with concerns about the performance and standards of accredited classifiers or their decisions. Other changes in this bill would provide classification exemptions for non-English-language films for libraries and museums and would broaden exemptions for cultural events and exhibitions. A classify-once principle would also be applied to reduce the duplication of classification processes for materials already approved for broadcast. The national classification scheme carries out important work. It sets out the regulatory framework for classifying films, computer games and publications. In his report into the classification scheme Mr Stevens noted that since the scheme was introduced in 1995 new platforms, including subscription video-on-demand services, broadcast video on demand, livestreaming platforms, online games, social media and mobile apps, have become common. The review pointed to the growing volume of content requiring classification, particularly online films and games, and recommended action to reduce time frames and costs. Mr Stevens recommended self-classification by people trained and accredited by the regulator, who could be either in-house staff or third-party classifiers. The bill expands options for self-classification by allowing film and computer game content to be carried out by accredited persons. It sets up a new classification scheme to allow content providers to use classifiers who have been trained and accredited by the government to self-classify content. The government points to a number of safeguards in this system, including requiring accredited persons to be of fit and proper character and to have carried out relevant training and that accredited persons cannot classify films that are likely to be rated X or 18-plus or refused classification. Importantly, the person's accreditation may be suspended or revoked by the classifications board, and the board may also revoke the classification set by an accredited person. The Stevens review had been told that public libraries were increasingly finding it difficult to source films in languages other than English for their culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This was the case because it wasn't commercially viable to pay the cost of a classification for a relatively small number of copies of a foreign film to be purchased for libraries. Mr Stevens recommended the development of an exemption for unclassified films in languages other than English for supply to public libraries. The bill seeks to enact this recommendation. The bill also seeks to broaden classification exemptions for content used during organised community events run by approved cultural institutions to now allow the exemption at routine events or exhibitions. As a member for one of Australia's most multicultural electorates, I know these changes will be welcomed. The Stevens review highlighted that, under existing arrangements, classification ratings cannot be carried over between broadcast TV and other platforms such as video on demand. As a result, the same content broadcast on television and any other platform must be classified twice. The bill seeks to pick up on recommendations from the Stevens review to reduce duplication and apply a 'classify once' principle for broadcast content. I also note that the explanatory memorandum for the bill states that cost-recovery arrangements for industry self-classification may be considered in a future budget process. While fees may be applied for accreditation and for training purposes, the bill states that such fees must not be such as to amount to taxation, importantly, and can be used only for cost-recovery purposes. These changes will happen to fee recovery by regulation, and it's imperative that these costs be kept to a minimum to ensure the intent of the Stevens review is delivered. As I said at the outset, the coalition will support this bill. These changes pick up on the work we commenced to update Australia's classification systems. They are also in line with our election commitment that the classifications system should be modernised to keep pace with content being produced today and tomorrow. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 5

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 12:22 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher You know what Labor policies I like the most? They're the sorts of policies that are copied from the coalition. This bill is the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, and it's proof once again that the coalition's plans are commonsense plans for Australia. It's proof that Labor do not have a plan for our economy. While the coalition will be supporting this bill, we support it because many of the reforms contained in this bill are the work of the Liberal and National parties when we were in government. Not too long ago I hosted the shadow Treasurer for a visit to my electorate in Fisher. We assembled a Fisher industry round table composed of local financial advisers and local financial service professionals. We shared about the strengths and struggles of doing business under this Labor government. Small businesses like David Unwin Accountants, Tax and Audit, Infocus Australia and Wideland brokers. These are hardworking, community-oriented, client-centred firms on the Sunshine Coast, and they are contending with a huge deal more than they were before 22 May. Australia should be very proud of its strong financial services sector. It is one of the bedrocks of our economy. Its stability and strength is known around the world. Part of this strength comes from nearly a decade of the coalition being in government. We slashed red tape because government shouldn't hold Australians back from achieving. We simplified taxes because government shouldn't complicate business unnecessarily. We invested in vocational and tertiary education in areas like data science, tech and cybersecurity to ensure that our financial services sector is at the cutting edge. At the same time, we implemented landmark transparency and consumer protection measures to protect Australians and their financial interests. We introduced standards for cybersecurity, data protection and verification to boost confidence in the sector in an uncertain world. We remain committed to those objectives and to ensuring that Australians have access to high-quality, affordable financial advice. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, now that there's been a change of the guard in the chair, I want to just say that a nation's financial success depends to a great extent upon the financial advice that is provided to everyday Australians. I know how difficult life has been for financial advisers, because my own financial advisers in my electorate have told me. They've gone through enormous changes, particularly as a result of the banking and financial services royal commission. A number of them have left the industry because of those reforms. That's sad. We now have far fewer financial advisers in the sector than we did before the royal commission. Financial advisers bore the brunt of a lot of the recalcitrance and bad actions that were undertaken, particularly by the big four banks. The big four banks were the worst perpetrators in relation to what was revealed from the royal commission, yet small businesses and small-scale financial advisers seemed to bear the brunt of those recommendations. As a small-business man myself—and I know you were too, Mr Deputy Speaker—it breaks my heart to see that small-business people suffered as a result. As with all things, the pendulum swings left and right. The reforms that we were going to introduce and that now are contained in this bill seem to impact upon that pendulum. They are reasonable reforms, and I'll talk about that in a moment. We support the measures in this bill, but I'm very concerned that Labor don't seem to be really committed to good-quality reforms in the financial services sector. I spoke earlier about the importance of the financial services sector. The last thing we want, as a country, is for financial advisers to be available only to the rich. The more warnings and the more disclaimers there are—these legal documents end up looking like a phone book, for those of us who remember those; the member for Casey probably doesn't know what a phone book was—it's been proven time and again, and as a barrister I can tell you, the less notice is taken of it. The more warnings, the more disclaimers and the more you make red tape for the punters—they don't take any notice of it. Where those reforms that were introduced as a result of the royal commission made life so difficult for financial advisers, it was appropriate and timely that some of those things got cleaned up. The last thing we want to do is enable only the uber rich to get financial advice. It's average mums and dads that need that advice and that support. If obtaining that advice becomes so costly that average people can't afford to get it, then it becomes self-defeating. We in the opposition are particularly supportive of schedule 2 in this bill, which will help make it easier for financial advisers with good records to remain eligible to provide personal advice. The Levy review on quality of advice, which the coalition has supported in principle, has broad support across the sector. The government's response has been less than half-baked. It's not an attempt at solving the issues identified but at appearing like they care. But that's Labor's way: they talk the talk and pretend like they care, but actions speak louder than words. While overdue, the government's stream 1 reforms are welcome. However, without accepting the longer term agenda, the government is only kicking the can down the road, meaning that Australians will struggle to find the right kind of financial advice. At the same time, advisers working outside the superannuation system will be thrust into the cold. The response to the Levy review was an important moment and an opportunity to drive better outcomes for retirees, particularly self-funded retirees. They don't have the privilege of a pension. They require their money to go a long way, perhaps four decades, and it is incredibly important that self-funded retirees have access to that specialist financial advice. Labor haven't bothered to implement the review in a fulsome way. Their narrow implementation, though a tiny step in the right direction, risks undermining investment, innovation and competition in the financial advice sector, creating an equal playing field between super funds and the rest of the sector. Financial advisers in my electorate have repeatedly raised concerns about this issue. The coalition is calling on the Albanese government to adopt in principle all the recommendations of the Levy review and to work constructively with the coalition on its implementation. This is a vital deregulation measure that will deliver wins for consumers as well as support innovation and investment in the financial services sector. But this bill is no substitute for the government's incompetence, ignorance and indifference when it comes to managing our economy. After a year of having Labor in control, Australia's economy is weaker, our communities are struggling and households are at their wit's end. The March quarter annual accounts showed that economic growth is at the slowest rate since September 2021, and that was mid COVID lockdowns. I imagine Labor's Treasury ministers sitting around scratching their heads and asking themselves, 'Why is the economy slowing down?' It's not slowing down; it's shuddering to a halt. This bill contains measures which are worthwhile, but it does nothing to address the biggest challenge facing Australians, who are contending with rising mortgage payments and grappling with rising prices at the check-out. Energy prices are up. The cost of travel is only getting worse. Core inflation is higher than in almost all other G7 nations, lifting to as high as 7.8 per cent in the last nine months and currently sitting at nearly double where it was 18 months ago. Two major banks are forecasting per capita recessions. More rate rises are set to come. Australia's economy is weaker under Labor, and households are feeling it. Australians are saving less money, almost 7.6 per cent lower than a year ago. Australians have been taxed over 11 per cent more in the last 12 months. While Australians are working the most hours since 1978—in nearly half a century—they are keeping less of their money and delivering lower outcomes. That's right: productivity under Labor has fallen by nearly five per cent. Australians are working harder for less. They're working harder for less money, for less purchasing power, for fewer results. The coalition, when we were in government and now in opposition, are listening to those hard-working Australians. We hear middle Australia. We have their back, the same back on which this callous and careless Labor government is trying to balance the books of its union paymasters. Australian families and their businesses are not a blank cheque from which Labor can draw funds for another policy experiment. Families are hurting. They need good quality financial advice. Businesses are hurting. They also need good quality financial advice. Communities are hurting thanks to this federal Labor government, and it is entirely avoidable. Don't swallow the argument about the financial problems coming out of Moscow. Don't follow that they are coming out of Ukraine. They are coming out of Canberra, out of this place. Our economic regress is only happening because Labor have no plan to address inflation. They have no plan to curb the cost-of-living crisis which they have so ably created. Labor's approach to managing our economy is to open the purse strings and spend and spend and spend while punishing people for trying to make their own money. It's big spend and big tax. It's cuts, cuts, cuts to essential services like veterans' wellbeing centres, mental health care and medical access in regional communities. It's slash, slash, slash when it comes to roads and rail in regional and remote Australia. While Labor arrogantly struts through the corridors of power, Australians are struggling to make ends meet. Enough is enough. Naturally, we also support the technical changes that schedule 4 of this bill provides for in relation to the First Home Super Saver Scheme. This is an initiative of the former coalition government that helps Australians boost their savings for a first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation, giving them a tax cut. Freedom over your super, cutting taxes and making homeownership possible—that is the Liberal and National way. The First Home Super Saver Scheme could boost the savings of a first home buyer by around 30 per cent compared with saving through a standard savings account. This was just one of the measures of the former coalition government that was aimed at helping Australians get into their first home. It was supported by HomeBuilder, our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was backed in by the first home guarantee and then the family home guarantee for single parent families and the regional home guarantee for regional communities. This opposition believes in homeownership. 12:37 D 132880 Fraser r MULINO () (): I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, which contains a number of important economic measures both in terms of microeconomic reform but also consumer protection. I'll speak to several of the key measures contained in this bill. Schedule 1 of this bill contains measures in relation to the avoidance of certain product intervention orders. As we all know, safe and well-regulated consumer markets for credit products are of vital importance to our economy. Credit to so important to so many people in our economy in a number of ways. It's through credit that we are able to purchase our homes. It's through credit, in many cases, that we are able to go on holidays or purchase a car or get through difficult patches. Credit is obviously of vital importance. But credit can often be sought by people who are at a low point, who are vulnerable. Credit contracts can often be very complicated. Access to credit is essential to people in order for them to live their lives to the fullest, and credit transactions need to be regulated in an appropriate way because there is so much potential for harm. That's why the Albanese government introduced long overdue reforms to the regulation of payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. This act implemented the government's response to the 2016 review of small amount credit contract laws, SACCs, as they're known; one obviously has to reduce everything to an acronym in public policy. These were laws to protect people dealing with small credit transactions. As I mentioned earlier, these small credit transactions are often ones which are nonetheless of vital importance to people, but people can be very vulnerable because they can often be caught by terms in transactions which they're not well aware of. One important aspect of the 2016 review was a recommendation to address avoidance behaviours by entities using business models not regulated by the Credit Act. To provide a bit of context for what's in this bill, I thought it would be useful to go back to that particular recommendation from the 2016 report. Recommendation 24 of the review's report dealt with avoidance, and specifically said: The Government should amend the Credit Act to regulate indefinite term leases, address avoidance through entities using business models that are not regulated by the Credit Act, and address conduct by licensees adopting practices to avoid the restrictions on the maximum amount that can be charged under a consumer lease of household goods or a SACC … We saw in that recommendation that in the laws that cover small amount credit transactions, or SACCs, there need to be measures to protect consumers; in particular, vulnerable consumers. The 2016 report talked about two different types of avoidance. The first is 'business model avoidance', where providers can structure financial products so that they are not regulated by the Credit Act. For example, that could be a lessor offering an indefinite-term lease instead of consumer leases of household goods regulated by the Credit Act. The second is internal avoidance of the Credit Act, where the provider offers a regulated credit contract or a consumer lease of household goods but structures the contract or includes certain terms in the contract to avoid the requirements of the act. An example of that might be lessors deliberately providing finance through leases, rather than as a credit contract, to avoid the caps that apply to credit contracts—or 'front loading'. A number of stakeholders, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, talked about a whole range of situations in which consumers were put at risk or, often, harmed by avoidance mechanisms. The provisions of the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 extended these anti-avoidance mechanisms to product intervention orders made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. What this bill does is to further extend the protections. Schedule 1 of this bill ensures that the anti-avoidance provisions also apply to ASIC product intervention orders relating to credit products made under the Corporations Act 2001. Importantly, ASIC has identified credit products that cause considerable consumer harm, particularly for vulnerable consumers. This is a good example of a situation where we have credit products where there is potential benefit for consumers—obviously, consumers need the advantages, need access to credit—but, particularly where we are talking about vulnerable consumers, there are many situations where there is potential for harm or actual harm. This bill is very important in extending the scope of the anti-avoidance protections recommended in the 2016 report to an additional class of products, so I strongly support schedule 1 of this bill as an important consumer protection mechanism. Again, I say that as somebody whose electorate covers many people who struggle to deal with the complexity of consumer products, particularly credit products that are designed in such a way as to avoid certain regulatory mechanisms. Schedule 2 deals with financial advice. Financial advice is absolutely critical to people's long-term welfare. Financial advice relates to some of the most important and complex decisions that we make. It relates to decisions as to how we save over the long run and how we allocate our savings and assets across different classes: do we use our savings to pay off our home, do we put them into super, do we put them into investment products? These kinds of decisions have a critically important impact on our post-retirement standard of living, on the amount of risk that we bear in accumulating assets and on our security in retirement. So, when we talk about financial advice, we're talking about a group of people, financial advisers, who provide people with some of the most important advice they are going to receive in their lives. I think this is sometimes not well understood. Of course, there are many other people who we seek advice from—people in the medical professions, such as doctors, allied health experts and nurses, as well as lawyers and accountants. There are many professions which provide us with critically important advice. But I think that sometimes we don't take a moment to think about how critically important financial advice is in terms of how it can set us up over the course of our entire lives with financial stability and security at a point in time post retirement where we might otherwise be very vulnerable. We know that financial advice has experienced a number of difficulties. We saw this in the Hayne royal commission. We've seen it in other contexts as well. This is related to a number of issues. One of the issues that was raised was conflicts in remuneration that arose in a number of contexts and the way that that impacted on the nature and the quality of advice. That was one of the key pieces of analysis that came out of the Hayne royal commission. Another set of issues that arose in relation to financial advice was what one might call the level of professionalisation of the profession or of the career path—the educational standards and other aspects of the way in which financial advisers worked as professionals. I think that those two issues are obviously interrelated to some degree, but nonetheless they are separate. With both of those issues—the remuneration of financial advisers but also what one might call the professionalisation or the standards of qualifications and so forth of financial advisers—I believe there are some tricky policy tensions. When it comes to the removal of conflicts, I suspect almost everybody, if not everybody, in this chamber would agree it's necessary and a good thing. But there can be a tension between moving towards less conflicted remuneration mechanisms and yet providing remuneration to financial advisers and costs, which are passed on to those seeking financial advice, that allow for access for ordinary people. We've probably moved towards a system where more of the fees for financial advice are now upfront, and that can provide barriers to some people receiving access to financial advice. So I think it's important to acknowledge upfront that there is a policy tension there—that removing many of the conflicts that I think did need to be addressed has created a bit of a policy tension with access. There's also a policy tension with this broad and well-founded desire to move towards a more professionalised class of financial advisers and cohort of workers because of the importance of the services that they provide. Again, it's with access and with the number of people in the profession. We want to make sure that, by putting in place minimum educational and training standards and transitioning the financial advice profession to a new set of standards, we don't see a situation where we lose too many people from the profession, which, of course, would have consequences for access. I believe we need to adopt a balanced approach when transitioning to a new framework which will serve the community well and financial advisers well in the longer term, in terms of the educational and professional standards and the codes of conduct moving forward. We know that, since 2019, a large number of financial advisers have left the industry, and this has consequences for the accessibility of the important services they provide. What we see in schedule 2 of the bill is that we will help to ensure that as many consumers as possible continue to have access to quality of advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the profession. The amendment in schedule 2 will allow experienced advisors with at least 10 years experience and a clear record to remain in the profession without continuing additional education. This, I think, is a pragmatic and sensible way to deal with the need for the community to have access to financial advice—such an important piece of advice for people to manage their assets, their financial security and their quality of life across their entire lifetime. Finally, I'll make a few brief observations about schedule 3, which implements recommendations from the Council for Financial Regulators to strengthen regulatory powers and to facilitate competitive outcomes in the market for clearing and settlement of cash equities traded in Australia. We know that boosting competition is invariably good for consumers, is good for innovation and is good for productivity. It ticks all the boxes. We know that financial services are the arteries, the lifeblood, of the economy as a whole—a great analogy that Paul Keating drew a number of years ago but that remains very much true to this day. So the innovativeness and efficiency of our financial services system is absolutely critical. The timeliness, reliability and cost of our payment system is incredibly important for people in the community—not only low-cost transactions but also transactions that occur quickly. If we look at the trading of equities, it's also critical there. We want to see downward pressure on fees, and we also want to see confidence in the transfer of ownership. This is important for everyday people because, if you reduce the fees on the transfer of equities, people who either directly own equities or own them indirectly through a superannuation fund benefit massively over the course of their lives through the accumulated gains of the lower fees on all of those transactions. We've seen the introduction of competition in the trading of equities through the introduction of Chi-X, back in the Rudd-Gillard government. This is now an important series of amendments in schedule 3, to set up the framework through regulation that would be jointly administered through ASIC and the ACCC for the regulation of potential competition in settlement and clearing—another important part of that ecosystem. That means more competition but in a way that retains the stability of the system, which is so critically important. It's a really important microreform, and I support this bill as a whole. 12:52 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 is a 4-schedule Treasury omnibus bill that the coalition will be supporting, and many of the changes in this bill continue the work of the former coalition government. However, support for passage of this bill is no substitute for a government that is refusing to take responsibility for high inflation, rising mortgage repayments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills—just to name a few of the challenges we face in this country. We need a government to take responsibility—or else Australians will continue to pay a very high price. This bill does not provide any cost-of-living relief or support for Australians, and even today the Treasurer won't support Australians, telling those that are coming off fixed mortgages and are about to see a tripling in their interest rates to just speak to their bank and work it out. There is no support for those Australians. So what is in this bill? Schedule 1 introduces new rules that prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders made under the Corporations Act 2001. Schedule 2 changes limitations in the education requirements for new entrants who are registered tax agents to enter the financial advice profession and removes the education requirements for experienced financial advisors with 10 years of experience and, importantly, a clean record who have passed the financial advisors exam. Schedule 3 amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia. Schedule 4 makes a number of technical changes to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to support the operation of the First Home Super Saver Scheme so that it works better for first home buyers. There are definitely some good things in this bill, which is why the coalition will be supporting it. Australia has a strong financial services sector that we need to continue to support. The coalition remains committed to ensuring that Australians have access to high-quality, affordable financial advice. In government, we implemented a series of measures to improve consumer protections and streamline and strengthen oversight of the financial advice sector. That's why we are supportive of the measures that continue this work, specifically in schedule 2 of this bill, which will help make it easier for financial advisers with good records to remain eligible to provide personal advice. This bill also makes technical changes to the First Home Super Saver Scheme in schedule 4. This is an initiative of the former coalition government that helps Australians boost their savings for a first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation, giving them a tax cut. For most people, the scheme could boost the savings of a first home buyer by around 30 per cent compared with savings through a standard savings account. This was just one of the measures of the former coalition government that was aimed at helping Australians get into their first home. The coalition is absolutely committed to helping more Australians achieve the dream of owning their own home. That's why, in the Leader of the Opposition's first budget reply speech last year, the coalition reaffirmed its commitment to the First Home Super Saver Scheme. We know that we have a responsibility to ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to buy their own home. Currently, a super fund can be used to buy a residential or commercial rental property. It can buy shares; it can even buy livestock. In fact, it can be used to buy almost any asset class except a home to live in. Under a coalition government, we will extend the same opportunity to women who separate later in life, to women with very few housing options and to women who are increasingly left homeless. Your super is your money. The government thinks that it's their money. This brings me to what is not in this bill. While containing many worthwhile measures, this bill disappointingly fails to address the biggest challenge facing Australians—the impact of inflation and rising interest rates being felt by businesses and families across Casey and the nation. Rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills are all eating away at already tight household budgets. Australians are having to work more hours to make ends meet. They have to dig into their savings to survive. Real wages are going backwards under this government. Our core inflation is higher than any G7 nation, except for the United Kingdom. This is a tough time for Australians. During the midwinter break, I spent five weeks in my electorate talking to many businesses and residents. I welcomed Senator Jane Hume to the electorate as the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living. We wanted to speak to the community about their experiences and learn about their challenges. We started the day in Belgrave, visiting local businesses. One of the most disturbing facts that came out of that was that a real estate agent I talked to said that one in three of the houses they're putting up for sale is because of a separation, and this is the first time during his lifetime in real estate that there has been such a significant number that it is actually measurable—one in three. It's heartbreaking to think that financial stress is, as he said, in many cases the key driver of those separations. We also had the opportunity to meet with Belinda Young and the fantastic team at Mums of the Hills. This is an organisation of over 6,000 mums. It started as an online group. We went to see their new facility, and it was wonderful to be there to talk to Belinda and the team and to be at the opening that weekend. Mums of the Hills are a voice for the mums in the Dandenong Ranges, the Yarra Valley and across the outer east, who have very particular challenges. One we spoke about a lot on that day was child care and the absolute childcare desert that is the Dandenong Ranges in particular but also the Upper Yarra and all across the regional areas of the Yarra Valley—mums having to drive for more than 45 minutes to put their kids into child care if they could find a spot and the impact it is having on families and the stress. So, thank you Belinda and the team at Mums of the Hills for supporting mums all across the outer east, the Dandenong Ranges and the Yarra Valley and for being a great advocate for them. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you so we can support more residents across our electorate. After that we had a round table with some amazing local women in business, and I want to thank Lisa Glassborow for taking the time to organise that round table. It was insightful to talk to those mums, those women, about their challenges. A common theme was just wanting government to get out of their way, reduce red tape, so they could continue to develop and grow their business and allow them to keep more of what they earn from all the hard work they do. Then we had a wonderful tour with Sue Sestan and the team at Inspiro, which is a community health organisation. Unfortunately for them they are seeing increased demand as more people are struggling to make ends meet and medical bills are putting even more pressure on their organisation and on families. We finished the day with a cost-of-living forum in Wandin North, and thank you to all those residents who took the time to attend and to those who couldn't attend but shared their views with my office via email and over the phone. The turnout was amazing, and talking to people—and they are struggling; they are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table. One lady shared the heartbreaking story of literally having to decide to turn her heater off in the middle of winter because they couldn't afford to pay the bill and to eat. These stories we hear are tragic. It is disappointing that this bill does not address these problems. And these problems are not coming out of Ukraine, as the Prime Minister wants us to believe. These are problems that are coming from Canberra, and it's important to note that we are debating this bill at a time when this government is overseeing an economy that's shuddering to a halt as inflation continues to rage. A typical Australian family with a mortgage and kids is $25,000 worse off compared with a year ago. The annual accounts for the March quarter show that after a year of Labor the economy is growing at the slowest rate since September 2021, when New South Wales and Victoria were in COVID lockdowns. Australians are now working the most hours since 1978 but are feeling poorer for it, with real wages continuing to go backwards. Australians are saving less. The household savings ratio is 7.6 per cent lower than it was a year ago. Australians are being taxed more. Individual income tax has increased by 11.4 per cent since last year. The government will talk about their surplus, but they won't talk about how inflation creates bracket creep, which means that Australians pay more in income tax. And labour productivity in the past 12 months, under Labor's watch, has fallen by 4.6 per cent. But this bill does not address any of these economic challenges. The fact is that hardworking Australians are paying a heavy price for this government's failures. It's not just Australians who have been abandoned by this Prime Minister and Treasurer. Small business has been abandoned by the Minister for Small Business. ACCI-Westpac research shows that 42 per cent of businesses are seeing their margins eroded, despite increasing prices, and the ANZ is reporting the longest slump in consumer confidence since the 1990s recession. Yet we hear nothing from the Minister for Small Business on how she or the government will support small business. Small business knows it has been abandoned by this government. We need to remember that small businesses are families. I spoke to Arun, who owns a restaurant in my electorate. He and his wife are now working over 80 hours a week, as wages go up, as energy price goes up, as food prices go up, trying to make ends meet. We need to be supportive of small-business owners in this country, because they're family people looking to put food on the table, to feed their kids, send them to school and make sure they're healthy. Productivity is also a key driver in reducing inflation. It is disappointing to note that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have not engaged with the Productivity Commission's five-year report on how to increase productivity. One of the key recommendations of this report is technology as a vital pillar in driving productivity. I would, again, ask the Prime Minister to appoint a minister for the digital economy, to oversee a national strategy, to make sure we are taking advantage of technological opportunities, like AI, to drive economic growth and productivity. The reality is, the cost of Labor's inaction is sky-high energy bills, surging mortgage repayments, increasing rents and soaring grocery prices. Australians are under the pump and making huge sacrifices to pay their bills, and there is no end in sight to Labor's energy price spiral, rising inflation and rising grocery prices. This is the consequence of a government that has let inflation get out of control and has failed to take responsibility for addressing the biggest economic challenges facing Australians. Australians cannot afford Labor's complacency on inflation. The challenges faced by Australians are not addressed in this bill. Instead, we have a government that doesn't have a plan or the priorities or focus to fix the problems facing Australians, facing families and facing small businesses in Casey and across the nation. 13:07 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise with great pleasure today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 in the second reading debate. This bill contains measures that are very important to me and very important to my community. Testament to that is the number of times I have risen in this House to talk about the predatory behaviours of payday lenders in my community and communities like mine across the country. This bill will improve the integrity of consumer markets for credit products. It removes barriers for financial advisers and supports competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities. Schedule 1 of this bill is the one that my community care about the most, because schedule 1 legislates avoidance of certain product intervention orders by predatory payday lenders and by businesses that have been, across at least a decade, targeting vulnerable people in my community. I want to thank Minister Jones, the member for Whitlam, for his work in this space and I want to particularly thank our current Speaker, the member for Oxley, for his work in this space while we were in opposition across the last two terms. I also want to personally thank Gerard Brody, formerly of the Consumer Action Law Centre, for his advice across many years about how we, in opposition and now in government, could crack down on predatory behaviours that hurt vulnerable people. We're hearing a lot of talk about inflationary pressures and about the cost of living. Let me tell you that that is the absolute pinnacle time for what those predators do, because it is when people are doing it tough that the predators are leaning out the shop door offering someone a cup of coffee to sell them a product that will cripple them financially. At its peak, those opposite refused to take action in this space, despite their own review and their own recommendations that said that this should be cracked down on. They failed to do so. There are those in this place now who were here during those years when the former member for Higgins, the then Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer, conducted that review and made a commitment to enact the recommendations. She failed to enact those recommendations, leaving vulnerable people open to being preyed upon. I thanked the member for Oxley, who worked closely with me in raising this issue many times in this place as well as out in the community. I want to thank some local bodies, including Anglicare Financial Services, who I met with on more than one occasion to hear the stories of the impact of these predatory behaviours on people I represent. Anglicare shared the stories of people who had not one payday loan but four or five, with absolutely crippling interest rates, and who were sent to the wall and went to Anglicare for financial advice and support to unravel the situation they had gotten into. We all knew at the time that the answer lay here in the federal parliament, that the answer lay here in the House of Representatives and that it was within the powers of the former government, as they'd said in their own review, to block this predatory behaviour. But they chose not to do that. I thank Westjustice, and particularly Denis Nelthorpe, who also worked closely with me. I also want to thank Vernon Fettke OAM, from Homestead Financial Group. He is a financial adviser who also spent considerable time helping me to understand the issues and the solutions. We on this side know that, despite the 2016 Review of the Small Amount Credit Contract Laws, little happened in this place to protect vulnerable people from predatory behaviour. This legislation takes another step towards that protection. It introduces anti-avoidance provisions that are aimed at reducing the risk of consumer harm from predatory lenders who modify their business models to avoid the application of the consumer protections in the credit act and other financial services legislation. To put that into plain language, legislation can be created and business models can shift and change. We have to get to the nub of this and stay two steps ahead of those who want to change their business models in response to legislation so as to allow their predatory behaviour to continue. That's what this legislation will do. It will ensure that there are anti-avoidance provisions that hold to account those businesses that are behaving in these ways. The provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 extend the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's ASIC product intervention orders made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. Schedule 1 of the bill ensures that anti-avoidance provisions also apply to the ASIC product intervention orders relating to credit products that are made under the Corporations Act 2001. In essence, the bill is creating anti-avoidance provisions so as to ensure that existing legislation covers the behaviour from providers who shifted and changed their business practices so they could continue their behaviour. I want to say a few things about the harm that I saw it do in my community. It was obvious to me that there was money to be made in this space. It was obvious because within 800 metres of my Werribee train station there were five payday lenders with a shopfront. It was obvious to me when I sat with some of the victims of this, with their financial advisers from Anglicare, and heard them say to me: 'I really need support, and I really need help. But go easy on those guys. They're really nice. They give me a cup of coffee.' There's a physical presence in the community. There's someone welcoming people through the door, to offer them another product to further harm them, and to do so with a smile and a cup of coffee. This is predatory behaviour. This went on for years while those who now sit on the opposition benches failed to act on their own recommendations. They failed to stop this behaviour in communities like mine. They failed to take the steps they designed themselves—not just one minister but ministers over a decade. This behaviour was allowed to flourish in communities like mine and harm the most vulnerable, the least financially astute, people who were open to being seduced into these products. There has been a lot said in this space across the years that I've been here, and it's always prefaced with: 'Sometimes people really need that line of credit, and they need it quickly. They might have a job interview, or they might need new tires on their car.' That has been used as justification to allow this behaviour to flourish. It should never have been allowed to flourish. Business practices that rely on people taking on credit where they can't afford to pay it back, and at exorbitant rates, don't deserve to flourish. What they deserve is legislation to stop the practice, and that's what this piece of legislation delivers today. I mentioned Vernon Fettke OAM. This goes to schedule 2 of this piece of legislation. Obviously the financial sector, as we've heard speakers say today, was heavily criticised in the royal commission. This had a huge impact on the financial advice sector. Vernon Fettke was with the Homestead Financial Group locally in my electorate. I distinctly remember sitting with Vernon while we were talking about (a) the payday lending scope, and (b) the financial advice that was being given. He led the development of a code of conduct for financial advisers in his business. I attended when everybody who worked at Homestead Financial Group took a pledge on that code of conduct. Vernon was acting proactively in response to something that he was not guilty of, but, seeing the damage that was being done via the royal commission by bad actors, he took a positive step to ensure that everybody that was working with him in my community was going to do no harm and was going to act with integrity. Schedule 2 in this piece of legislation is doing some tidy-up work in that space which reflects the government's commitment to an advice industry with strong professional standards that gives Australians access to high-quality financial advice. As implemented, the education requirements have failed to appropriately recognise the lived experience of financial advisers. The current requirements do not properly balance the desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced, skilled workforce, hence my references to someone like Vernon, who has since retired. But his leadership of young financial advisers was extraordinary and exemplary, as seen in the development of that code of conduct for that group. Since 2019 over 10,000 financial advisers have left the industry, including experienced advisers with no history of misconduct. This only serves to reduce access to quality financial advice. This schedule means that experienced advisers who make a valuable contribution to the financial advice industry and play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year will be able to share their knowledge and experience more broadly. It ensures that consumers continue to have access to quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry and ensure there is a pool of advisers to mentor, supervise and upskill new entrants. The space around credit, and businesses who provide credit, is something that government needs to be attuned to and aware of. I would encourage all members to ensure that they have a relationship with the community organisations in their electorates, so that they've got an ear on the ground on what is happening in this space, because these businesses will shift and change again. There will be new ways of doing things. In my electorate, when this first came up for me as an issue, it was a cup of coffee and a shopfront. But it soon morphed into unsolicited text messages to people, leaving places where they'd registered online, offering them a line of credit. We know those things were happening. I would encourage all members to ensure that they are in contact with those community organisations like the Consumer Action Law Centre, West Justice and Anglicare Financial Counselling Services so that we can, as a parliament, stay one step ahead in ensuring that changes to business practices—new and unforeseen things that we can't see now or perhaps a bit more buy-now pay-later that might be preying on our vulnerable citizens—stay ahead of the game, close loopholes as quickly as we can and ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities are not set into debt traps where one person makes a profit and another potentially falls into a debt cycle that will take decades to recover from. 13:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Scott Futcher lives outside Newcastle and recalls that eight years ago, when he needed help paying his electricity bill, he turned to payday loans. Scott ended up with multiple small loans that, according to an article by Emma Brancatisano on SBS, amounted to a $10,000 debt he was unable to repay. Scott said initially he was: … too proud to ask for help. I knew I was the one who did it. I put myself in there, I should get myself out. In the back of your mind, you're shaming yourself. Scott's experience saw a small loan steadily snowball into a bigger one. He was a part-time worker, receiving Centrelink payments and unable to get a bank loan. He was initially lent $500, but he started accessing more money on that loan through top-up loans. He said: More bills are coming in, you think, 'I'll have to get another loan to pay that'. You kind of have to get another loan to pay the other loan off as well, just to keep afloat. Ultimately he ended up with multiple loans, including seven loans through a single lender. He said that ultimately he had to reach out for help. He reached out to the Salvation Army's Moneycare service and said: That was the first day of getting my life back. It has taken a couple of years now. But I actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. Ultimately he was able to work through the financial counselling service, which went to the national financial ombudsman on Scott's behalf over a complaint that a creditor had provided unsuitable loans. An agreement was reached to collect only the remaining amount of the loan, without interest and late fees. Scott made his final repayment this year. He said: No more loans. I feel great. I just felt like I wanted to cry again. We recognise that there is a place for a well-regulated credit market, but this bill seeks to address the practice that has emerged of firms seeking to get around product intervention orders. A joint submission to the Treasury consultation from five organisations—the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Rights Legal Centre, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network, Financial Counselling Australia and WEstjustice—focused on the firm Cigno Pty Ltd. Cigno, they said, had consistently changed its model in order to stay one step ahead of ASIC's product intervention orders. According to the submission: A standard credit facility arranged by Cigno will generally involve a small loan (under $1000), repayable within a few weeks, but with fees that amount to roughly the same as the principal borrowed. That's right: over just a few weeks you're taking out a thousand-dollar loan and you're paying a thousand dollars in fees. Cigno, the submitters said, would charge administrative fees, late fees and other fees that didn't reasonably correlate to the cost of providing the principal amount. They said they'd regularly heard from clients where Cigno had claimed they were owed multiple times the amount that had been borrowed, within months of the loan being taken out. But, in response to three product intervention orders made by ASIC aiming to ban the models used by Cigno and their partners, Cigno continued to offer loans on terms that had been advertised identically to Cigno customers, but with slight changes to the contracts underpinning their model. This bill aims to put in place anti-avoidance provisions which will ensure a safe, well-regulated credit market. The Albanese government is putting these provisions in place because we stand firmly on the side of consumers. The reforms put in place last year by the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, regulated payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022, which implemented the government's response to the 2016 Review of Small Amount Credit Contracts. That included a recommendation to address avoidance behaviour, and the anti-avoidance provisions in today's bill are aimed at doing just that. They're aimed at reducing the risk of harm to consumers from predatory lenders who modify their business models to avoid the application of the consumer protections in the Credit Act and other financial services legislation. As the Consumer Action Law Centre and other submitters have put it, there's no downside to the introduction of anti-avoidance provisions. They're effectively a fallback to a situation in which drafting complexity has inadvertently left loopholes which can be exploited by unethical businesses. The provisions in this bill go to the problem where ASIC has identified credit products that it says cause significant detriment and harm to vulnerable consumers and issued product intervention orders to address this harm. The harm in this case is to some of the most vulnerable people in our community—people who find themselves down on their luck, reach out for support but are unable to get it, and end up going to a payday lender. You don't go to a payday lender if you have a good amount of credit and you're able to get a credit card. You don't go to a payday lender if friends and family can help you out. Payday loans are not the most common form of short-term credit; they're the third most common form of short-term credit after credit cards, family and friends. But they create a significant risk of harm to consumers. That is why the Albanese government has taken the side of consumers. We've recognised that payday lenders can sometimes get out of control. There are situations in which payday lenders have caused considerable harm. I'd urge those who are listening to this broadcast and considering a payday loan to first reach out to an organisation such as the Salvation Army's Moneycare in order to see whether there are other options. We know there's some short-term relief that is provided through other sources. Almost invariably, that will be offered under better terms than payday loans. I commend the bill to the House. I commend the important work of the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, in these vital reforms in standing up for consumers, particularly the most vulnerable consumers in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, they will be granted leave when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Dawson Electorate: King's Birthday Honours 14 13:30 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Dawson is home to some amazing people. Today I would like to honour five individuals from my electorate who have gone above and beyond for our community. The following people were recognised and celebrated on the King's Birthday 2023 Honours List: Mrs Helen Fitzroy OAM, Mr Ian Hamilton OAM, Mrs Doosh-Thaan-Ti Thung-Gee-A OAM, Mr Paul Kelly OAM former Queensland senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald AM. Mrs Helen Fitzroy OAM, after tragedy, established Miner's Promise, an organisation providing invaluable support to families following a significant crisis event or a death on mine sites. Mr Ian Hamilton OAM spent years of his life dedicated to supporting the community of Mackay through his position as deputy mayor, as well as many volunteer positions. Mrs Doosh-Thaan-Ti Thung-Gee-A OAM has dedicated her life to community work to reduce the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. Mr Paul Kelly OAM volunteered for the SES during emergencies and worked for the Royal Australian Navy cadets for more than 50 years. Lastly, but certainly not least, the Hon. Ian Macdonald AM dedicated his life to the people and parliament of Australia. These individuals are an inspiration to us all, and their efforts have been rightly recognised by receiving Australia's most prestigious award. Environment 14 13:31 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney We are on our way to reducing Australia's carbon emissions. The reforms introduced by this government will contribute to this goal and strengthen businesses. But that is not all we can do. As consumers, we can choose to reduce our consumption of single-use plastics. Plastic Free July has been a successful initiative. Today, I want to recognise the work of many community groups that volunteer to keep our environment safe, like the Friends of Gabbiljee and the Swan Estuary Reserves Action group and many more volunteer groups in the Tangney area. Last month, I was invited to a tree planting session organised by the Friends of Gabbiljee. This amazing group of volunteers, led by Wendy, contribute to preserving and restoring the waterway and surrounding bush area in Bull Creek. It was so rewarding to have the opportunity to contribute to their efforts. Our government is doing so much to fight climate change, but caring for our environment is a job for all of us. Bloodbikes Australia 15 13:33 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Bloodbikes Australia is a group of committed Australian volunteers whose actions are saving lives right across our country. Bloodbikes provide free-of-charge transportation of blood and medical supplies to and from wherever they may be needed, whenever they are needed, no matter the location. Formed in September 2019, Bloodbikes Australia's founder, Peter Davis, was inspired by a mate of his in Scotland who volunteered for the Bloodbikes movement in the United Kingdom and Ireland. I first got involved with Bloodbikes through local motorcyclist and South Brisbane coordinator, Steve James. I've been working with them over the past few years and have fully supported their efforts, particularly during the COVID pandemic. Over four years of operation, they now have 500 qualified volunteers and have made over 5,000 pick-ups and deliveries to healthcare providers throughout every state and territory. The riders not only volunteer their time but also cover all their transport costs, such as fuel, tolls and bike maintenance. That's why I was pleased to catch up with Peter and Steve recently to let them know they were successful with the $5,000 volunteer grant towards the cost of fuel. Bloodbikes are always looking for volunteers, and I thank them for the great work that they do. Signorelli, Mr Biaggio 15 13:34 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I joined the federal minister for health to mark the naming of the Biaggio Signorelli Laboratory at the Asbestos and Dust Diseases Research Institute. Biaggio Signorelli was an extraordinary man whose own migrant history weaves a very Australian story. Born in Sicily, he came from humble beginnings to travel across the globe and set up a new life in Sydney with his family at just 10 years of age. His son, Paul, spoke of how his father wept when he arrived in Australia, so excited was he by the promise of this country. He went on to have a very successful career in business, and, most importantly, he went on to raise a wonderful family with his wife, Fina. Tragically, in 2007, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died eight months later. Such was his generosity of spirit that in his dying days he turned to his family and said, 'You can't save me, but I want you to save others.' And that's exactly what his family have done. They set up the Biaggio Signorelli Foundation to raise money to fund research and treatment for asbestos and other dust diseases. Their contribution of $1 million to the Asbestos and Dust Diseases Research Institute is a fitting legacy for an extraordinary man. It was a privilege to join the Signorelli family to commemorate Biaggio's legacy and to thank them for their extraordinary work. Glenorchy War Memorial Pool 15 13:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The Glenorchy War Memorial Pool has been a great source of pride for the community for some 60 years, providing people with a place to exercise, convalesce and have fun with family and friends. It's no surprise, then, that many in the community are dismayed to hear that the pool is closed indefinitely due to safety concerns and quite possibly is set to close permanently. The social and health benefits of the Glenorchy pool cannot be overstated. Indeed, swimming improves fitness and muscle strength, lowers stress levels, reduces anxiety and depression, and even improves brain function. Moreover, many use the pool to connect with other people through squad training or just a casual swim. Of course, let's not forget the popular water slide that provides parents with hours of respite during school holidays. Other pools in Greater Hobart are not a good alternative for many people in Glenorchy, not least because they simply can't afford to get there. So the one that they've got needs to be fixed and fixed urgently, but that will cost more than Glenorchy City Council can afford—as much as $40 million, according to the council. So I reiterate my August 2022 request to the Prime Minister personally for help, and I call on all three levels of government to work together and to make a splash by diving headfirst into saving the Glenorchy pool. Luscombe, Mr Clancy 15 13:37 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I would like to recognise a talented Boothby constituent, Clancy Luscombe, who's part of the Australian swim team heading to the Commonwealth Youth Games in Trinidad and Tobago. Last week, I met with Clancy and his proud mum, Elizabeth, and presented them with an Australian flag that will accompany Clancy to the Commonwealth Youth Games and will be waved with pride. Clancy told me he also plans to hang the flag across his balcony for all the village to see. Clancy is an active member of the sporting community within Boothby as a member of the Marion Swimming Club. The seventh Commonwealth Youth Games will take place on the islands of Trinidad and Tobago between 4 and 11 August 2023. Over 1,000 athletes and para-athletes between the ages of 14 and 18 will come together to compete. I wish Clancy the very best of luck. He has done Boothby proud, and we can't wait to see him compete and represent his country and his community. Take note of that name—Clancy Luscombe. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more of him in years to come. Western Australia: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 16 13:39 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Western Australians are angry, and you can't blame them. The WA state Labor government has launched an attack on their property rights. WA Labor's new Aboriginal cultural heritage laws mean thousands of landowners can't dig a hole or plant a tree without a permit or paying thousands in survey fees. Last week, I held my first forum with locals to discuss these radical laws. It was a cold, windy night, yet 250 residents turned out to have their say. The mood in the room was clear: anger and frustration. But if you think these radical laws are unique to WA, think again. Those opposite are planning their own federal version of these laws to continue Labor's assault on Australian farmers and landowners. You don't need a wild imagination to see how much worse this could be with a constitutional voice to parliament and government. As WA Premier Roger Cook said himself, the Aboriginal cultural heritage laws and the Voice 'do the same thing'. Both make special claims for one group of Australians over everyone else. This is divisive and damaging to our social cohesion. Now, frightened by the chaos of the WA laws, federal Labor are deliberately delaying progress on their legislation. They are clearly trying to hide their true intentions until after the referendum on the Voice is over. We on this side reject that style of politics. We want to see more unity, more cohesion and more fairness in Australia. As I said on Tuesday night: send Labor a message; say no to the Voice. Aged-Care Workforce 16 13:40 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On Thursday I had the opportunity to hold a listening post at Kennington Village shopping centre and I caught up with Jordana. Jordana is one of the many aged-care workers in my electorate. She was so excited to see me that out of the blue she gave me a hug—as Jordana does. She was so excited because she'd just received her first pay post the 15 per cent increase in wages that this government delivered. She said: 'I've got an extra $300. I'm about to go in and do my shopping and I'm not going to be thinking, "That's on special; I'll buy that this week," or, "I can't afford that."' She said, 'I now have dignity and respect in my work.' Jordana has a beautiful story. She took time off from work to care for her mother when she was dying. Post her mother passing and the period of grieving, she decided that what she wanted to do with the rest of her life was to become an aged-care worker. These are the kinds of people we want working in aged care—people with dignity and compassion. And now, I'm proud to say, they're getting paid exactly what they're worth. Jordana is so excited by this increase, and she wanted to thank me and the entire Labor team for backing her in and backing her co-workers in. She said: 'You've delivered. Labor's delivered. Our government has delivered for us. I am so excited and I so look forward to all the other work we can do for our sector.' Bonner Electorate: Priceless House 16 13:42 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Becoming a mother should be an exciting and joyful time in a woman's life, but when a woman becomes pregnant without a supportive partner, when facing financial difficulties or without a healthy home environment that joy can quickly turn to fear and dread. That's why organisations like Priceless House in my electorate of Bonner are so important. Located in Mount Gravatt, Priceless House is a beacon of hope for women feeling scared, confused or overwhelmed when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy. Run by a dedicated team, including 30 volunteers, Priceless House offers free integrated pregnancy support, counselling, mentoring and education to ensure women have the resources they need to make informed decisions. During my recent visit to Priceless House, the staff shared with me the story of Jess. Jess became pregnant whilst in a relationship. Unfortunately, her relationship broke down and she was left feeling scared and unsure about her future. While searching for solutions, Jess came across Priceless House, which she reached out to for support. Not only did Jess find a safe and welcoming space; she also made lasting friendships. With guidance and support from Priceless House, Jess felt confident in becoming the mother to a beautiful baby girl, Melody. I want to say a massive thankyou to the team at Priceless House. Spence Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 17 13:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I was extremely pleased to have my electorate of Spence host the Minister for NDIS and Minister for Government Services over the recent winter break. The minister joins a respectably long list of his cabinet colleagues in the Albanese Labor government who have visited my electorate since taking office. It is good to demonstrate the many things that make my electorate a great place to work and live but also to point out where our government needs to take note of things that could be better. My electorate of Spence has consistently ranked first out of 151 electorates in the country for the number of NDIS participants who live there. The NDIS is an example of a historical Labor reform that can change lives when things go well and, conversely, when things aren't working as they should be. On both sides of that coin I was pleased that the minister attended the Spence NDIS Forum, which was graciously hosted by Marty Edwards and the team from Multiple Solutions at the Civic Centre, with the help of the City of Playford's council. It provided an opportunity for NDIS participants, carers, advocates, parents and NDIS providers to hear from the minister and representatives from the NDIA, along with Senator Marielle Smith and me. The forum also provided an opportunity for many to raise inquiries and seek further information from the agency and the minister regarding the NDIS, and to hear just how committed our government is to getting the NDIS back on track after nine long years of Liberal-National government neglect. National Tree Day 2023 17 13:45 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Sunday was National Tree Day and my daughter and I had the pleasure of joining the Belgrave community at the Belgrave Food Garden to plant over 600 native trees with over 60 volunteers. The weather was shining, which is rare in Melbourne at this time of year. There was great weather and great company, and it was great to see the community come out nice and early to make a difference and support our environment. I have to thank Ellie and the team from the Belgrave Food Garden. The garden came about during COVID and it's going from strength to strength. It has been wonderful to be there and support them through this journey. I also thank the amazing Belgrave locals who came out to help. To the Belgrave Rotary Club, thank you for feeding everyone at lunchtime—the sausages were wonderful and greatly appreciated. I had the opportunity to visit the Southern Dandenongs Community Nursery last week and understand the work they do as a volunteer organisation, and they provided the plants on the day, so thanks to them. Thanks to Con and the staff from Mater Christi College, who came and volunteered their time. They have a great sense of community and they actively support the community. It was wonderful to see those students out on a Sunday morning planting trees and engaging. All in all, it was a wonderful day to plant trees and to make a tangible difference to the environment in the Dandenong Ranges and across Casey. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 17 13:46 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong As the 'yes' campaign continues, I'd like to share a poem sent to me by Bennelong constituent Josephine Hatch from Epping. She wrote this poem to encourage people to vote yes and get involved in the campaign: 'Australia is having a referendum. It's about a voice and recognition. It confirms terra nullius was untrue and gives First Nations people a mission. To advise and help the parliament, to make decisions about their needs. Put their point of view to politicians. It's important the referendum succeeds. It will put right the historic wrong. The constitution will have new words that reflect the truth of the matter that the idea the land was empty was patently absurd. The Voice will give informed opinions about First Nations needs and priorities. The Voice will speak to parliament. It has no power beyond advice. The parliament will make the decisions, now better informed by that Voice. So don't be afraid to vote yes. The world will not come to an end. You'll be helping First Nations people. It's a chance to make amends.' Well said, Josephine. To all out there, particularly to those in Bennelong who want the referendum to succeed, I'd encourage you all to join your local 'yes' campaign, to volunteer to doorknock, to do street stalls, letterboxes and phone banks. Having these individual conversations will cut through the absolute garbage that those opposite put to us each and every day. Hamilton Island: MRH-90 Taipan Crash 17 13:48 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher This week Australians have been confronted with the tragic loss of four of our bravest men and women. On 28 July 2023, an Australian Army MRH-90 Taipan helicopter impacted waters off Lindeman Island in Queensland. A crew of four ADF personnel from the 6th Aviation Regiment were conducting a late-night training exercise as part of Exercise Talisman Sabre. After a lengthy search-and-rescue mission, all four crew members are presumed dead. We mourn the loss of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. We stand in support of their loved ones as they grapple with a great loss—fathers, sons, partners, brothers, colleagues and friends. I want to pay tribute to the servicemen and servicewomen of the 6th Aviation Regiment and the wider Australian Defence Force. We also thank the defence forces of the United States and Canada, and all of the visiting men and women in uniform that are on Talisman Sabre doing their bit to try to find these four lost men. Right across the country, from Defence Force installations to kitchen tables and this very parliament, I know that Australians are united in shared grief and in their prayers. Women In Sport 18 13:49 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley When women play sport we are tough, strong, daring, determined, graceful, athletic, skilled, tactical and leaders. When Australian women play sport on the world stage we are winners. Last week the Australian women's cricket team, ranked No. 1 in the world, retained the Ashes. Last night the Matildas gave a masterclass in soccer resilience, teamwork, skills and tactics to progress to round 16 of the World Cup. Today in England the Diamonds are undoubtedly going to continue their undefeated run at the Netball World Cup. These victories are nothing new for Australian sportswomen. They have dominated courts, pools, pitches, gymnasiums, tracks, ovals and diamonds for all the time that Australia has played sport. But we haven't always received the attention, funding and support that female athletes deserve. We can feel that changing, but there is much more to do. We need equal pay and support for women to be coaches, managers, umpires, referees, CEOs, chairs and presidents not only of their own clubs but of their sons' and husbands' clubs as well. We need women's sport to be on free-to-air TV to inspire boys, girls, men and women alike. But, for today, let's celebrate what we have achieved and what our soccer and netball legends are about to achieve, making us all proud on the world stage. Camp Coutts 18 13:51 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about Camp Coutts, a beautiful, 200-hectare piece of bushland situated within the Heathcote National Park at Waterfall, in the Hughes electorate. This area showcases the rugged beauty of the Australian bush at its best: untamed park characterised by magnificent native vegetation and wildlife, rocky outcrops and freshwater pools. The camp is operated by the New South Wales branch of the Scout Association of Australia and managed wholly by scouting volunteer wardens led by John and Helen Dwyer, as well as Peter, Bob and David. Camp Coutts has been serving our local community for over 100 years, providing a bush experience, whether walking or camping, for both the public and various scouting groups. The camp contains over 40 campsites as well as outdoor accommodation for 150 people. Over the June long weekend it was a great pleasure for me to visit the Scouts team at Camp Coutts as it hosted the annual South Metropolitan Region Scout Camp for over 1,000 participants from across New South Wales. On that occasion I presented the Australian, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags and met with many scouts and leaders engaged in bushwalks, abseiling, learning about bush tucker, water activities as well as enjoying the campfire. Congratulations and well done to all of those involved in Camp Coutts. Women in Sport 18 13:52 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today as proud chair of the parliamentary friendship groups for women in sport and for netball. Two world cups, two champion teams, the Diamonds and the Matildas doing us proud on the world stage, as the member for Dunkley so aptly put it. They are doing us proud in South Africa at the Netball World Cup and right here in Australia in the FIFA Women's World Cup—the beautiful game. I've always been a netball tragic; I'm fast becoming a devotee of the beautiful game. Last night the Matildas were exceptional. Such poise, such grace, such determination, such resilience. Their defence was extraordinary, to hold the Olympic champions to a nil game and get four goals themselves. It was an extraordinary achievement. I know everyone in this place was excited by it. I haven't spoken to anyone yet who hasn't watched it. I'd like to remind everyone that, as we get to the business end of both world cups, the Diamonds play this week and the final will be next Sunday evening in the middle of the night. I know I'll be watching. I encourage everybody else to bring home both of our teams in those two world cups. Hamilton Island: MRH-90 Taipan Crash 19 13:54 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Joseph Phil Laycock, Dan Lyon, Max Nugent, Alex Naggs. These are the soldiers who are still missing after their MRH-90 crashed in training at Talisman Sabre. To the families, friends, loved ones, the fathers, sons, husbands, partners, mates, our ADF family and children whose dads are missing—I'm sorry. There are 800 members of the ADF right now searching for these four Australian soldiers. I had the honour of serving with Alex Naggs, the nicest, kindest person I've ever met and someone that was just there listening and who would talk to everyone—a happy guy. His mates are out on the ocean now searching for him. The ADF family is just like any other family. We were so close. The people that have served with these brave men are out there searching for them. Our thoughts, our prayers and our hearts are with their families during this time. Member for Cook 19 13:55 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan What does the number 2½ thousand mean? It's the approximate number of robodebt victims from Swan—2½ thousand vulnerable people who suffered because of robodebt and because of a system overseen by the member for Cook. They are the real victims, not the member for Cook, who tried to portray himself yesterday as the victim of all of this. Guess what? It's not all about him. The member for Cook is not the victim here. The member for Cook says it's not his fault. Let me tell the member for Cook that he is the one that failed as minister. The member for Cook is the one that ignored the concerns. The member for Cook is the one that allowed robodebt to go ahead. It is the member for Cook's fault—the royal commission said so. Yet the member for Cook will not take responsibility. Even his own party are telling him to own up to it. I tell the member for Cook to take responsibility for his actions. That's what leadership looks like, but that's a lesson that still has not been learnt. Robodebt was wrong, and the 2½ thousand people in Swan know it. It was cruel, it was a tragedy, it should never have happened and it must not happen again. Murray-Darling Basin Plan 19 13:57 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Last week the Albanese Labor government was forced to face reality and admit that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan could not be delivered on time. It has been plainly obvious that the time frames were unrealistic and that the minister and member for Sydney has failed to garner cooperation from the states to deliver their sustainable diversion limit projects. Her stated preference is to go to buybacks. Let me be clear: there is no way that the Nationals will support buybacks to meet environmental targets. That is why we implemented the socioeconomic neutrality test in 2018. The 450 gigalitres sought through buybacks will never be supported by us, because we know it will decimate regional irrigation districts, like Sunraysia, in my electorate of Mallee. The neutrality test must be honoured for the sake of our river communities and the prosperity of the nation. The latest Centre for International Economics Contribution of Australian horticultural industry report lists the Mildura and Swan Hill region in Sunraysia as Australia's most valuable horticultural region. Its gross value of production is expected to grow by 32 per cent in the next seven years. The Albanese Labor government simply cannot compromise this growth through buybacks. The result would be devastating. I urge the minister to reconsider and refuse any buybacks on principle. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 19 13:58 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta The Leader of the Opposition must distance himself from the 'no' campaign's president, Gary Johns. Everybody has the right in this referendum to put forward their views, but the views expressed by Mr Johns on blood testing, Indigenous incarceration and interracial marriage are disturbing, divisive and irrelevant to the referendum debate. These are not just historic comments. These are comments he has repeated and supported as early as last week. The risk now is that this historic referendum will be used not to have a robust debate about the Constitution but to weaponise extremist views. The risk is that the 'no' campaign will be hijacked and used as a vehicle for these outdated agendas. That risk is materialising, as the president of the 'no' campaign uses his position to express irrelevant and disturbing positions. Already, Liberals for Yes have called on Mr Johns to step down from the 'no' campaign. Now we're waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership and call on Mr Johns to step down, because with him at the helm the 'no' campaign has strayed beyond constitutional change and become a platform for discredited views. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 20 CONDOLENCES Dean, Mr Arthur (Gordon) 20 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House of the death, on 27 July 2023, of Arthur Gordon Dean, a member of this House for the division of Herbert from 1977 to 1983. As a mark of respect to the memory of Gordon Dean, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Uluru Statement from the Heart 20 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. At the opening of parliament last year the Prime Minister declared, 'The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents an opportunity that must be seized and voice, truth, treaty is the result.' On 19 July the Prime Minister told 2GB's Ben Fordham that it was 'not natural' to assume treaty would follow the Voice, and stated, 'This is not about treaty.' He said that four times. Was the Prime Minister being truthful at the opening of parliament or on 2GB? Honourable members interjecting— T 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Deakin and the member for Moreton will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence; so will the Prime Minister. 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He should know, as a member of the Queensland LNP, that the Queensland LNP and the Queensland government have advanced legislation in Queensland that the Queensland LNP—of which he is a prominent member—voted for on the matter in which he answers. That's just a fact. But what is actually before the Australian people is a very clear proposition of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in Australia's Constitution, as our First Peoples. What is also before the Australian people is listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in order to achieve better results. He doesn't have to listen to those on this side of the House; he just has to listen to those behind him, because the member for Berowra had this to say: 'It's the status quo that is the biggest danger here. The system is broken. This is a wonderful country and we're at the top of the league tables on almost every measure, but we've got this gap that hasn't closed despite goodwill and money. Consulting people about the policies and laws that affect them, in a formal way, I think, will help.' A very constructive contribution from the person— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England will cease interjecting. I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr 00AKI Mr Speaker, this goes to the Prime Minister's credibility. Is he willing to demonstrate to the House where he told the truth and where he didn't, instead of this tricky tap dance? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW From the beginning to end of that point of order it was an abuse of the standing orders—the whole thing. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll remind all members that, when taking points of order, it's simply a matter of stating the point of order not giving commentary. The Prime Minister was asked about his comments at the opening of parliament and also on media. The Prime Minister is being relevant. I'm asking the House to listen to the Prime Minister in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm being relevant about the question that is before the Australian people. I say this to those opposite. If you believe that there is something wrong with the question that Australians will actually vote on between October and December this year, then put that case. But you are incapable of doing so, so the 'no' campaign continues to raise things that are not part of the question that is before the Australian people—the question that is in legislation that the Leader of the Opposition sat over there and voted for. He voted for it to be put to the Australian people. And I say this. Over coming weeks and indeed months the Australian people will have the opportunity to have their say, to embrace the opportunity that is there for recognition and for listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in order to achieve better outcomes. I say: if not now, when? We need to embrace this opportunity to enlarge our nation by voting yes. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Andrew, the Hon. Neil AO 21 14:05 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the distinguished visitors gallery today is a familiar face to some, the Hon. Neil Andrew AO, former Speaker and member for Wakefield. A very warm welcome to you and your family. Ho nourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions and Benefits 21 14:06 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is for the Minister for Government Services. What did the final report of the royal commission into robodebt find as to who the real victims of robodebt were? 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Higgins for her question about who the real victims of robodebt were. I draw the attention of the parliament to volume 3 of the royal commission's report, chapter 10, 'Effects of robodebt on individuals', pages 325 to 346. The royal commissioner forensically outlines who the real victims were. The real victims were those who received confusing initial letters which people didn't understand how to reply to. The real victims were those who had changed their address from the Centrelink record, having got off Centrelink or become homeless. The real victims were those who had their onus of proof reversed such that after the first demand from the government they were required to prove the case wrong—a case of guilty until proven innocent. The real victims were those who were denied reviews because they couldn't provide the payslips of companies that had gone out of business. The real victims were the Centrelink staff who were required to carry out illegal orders of an unlawful policy. The real victims were those Australians who lived in rural and remote Australia who at no point were contemplated in the design of the robodebt scheme. The real victims were those who suffered stigma, which was exacerbated by the political narrative of successive Liberal governments. The real victims were those who suffered financial hardship and had to sell their possessions to pay an unlawfully raised debt. The real victims were those who suffered the effects of unfair accusations. The real victims were those who suffered trauma, anxiety and distress. The real victims were those who took their own lives. The real victims are the mothers of those who took their own lives. The real victims are all those Australians who have lost trust in government because of an unlawful scheme run for 4½ years. I've gone to who the real victims are. One person who is not a real victim is the member for Cook. Yesterday the member for Cook claimed that the adverse findings against him were disproportionate, wrong, unsubstantiated or contradicted. The purpose of that statement was to frame himself as the real victim of the robodebt royal commission. The member for Cook said: In making their finding, the commission has sought to reverse the onus of proof to establish their claim. Satire is truly dead in this country when the member for Cook complains about the reversal of onus of proof on him but not the 434,000 people who did have the onus reversed. The member for Cook then said that the royal commission was a 'quasi-legal process'—a new Morrisonian doctrine about the law. The royal commission was not quasi-legal. It's real; it was constituted by the law—46 days of public hearings and over 100 witnesses under oath. I can see the member for Cook lip-syncing something. Well, let us be very clear. The victims of robodebt never had their legal costs paid for, never had the chance to see the evidence that was put against them. The member for Cook is a bottomless well of self-pity with not a drop of mercy for all the real victims of robodebt. Makarrata Commission 22 14:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Last year, the government announced $5.8 million for an independent makarrata commission. Does the government still support this commission, and exactly what will it do? 14:10 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The 2023 referendum is about constitutional recognition through a voice. Australians will be asked a simple question: do you support a change to the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? Let's be clear about what the Voice is. The Voice will be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to the parliament and the government on issues that affect their communities. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking a point of order? She has the call. Ms Ley 00AMN On relevance: this was a very tight question. It went to one issue and one issue only. Respectfully, to you and to the minister, I ask that you bring the minister back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has had a preamble— An honourable member interjec ting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll make that determination. The minister has had a preamble. The question was about the makarrata commission and funding from her government, whether the government still supports the commission and what it will do. I invite her to return to the question. Ms BURNEY 8GH Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their local areas and serve for a fixed period. It is about recognition and it is about listening. In the words of NRL legend Johnathan Thurston, from North Queensland: Our young people deserve the chance to be their best … I've seen the obstacles they face. Nobody understands that better than their local community. Giving them a say will mean more of our kids reach their potential. That's what the Voice is about. So I say to Australians: vote 'yes' for unity, for hope and to make a positive difference. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded her answer. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 22 14:12 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister please respond to the revelations in the final report of the royal commission into robodebt? 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I think the member for Hunter for his question. The robodebt royal commission exposed a shocking abuse of trust, an illegal program that was used to crush vulnerable people, an illegal program used to attack the defenceless. This was not business as usual. Commissioner Holmes wrote on page 102: The Commission rejects as untrue Mr Morrison's evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated … was an established practice and a "foundational way" in which DHS worked. That is just a fact that was found by the royal commission. Alarm bells were going off. Every member of parliament had people coming to their electorate office saying that they had these notices for debts that they didn't actually owe, and when representations were made to ministers, on every occasion that my office made a representation, the debt was either completely waived to zero or was waived substantially. Yet those people who were most vulnerable were those who were most likely not to have found their way to the electorate office of a member of parliament. They were grappling with fake debts and the trauma that came with that, trying to fight a system designed to keep them down. The royal commission's final report also stated: … Robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. It should then have been abandoned or revised drastically … It said: Instead the path taken was to double down … Since the royal commission was handed down, I've heard members of those opposite, people who had the honour of serving as ministers of the Crown, saying, 'As soon as we were alerted, we shut it down.' Not true; they doubled down. They didn't shut it down; they doubled down and continued to attack those people. Yesterday the member for Cook suggested there was only one victim of robodebt: him. So much self-pity, so little self-awareness. The Leader of the Opposition backed him in last night on 7.30. He's called the royal commission a witch-hunt, but he's got nothing to say about vulnerable people hounded for money they didn't owe or the fact some of them were driven to their deaths. His only sympathy is for Liberal MPs who created the scheme and doubled down on it even when the alarm bells were going off. The same ideology that leads the Liberal Party to oppose public housing for vulnerable people is what led them to this robodebt disaster. Climate Change 23 14:15 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. The United Nations says the world is boiling. Australia faces an extreme summer of fires and heat waves like those happening right now in the Northern Hemisphere. In the middle of this climate crisis, you keep approving coalmines and gas projects. Will you commit to showing global leadership and stop approving more coal and gas mines, or are you happy to see Australia burn too? 14:16 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for her question. I have to say to the member that I am absolutely proud to be part of a government that was recognised overnight by UNESCO as taking action—strong action—on climate change in order to save the Great Barrier Reef. As sources close to UNESCO said to Le Monde, between the previous and this government it's a bit like night and day. Indeed, it is a bit like night and day. Under the previous government, they had 22 separate climate and energy policies, and they didn't land a single one. What have we done since coming to government? In little over a year, we have legislated a trajectory to net zero with a 43 per cent emissions reduction target between now and then. We've legislated a safeguard mechanism to make sure that large projects approved in Australia fit within that trajectory to net zero. We are building a renewable energy system that will see 82 per cent of energy in our grid come from renewables. The solar farms, the wind farms, the hydro plants, the green hydrogen— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Griffith will be heard in silence on a point of order. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question went directly to the approval of coal and gas projects. We'd like the minister to address that part of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The question did contain that, but it contained a lot of other topics. If you are going to ask a specific question, it can't contain a whole lot of preamble, because that is what the minister is entitled to answer. She's being relevant. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M The difference between those opposite and the Albanese Labor government is that we are acting on climate change. We are part of a global commitment to meet the objectives in the Paris Agreement, to keep global warming as low as possible. We know that climate change is a threat to our natural environment, and that is why we are taking action. That's why we've got our legislated path to net zero. That's why we've got the safeguards mechanism. That's why we're investing in renewable energy projects. I have doubled the rate of approval of renewable energy projects since becoming the environment minister. We are seeing investment in green hydrogen, we're acting on ozone, we're acting on methane, we're acting on electric vehicles, we're acting to electrify our homes and businesses and get that extra renewable energy—that clean, green renewable energy—into our homes and businesses. That's the difference between those opposite and this government. We know that climate change is a threat and we're acting on it. Can I say to those opposite that we know that nothing we do will ever be enough, whether it's on housing, renewable energy or protecting the poorest and most vulnerable Australians, but I'm proud to be part of a government that is acting to deliver, not just talking about it. Cost of Living 24 14:20 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government seeking to deliver cost-of-living relief for those who need it most? How is the government rejecting the approach of punishing the most vulnerable? 14:20 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Macnamara for his question. Our strengthening the safety net package includes a range of important measures designed to support and target those who are most vulnerable. If the bill passes the parliament, on 20 September it will deliver a responsible increase to JobSeeker and an increase to Commonwealth rent assistance. It will of course expand parenting payment single and the eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker for those over 55. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Ms RISHWORTH HWA This package forms a part of the Albanese government's carefully calibrated action to provide cost-of-living support to Australians doing it tough. That's why it is terribly disappointing to see the opposition's position yesterday to reject the $40 boost for many working-age and student payments. Many people would be scratching their heads and wondering why the coalition don't want to provide— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin and the Treasurer will cease interjecting. Ms RISHWORTH HWA targeted and responsible support for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Rather than taking a bipartisan approach to strengthening the country's safety net, those opposite just want to play politics. We know that the coalition has a history of promoting policies that are cruel to the most vulnerable Australians. We don't have to go much further than robodebt. Thanks to the royal commission, Australians now know robodebt was a catastrophic policy failure which reversed the onus of proof and relied solely on a flawed, automated system to raise social security debts. Of course, this cruel and crude policy was neither fair nor, indeed, legal. But those in the former government were disinterested in the impact it was having on ordinary Australians. This practice caused suffering to 430,000 Australians. The robodebt royal commission heard countless tragic stories of people being hounded by their government to repay debts they didn't even owe. While most people recognise that this was a shocking, disgraceful policy, those opposite didn't. We have the member for Cook, the architect of robodebt, who, rather than taking responsibility, seems to think he's a victim. But we shouldn't be surprised, because the member for Cook's response was in line with the Leader of the Opposition. When the robodebt royal commission was announced, the Leader of the Opposition described it as 'nothing but a witch-hunt'. This shows that those opposite never took the robodebt criticism seriously. Whether it's our $40 increase to those doing it tough or robodebt, those opposite have shown they can only be cruel when it comes to those on social security. Mr Sukkar 242515 I ask the minister to table the document she read from word for word. The SPEAKER 53517 Was the minister reading from confidential documents? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister and the member for Deakin will cease their exchange across the chamber. Makarrata Commission 24 14:24 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Last year, the government announced $5.8 million for an independent Makarrata Commission. Does the government still support this commission? What exactly will it do? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I obviously don't have the Hansard for the earlier question, but it sounded suspiciously like the exact same question being asked again. The SPEAKER 53517 Under the standing orders, the question can be asked again. I'm going to invite the minister to answer the question. 14:25 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton What Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked for is constitutional recognition through a Voice. It is about recognising, listening and making a practical difference. If we didn't believe that before, look at the draft Productivity Commission report of just last week. In the words of Eddie Betts, the Adelaide and Carlton AFL legend— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on her feet. I will hear from her. Ms Ley 00AMN A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific, and it went directly to the makarrata commission and the minister's responsibilities. I ask that you bring the minister back to order and back to the question. Mr DYW To the point of order: I would add that the constant jibes that come from the Leader of the Opposition while the minister is speaking, including the attempted points of order without standing to take the chair, are completely disorderly and continuing. It hasn't been stopping the whole time. And the minister is being relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to hear the minister—she's 30 seconds in—but I am going to ask her to return to the specifics of the question. Ms BURNEY 8GH Let's vote yes for recognition, for listening and for better results. Housing 25 14:27 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government seeking to deliver more homes, and what is blocking further progress? 14:27 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Reid for her question. I know that she's very interested in getting more homes on the ground in her electorate. She understands that we have a broad, ambitious housing agenda, because we need to be ambitious. When we came to office, what we inherited was very little action on housing and, indeed, significant housing challenges, especially when it comes to housing for those that need it most. Those opposite have said more than once that housing was just for the states and territories. We've been working with the states and territories and, importantly, with organisations on the frontline of housing challenges, because they understand the scale of what we inherited. That's why they all want to see our Housing Australia Future Fund passed by the parliament, whether it be National Shelter, who described our legislation as 'the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward for the past ten years', or the Community Housing Industry Association, who declared it absolutely urgent. Importantly, it's about people on the ground who need it most, like Lisa and Sean, who I met last week. I met Lisa; Sean was in hospital. Lisa told me that Sean has mobility issues and needs to have an operation. He could not have that operation, because he had nowhere to go home to. That's what these homes we're trying to build mean to people on the ground—what they mean to people like Lisa and Sean. This is important, because the people who are waiting for public and social housing need these homes, and they need them today. The blocking of these bills in the Senate last time has delayed action, so I say to those opposite—to the Liberals, Greens and Nationals—don't block any more houses for people that need them most. We want to build more homes. They want to block more homes. It's important that they understand and that they listen to people like Lisa and Sean, who need these homes desperately. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 25 14:29 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. At the Garma Festival last year, the minister said the Uluru Statement talks about three things: the Voice; treaty and agreement-making; and truth-telling. Will the Voice. Treaty. Truth. process involve any financial payment by the Commonwealth? 14:30 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I have repeatedly stood up here and explained the need for the Voice and the need for constitutional recognition, and I have spoken extensively about the Uluru statement. I refer you back to all of those statements. Interest Rates 26 14:30 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Treasurer. What does today's decision on interest rates by the independent Reserve Bank mean for Australian families and the economy? 14:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the wonderful member for Hasluck for that question. The Reserve Bank has just announced its decision to keep the cash rate on hold at 4.1 per cent. In doing so, they said: The recent data are consistent with inflation returning to the 2-3 per cent target range over the forecast horizon and with output and employment continuing to grow. This will be a big relief for Australians with a mortgage. This is a welcome reprieve for Australians who are already doing it tough enough. Australians are still under the pump, even as inflation moderates and even after this decision today. We know that inflation in our economy is coming off, but it's still too high. We understand and we acknowledge that, but we do take some encouragement from the most recent quarterly inflation data, which showed that inflation in the most recent quarter is less than half what it was in the March quarter of 2022 under those opposite. So we see welcome progress, but there's still some distance to travel. In this environment, this government's highest priority is rolling out billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief for people who are doing it tough. This relief is targeted to the people who need it most and to the areas where the pressure is most acute, like out-of-pocket health costs, rent and electricity bills. What we're doing here is taking some of the edge off the cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation and making the job of the independent Reserve Bank that much harder. Cost-of-living relief is a central focus of our three-point plan to address inflation: help people who are doing it tough, a bigger surplus to take the pressure off inflation, and invest in the supply-side challenges in our economy which have been neglected for too long over the wasted decade. We are making progress in this fight against inflation. Don't forget, when government changed hands last year, we had quarterly inflation more than double what it is now. We had rates already rising. We had huge deficits as far as the eye could see, and we didn't have enough to show for the trillion dollars in Liberal debt that they had racked up. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Now, partly as a consequence of our responsible economic management, we're seeing inflation moderating, we're seeing record job creation and we're seeing the first surplus in 15 years, saving us billions of dollars in interest costs on their debt. We are cleaning up the mess that they left us and building the foundations for a stronger economy and a better future. Today's decision is a welcome reprieve. There will be a sigh of relief around Australia, but people are still under the pump. We will continue to take seriously our responsibilities in this inflation fight, which is far from over. (Time expired) Agriculture Industry 26 14:33 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. I refer to the minister's answer yesterday, which failed to rule out the government requiring farmers to undertake mandatory cultural heritage surveys. Has the government undertaken modelling on the cost for farming businesses of mandatory obligations like cultural surveys? 14:34 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for his question. What his question today and the question yesterday referred to are some provisions in Western Australian law. Can I be very clear: we are the Commonwealth government and we're not proposing to adopt Western Australian law. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Twenty seconds in. I'm just going to ask the minister to pause, and I'll hear from the Leader of the Nationals. Mr 265585 On relevance, the question clearly went to the question that was asked yesterday that went to the federal proposed legislation, not Western Australia's. So the minister is not even close to being relevant to the question that was asked today or yesterday. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Members on my right, there's far too much noise for me to even hear the minister. I'll bring her back to the question, and she has the call. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M In that case, it's difficult to understand what the member's referring to, because what he's referring to is in the Western Australian legislation. Let's take a step back here to look at why this heritage reform legislation is necessary. This is something that came out of the destruction of Juukan Gorge, a 46,000-year-old sacred site. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Oh, excuse me. The Leader of the Opposition has just said that this did come out of the Western Australian government, whereas the Leader of the National Party has said this has nothing to do with Western Australian legislation. I'm not clear. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting, the Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting and the member for McEwen will cease interjecting. Everyone, I want to hear from the Minister for the Environment and Water to hear her answer to the question from the member of Parkes. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M They sit next to each other, and they can't even get their question straight. It's bizarre. It's no wonder they're in such trouble. I don't often say this, but I do agree with the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she said, and I quote: Indigenous Heritage Protection remains an all too complex interaction of state, territory and commonwealth law and it needs to be addressed through a national conversation. She said: This is about the Government working with Indigenous Australians and recognising their right to determine what is important to them. I support the process she put in train. I support the fact she contracted the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to develop work in this area. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I support the fact that she put $11 million on the table in May, before the election, to do this work. Can I also say that the work that the member for Leichhardt did in chairing the two inquiries that came out of the Juukan Gorge tragedy was led so successfully by the member for Leichhardt when he described that there are 'serious deficiencies' in cultural heritage laws. He said: It became apparent to the committee that the legislation designed to protect cultural heritage has in many, many cases directly contributed to the damage and destruction … He also said: It is time for the legislative frameworks in Australia, in all Australian jurisdictions, to be modernised to bring meaningful protection to Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage … (Time expired) Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 28 14:38 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What impact has the robodebt scheme had on the mental health and wellbeing of Australians? Why is it important for those who created the scheme to take responsibility? 14:38 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend for his question. It's an important question, because the report of the royal commission into robodebt puts beyond doubt what the Labor Party and so many other organisations have been saying since 2016, that this was, to use the words of the royal commission, and I quote: … an extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice. More than 400,000 Australians were unfairly targeted and pursued by their own government. Many of them were already vulnerable, including through mental illness. As the College of Psychiatrists said to the royal commission: 'Robodebt has unjustifiably stigmatised claimants with mental health conditions, compounded their suffering and placed extra strain upon their families and carers.' And as the Prime Minister said, we all saw that through people visiting and calling into our electorate offices—I'm sure across both sides of this House. The former government gave no leeway over the years. For some, tragically, the pressure was simply too much to bear, and lives were lost. As the commission said, 'The ill-effects of the scheme were varied, extensive, devastating and continuing.' You'd think that this might lead the member for Cook to take some lessons from this, but he clearly hasn't. Yesterday he blamed the public servants, calling back to mind that familiar refrain from 2021: 'That's not my job.' He blamed the royal commission process: it was somehow vindictive. That was from a government that said to those vulnerable Australians: 'We'll find you, we'll track you down and you may end up in prison.' Perhaps it's a triumph of hope over experience to expect the member for Cook to take any responsibility for his actions, but what does it say about the Leader of the Opposition that he chose last night to back the member for Cook's delusional view of that saga instead of fronting up to the damage that it caused to so many vulnerable Australians and standing alongside them. The message it does send to all those Australians grappling with poverty, with homelessness, with unemployment and with mental illness is that the Leader of the Opposition and his party have learned nothing and that in their view they did nothing wrong. Environment 28 14:41 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. The carbon capture and storage project linked to Chevron's Gorgon gas mine is universally recognised as a monumental failure. The government's sea-dumping bill would allow CCS project such as this to go ahead. Specifically, it will enable the colossal Barossa gas mine to proceed. This will be one of the most polluting gas fields in the world. Isn't enabling the Barossa gas mine to proceed through passing the sea-dumping bill incompatible with our Paris Agreement obligations? 14:42 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Mackellar. I know that her interest in the environment and her activism on the environment are sincere, and I appreciate her efforts in here. Of course, the bill is not directed at any specific project. In fact, as with any project that might come before me, I can't make comments about individual projects. What I can say in general about this bill is that it implements our international obligations. Australia has already agreed to these obligations under the London protocol. The London protocol is about protecting and preserving our marine environment. The London protocol is widely acknowledged as best practice in international environmental law and includes rigorous environmental impact assessments which actually have stronger and broader powers than our current environmental laws. These laws also implement the 2013 amendment to the London protocol, which will enable us to regulate for innovative new approaches and technologies to tackle climate change—things like ocean fertilisation. Following the passage of this legislation, there will be many, many years of regulatory drafting and assessment processes still to happen before any project of the type that the member for Mackellar has described could even begin to be considered. We know that we as a government absolutely need to take climate change seriously. In one of my earlier answers I went through a number of the things that we are doing to act on climate change. Climate change is core business for this government. We are absolutely committed to meeting our obligations under the Paris Agreement. We know our resources sector and heavy industry need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That's why we've legislated our path to net zero, the 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030; it's why we are committed to 82 per cent renewables by 2030; and it's why I've doubled the rate of approvals of renewable energy projects. Through the safeguard mechanism we have established the policy framework to deal with emissions. Every one of those large projects has to fit within that trajectory to net zero. The amendments in this bill are really necessary to ensure that we have a comprehensive regulatory framework that protects our oceans, including things like environmental impact assessments, risk assessments and management frameworks to ensure that best practice is adopted. We need to get that regulation right, but it's not anticipated that there'd be any international projects for some time. What we certainly won't do is what those opposite did, which is give big handouts—$250 million in wasteful public subsidies—to carbon capture and storage. I know that Minister Bowen actually cancelled that spending in October. I'm very proud of the fact we've had recognition overnight from UNESCO on the action that we've taken as a government. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 29 14:45 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Minister for Government Services. How do the actual findings of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme compare with what members of former Liberal governments say about robodebt? 14:45 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong The member for Calwell's question is very important to Australians because those opposite would like to think that robodebt's now in the rear-vision mirror of Australian politics, and they just want to move on. But the nation cannot move on until those who were in government, now in opposition, actually accept accountability and responsibility. It is inevitable that, if they don't learn the lessons of the past, Australians can expect this again in the future. The then government ministers have had a lot to say about robodebt. The member for Cook has said that the royal commission findings on him are just wrong, and, with his trademark blame-shifting, he said this was a political lynching of him and that he would like Labor to move on. But how does the nation move on when the member for Cook says one thing but the commission rejected Mr Morrison's evidence as untrue? The commission says Mr Morrison knew that the policy proposal that he brought forward to the cabinet: … represented a complete reversal of the legal position without explanation. The royal commission said: Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled … I'll repeat that because it seems that some on the opposition front bench don't realise: Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry. It goes on to say the former Prime Minister of Australia: … failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed … But it wasn't just the member for Cook. A generation of coalition cabinet ministers have had their legacies tainted by the unlawful actions of the robodebt scheme. I remember Mr Tudge saying he was going to 'find the welfare cheats and hunt them down'. But the commission said about former minister Tudge that he made the decision to: … publicly release the personal details of one particular person to the media, following an opinion piece she wrote, critical of her treatment by Centrelink … The royal commission said: Mr Tudge's use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the Scheme's problems represented an abuse of that power. It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to … dependent on the … minister … There was, of course, our friend the former member for Fadden, Mr Robert, who came up with the new doctrine that cabinet solidarity meant that he could actually make statements of fact as to the accuracy of debts which he knew could not be right. The royal commission said about that cabinet minister: Nothing compels ministers to knowingly make false statements, or statements which they have good reason to suspect are untrue … The real issue here that Australians want to hear is: do the rest of the coalition agree with Mr Morrison about the royal commission or do they accept responsibility for breaking the law for 4½ years? Interest Rates 30 14:48 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Treasurer. In the next three months it is expected that around 150,000 households with fixed-rate loans are at risk of falling off a $95 billion refinancing cliff. This will see some homeowners with repayments increasing by 50 per cent overnight. Why then did the Treasurer use three-year-old data to claim that Australians are finding it easier to pay their mortgages? 14:49 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin We know that the shadow Treasurer was expecting a rate rise today, because he's come in unprepared and had to read out yesterday's question! You could see him rifling through his folder looking in vain for something relevant to say. When it comes to fixed rate mortgages, this is a substantial part of the pressure that a lot of Australians are feeling as a consequence of interest rates which started rising on their watch. The first interest rate rise in this cycle, which has put a lot of pressure on people, happened in May 2022 when they were in government. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Interest rates have continued to rise in ways that have put extra pressure on people. We understand that and we have acknowledged that throughout. When it comes to people coming off fixed rate mortgages onto variable rate mortgages, this is a substantial part of the pressure. If you think about it in quarterly terms, the biggest number of fixed rate mortgages becoming variable was last quarter. We think, on the latest numbers, it was about 19 per cent of fixed rate mortgages last quarter and about 17 per cent this quarter. There are still substantial numbers of people, but it peaked last quarter and it is coming off. For those people, obviously, higher rates put extra pressure on their household budgets, and that's a big part of the story. More broadly, we all know that interest rates have been rising because, like most advanced major economies around the world, we've got an inflation challenge in our economy. If the shadow Treasurer really understood and cared about the inflation challenge in our economy, he would acknowledge that the highest quarterly inflation in this cycle—actually for some decades—was the March quarter of 2022, when they were in office. What matters here— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will pause and I'll hear from the member for Hume. Mr Taylor 231027 A point of order on relevance: the question was very specifically asking why the Treasurer was using three-year-old data to try to explain that Australians are finding it easier to pay their mortgages. The 53517 The Treasurer is being relevant to the topic of the question. As long as he's being relevant to the topic, he's within the standing orders. If he strays from the question, I'll listen carefully to make sure that he is being relevant. The Treasurer has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Every time he opens his mouth he reminds us why he hardly ever gets a question. We get the scripted intervention and he looks down the camera, and we get the angry interventions from the Leader of the Opposition— The SPEA 53517 The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 when the real issue here— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The Treasurer will just cool his jets. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Macnamara is warned. There's far too much noise. I want to hear from the member for Petrie on a point of order. Mr Howarth 247742 It's just on reflecting on the Leader of the Opposition again and reflecting on members. If we got up here and said, 'He's got big ears and he's got— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I appreciate the member for Petrie's intervention. As I was trying to listen to the Treasurer, he was talking about the member for Hume, not the Leader of the Opposition. I'll just ask the Treasurer to remain relevant to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I don't know where to begin with that point of order, Mr Speaker, so I'll leave it be. When the shadow Treasurer came up with his pre-scripted point of order, I was explaining to him—because he clearly doesn't understand—that the inflation challenge in our economy has been present for some time. That's why rolling out billions of dollars in cost-of-living help is the No. 1 priority of this government. We've got an inflation challenge. It's the reason why we've got a bigger surplus, taking the pressure off inflation. It's why we're investing in the supply side challenges in our economy. We are cleaning up the mess that they left behind after a wasted decade of missed opportunities— (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef 31 14:54 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to protect the Great Barrier Reef, and how is the world responding to these actions? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher. I've been clear on this before. The minister hasn't even begun. This has got to stop. When ministers are approaching the dispatch box—particularly some ministers—that is not the time to begin interjecting. If that continues, people will be asked to leave the chamber. The Minister for the Environment and Water has the call. 14:54 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate that. And I appreciate the question from the member for Moreton. I know he is a proud Queenslander and a strong environmentalist, and he would be delighted, as we all are, to hear that overnight UNESCO has agreed that they will not recommend an in-danger listing for the Great Barrier Reef. That of course is a relief for the 64,000 people who rely on the reef for their jobs, for all Queenslanders and for all Australians, because the reef of course is a very special place for all Australians. The fact is, though, that the World Heritage listing of the reef means that this place is special not just for Australians; it is globally significant. And the fact that before the election UNESCO was proposing to list the reef as in danger and that since the election they have changed their mind and recognised the work that our government is doing to protect the reef is also globally significant. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M The thing that's changed between the original— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I assume that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to stay for the MPI this afternoon. So, she will cease interjecting. The minister has the call. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M What's changed between the original position, where UNESCO was going to list the reef as in danger, and now, when they're not proposing to list the reef as in danger? What's changed? The government. There is now a government that recognises the importance of climate change. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M What's changed is that there is a government that is committed to action on climate change. In fact, sources close to UNESCO said to Le Monde that between the previous government and this government it's a bit like night and day. Of course, they're talking about our increased investment in the reef—doubling funding for reef science, investing more in getting Indigenous rangers out there dealing with crown-of-thorns starfish and marine science, cancelling damaging dam projects that were going to affect water quality, and an additional $150 million for gully stabilisation, for making sure that we're not seeing masses of mud flowing out onto the reef. We're improving water quality, working with farmers—banana farmers, pastoralists, sugarcane farmers—to reduce nutrient load going onto the reef, and dealing with overfishing. In fact, we're phasing out gillnet fishing on the reef, something that's been talked about for decades but never done by those opposite. I'm so proud of the fact that the international community is recognising the efforts of the Albanese Labor government to tackle climate change, to do our share. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I just wondered if I could move an extension of time so that the minister could go into further detail about the $1.2 billion— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW That was clearly a frivolous point of order, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on a warning. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House makes a good point. Just for the benefit of everyone in the House, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects one more time she'll be asked to leave the chamber under standing order 94(a) and there won't be an MPI this afternoon. I hope everyone understands that. Asylum Seekers 32 14:59 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is a question for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The government promised it would take a more compassionate approach to asylum seekers. But asylum seekers who have been living in limbo for 10 years are being told to wait another year before resolution. Asylum seekers still don't have access to Medicare, work or a safety net, and there's been no increase to our humanitarian intake. Are these delays due to a lack of will or a lack of capacity? And how will the government deliver on its promise? 14:59 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Curtin for her question. I recognise her deep interest in these issues and the engagement that she and I have had over them. I acknowledge, in particular, that I have been to her electorate and engaged with concerned community members and also people seeking asylum in her community. At this moment I want to take this opportunity to extend my thoughts to her staff, who I know are going through a challenging time. On the question she has asked directly, let me say this: I am very proud to be part of a government that is all about keeping its commitments, in every area. When it comes to this area of policy, that is particularly important— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Mr GILES 243609 I think there are two really big points that go to how the Albanese government approaches these very difficult questions. The first one is to recognise that we have got to do two things: we have to maintain a secure border without ever losing sense of our humanity and decency as a people. Secondly, we have to change the conversation in this country, which has been debased for so long—in particular under those opposite for nearly a decade. The member for Curtin expresses some concerns and frustration about progress. Let me say a few things to that. We've got to be clear across every aspect of this government that you don't deal with nine years worth of dysfunction within a year. We've got to be straight with people, particularly when issues such as this—which are so fundamental to someone's life—are at stake. But I can tell the member for Curtin this: last year we delivered the humanitarian program in full for the first time since the year 2018-19. We delivered that program in full. That's a statement of our priorities. We have just concluded the really deep consultations around this year's humanitarian program, and I'll have more to say about that in the coming days. In terms of the legacy caseload, people trapped in limbo for a decade for no good reason, we have got on with the job. I am very pleased to inform the House and the member that more than 5,000 people have already been transitioned to permanent visas, giving them the chance to make the contribution they should make in certainty. We have invested in visa processing—something that we have read a bit about lately, something that was deeply neglected by members opposite for so long—so we can make these changes and build a system that gives effect to our obligations. Right now there are more people forcibly displaced than at any time in human history. Right now there are more refugees around the world than at any time in human history. We as a government recognise this. We recognise that this isn't an Australian problem; this is a global problem in which Australia must play a leading role, and the Albanese government is playing that role. Domestic and Family Violence 33 15:02 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring workers experiencing family and domestic violence aren't forced to choose between their income and their safety? 15:03 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Corangamite for the question. It is particularly important that it comes today and from the member for Corangamite, who in her former role as a mayor was the first employer in the world to establish family and domestic violence leave. From today, 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is available as a right for all workers who are covered by the Fair Work Act. As of today, an additional 2.2 million workers are eligible. That means that now, across the economy, up to 11 million workers are now covered for family and domestic violence leave. Workplaces play a key role in providing critical support. Over 68 per cent of people experiencing family and domestic violence are in paid work. Leaving a violent relationship is already hard, with risks of joblessness, financial stress, homelessness and poverty. This law doesn't fix all of the issues; it just removes one of the barriers in leaving a violent relationship, and that's that someone should no longer have to ask, 'Can I afford to be safe?' Family and domestic violence erodes access to work, career progression and financial independence. Overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, this impacts on women. Paid family and domestic violence leave will ease these affects, reducing the gender pay gap, supporting gender equality and increasing women's economic security. We used a simple principle: getting out shouldn't mean losing pay. Access to family and domestic violence leave applies differently to most leave entitlements. Normally, a leave entitlement wouldn't extend to casuals, but you shouldn't have to choose between your safety and your pay. Normally, a leave entitlement doesn't start from your first day of work, but you shouldn't have to choose between your safety and your pay. Normally a leave entitlement is at the base rate of pay, not whatever additional loadings would have been attached to the shift, but you shouldn't have to choose between your safety and your pay. I want to acknowledge that this particular legislative change has come as a result of a long campaign over many years. I acknowledge that it ended up being supported by both sides of the chamber. I want to acknowledge the frontline workers, the unions, the academics and the survivors who drove this change. I want to acknowledge all those in the caucus, in particular, who campaigned for us to take this policy to the last election—for it to be something that would change in the law in the event of an Albanese Labor government—and acknowledge that, now for 11 million workers covered under the Fair Work Act, they don't need to choose between their safety and their pay. Energy 33 15:06 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. Brendan Reinheimer and his wife are raising three children in Haven, in my electorate. They reached out to me recently in desperation, having learned that their new electricity charges will cost them an additional $970 over the next 12 months. Will this tricky Prime Minister now admit that Labor's pre-election promise to cut household energy bills by $275 will never be met? The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the member to withdraw that part of the question. Dr WEBSTER 281688 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for withdrawing that. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 It's a simple question; you told them they were going to get a $275 rebate. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for O'Connor is warned. 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question, which is about Brendan. I hope that the member for Mallee told Brendan that she voted against the $3 billion of assistance to households. We know that the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as supply chain shortages, has had an impact on global inflation. That would appear to be news to those opposite—that global inflation has occurred—but one of the positive things that has happened, as the Treasurer said about the decision of the Reserve Bank today, is in the context of a government that's been determined to get on top of the inflation challenge by providing cost-of-living relief without putting further pressure on inflation. That has been our objective, which is why, instead of a cash stimulus, we designed a scheme together with the New South Wales government and the Queensland government, specifically, with the measures that they had to take. In New South Wales, the coalition government brought the parliament back for special legislation to deal with this. Those opposite—the shadow Treasurer—criticise the Perrottet government for the action that they took in concert with us. We don't. No wonder they have pre-selection problems in the New South Wales branch over there, with the chaos and dysfunction which is there. We'll continue to do what we can to address cost-of-living pressures, but we will do so in a way that does not put pressure on inflation. That is the right thing to do. I just hope that the next time the member for Mallee has the opportunity to actually vote for some support and relief for people she does the right thing and actually votes for it. Tertiary Education 34 15:09 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to deliver a better and fairer higher education system? 15:10 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the fantastic member for Chisholm for her question. The Universities Accord is the biggest and broadest review of our higher education system in 15 years. It's led by the incomparable Professor Mary O'Kane AC. Two weeks ago, I released the accord interim report, and what it says is that in the years ahead more jobs will require a university qualification. Today, about 36 per cent of the workforce has a university degree. What this report says is that by the middle of this century that will be more like 55 per cent. That's a rough estimate, but it gives you an idea of the skills challenge we face in the years and the decades ahead. What the report argues is that the only way to get there is to significantly increase the number of students attending university from our outer suburbs and from our regions. Almost one in two Aussies in their 20s or 30s today has a university degree, but not everywhere—not where I grew up, not in the western suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, not in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, not in the outer suburbs of Perth or Hobart and not in regional Australia. In regional Australia it's only 13 per cent. In Elizabeth, a northern suburb of Adelaide, it's only seven per cent. So where you live has a massive impact on the chances you have—about whether you get a crack at going to university. I want more young Australians to get that chance. Part of that is bringing universities closer to where people live and bringing the buildings to where the brains are. That's the first recommendation of this report—to establish more university study hubs, places where you can study for any degree closer to where you live. The evidence shows that they work and that, where they exist, participation goes up. There are 34 of these at the moment, and we will double them. There will be 20 more for the regions and 14, for the first time, in the outer suburbs of our major cities. That's the first recommendation of this report. Later this week I'll introduce legislation to implement two further recommendations of this report. In December, Professor O'Kane will provide me with the final report. It'll cover teaching, research, HECS and how we make sure TAFE and uni work more closely together. But, at its core, what it's about is this: making sure that more kids from our outer suburbs and our regions and more kids from poorer backgrounds get a crack at going to university. As the Prime Minister says, we're making sure no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. Energy 34 15:13 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Many Australians will soon receive energy bills for the month of July, following recent price hikes, and they'll be shocked to learn that they're now paying some of the highest prices in the world. Ray, a constituent of mine, has sent me his bill in disbelief. It has risen by over 30 per cent. Will the minister now admit that Labor's pre-election promise to cut household energy bills by $275 will never be met? 15:14 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Thanks to the honourable member for Fairfax for his very rare question in this House. He's right— Mr 138932 Well, you've never answered the $275 question! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The minister has been on his feet for 15 seconds. If the member for Fairfax says one more thing, he will leave the chamber. You cannot, this close to me, simply start screaming across the chamber. Mr BOWEN DZS You won't hear me say this very often, but the honourable member for Fairfax does have a point. People are receiving bills and they will receive a bill shock, because the bills that people are receiving today are the direct result of the default market offer that the member for Hume hid from the Australian people before the last election. Mr BOWEN DZS That is the fact. That is the stone cold fact. It's the direct result— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin! Mr BOWEN DZS I do know what winds them up, Mr Speaker. The direct result of what the member for Hume hid from the Australian people is hitting bills this month. The 53517 The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS That is a fact. It is the case, as this government has always recognised— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). The mem ber for Deakin then left the chamber. Mr BOWEN DZS It is the case, as this government has always recognised, that there are pressures on energy bills. That's why we've acted and intervened, with no support from those opposite—with the active opposition of those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition boasts in speeches to APPEA that he will rip up the intervention because he wants to see bills go higher. That's his declared position. That is the direct result of his policy declaration, just as it's the direct result of the deceit of the member for Hume, who hid from the Australian people the default market offer. They actually changed the law—signed a regulation to change the law of the land—so that these increases would be hidden from the Australian people before the last election. This is the direct result of their actions. The fact that Australia is so exposed to these international circumstances because we had four gigawatts of dispatchable power leave the grid and only one gigawatt come on is a direct result of their policy indolence over a decade. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 35 15:17 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Has the minister considered the finding of the robodebt royal commission that previous coalition governments were warned about the failures of robodebt, and what is his response? 15:17 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong The robodebt royal commission not only looked at the circumstances surrounding the start of the law-breaking scheme; it also addressed the question of why the law-breaking against vulnerable people went on for 4½ years and whether there were any red flags, warnings or signs that this scheme was wrong. The royal commission actually says that the beginning of 2017 was the point at which robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent—the beginning of 2017. The commission says that it should have been abandoned or revised drastically. An enormous amount of hardship and misery, as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise, would have been averted. After hearing all the evidence, the royal commission said: Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that … the scheme had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteousness to recoup taxpayers' money from the undeserving. So in 2017 warning signs were ignored. The commission said that the scheme 'trundled on', the cover-up continued. It said DSS—the Department of Social Services—seemed to have taken little interest in the administrative appeals cases until mid-2018, when the Department of Human Services told the Department of Social Services that an AAT decision had said income averaging in the way of robodebt was unlawful. There was an AAT decision. The AAT had placed reliance on an article by Professor Carney, who subsequently wasn't reappointed to the AAT. There was draft advice from Clayton Utz saying this was right, but it was never acted on. They were told it was wrong and it was never acted on. The Ombudsman, according to the royal commission, was deliberately misled. I remind the coalition, who are trying to gainfully ignore this, that the Ombudsman was misled by the former government. That was then used by the government to resist scrutiny of the scheme. So there were many warnings about this scheme, many warnings that the former coalition government was engaging in mass lawbreaking of its own laws against the vulnerable. The question though for the current opposition—and they've been strangely silent—is: do they agree with the member for Cook that this is just an unfair political attack? Surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has, but I think now we need clarity from the Leader of the Opposition. Do you accept that 'the ill-effects of the scheme were varied, extensive, devastating and continuing'? Why don't you just say, 'We broke the law for 4½ years, and we are absolutely sorry'? Mr Albanese R36 On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 36 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Women's Sport 36 15:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Right now it's hard to think of a more-beautiful two-word sentence than '4-0'. Last night, I congratulated the Matildas on their extraordinary result against the Olympic champions, Canada. I had some friendly banter with my friend Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. It was a remarkable result in front of a packed AAMI Park in Melbourne, which was a small fraction of the record audience that watched last night. I congratulate the entire team, and particularly the goal scorers. Hayley Raso got two, Mary Fowler got one and maybe should have got another one, and Steph Catley, the captain, closed the deal with that late penalty. Australia is so proud of the Matildas. The good thing occurring here is that it isn't just a sporting event; it is an inspiration, particularly for young girls and young women. We look forward to the next match. I also want to congratulate the Diamonds on their win against Scotland in Cape Town in the Netball World Cup. The skipper, Liz Watson, and her team are undefeated. When I was growing up it was pretty hard to envisage a team sport played by women being on peak TV times. The world has changed, and that is a very good thing. I wish these two great teams all the best in the remaining days and, hopefully, weeks of the World Cup. 15:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating the Matildas. Obviously, as the PM points out, it was a tremendous sporting event with individual contributions but an enormous amount of work done behind the scenes by coaching staff and all of the administrators who are there performing at an exceptional level and providing an inspiration to a generation of young girls who could never have envisaged such heroes and such an influence on their lives. It's a remarkable event, and everyone now waits with great anxiety until next Monday night. We wish the Matildas well in their preparation for that game, as well. I acknowledge the wonderful efforts of the Diamonds, as the Prime Minister pointed out. All of us continue to watch their success. I obviously acknowledge the work of the Australian team in the Ashes series. Some of us are a little bleary-eyed this morning and are glad that we might finally get a full night's sleep tonight. I congratulate them for that series win. It has been a very entertaining five-match series. I think most people are pretty exhausted but exhilarated off the back of the Matildas' performance last night. BUSINESS 37 BUSINESS Stating the Question on Amendments 37 15:24 The SPEAKER 53517 Before members leave, I wish to give a short statement to the House about the way questions will be put in the House and the Federation Chamber, and therefore the way divisions will take place in the House. As members will be aware, the physical arrangements in the chamber have returned to their pre-COVID 19 forms. From now on the procedural changes will also revert to the standard formulations as provided in the standing orders. What this means is that a question for decision of the House will be stated in the usual form 'that the proposal be agreed to'. Members will still be required to vote 'aye' or 'no' on the voices to a question before the House. However, the reversion to the usual practices of the House will mean that many members might need to cross the floor to the other side of the chamber when voting in divisions. For example, when the deferred division is dealt with this afternoon after the MPI, the question will be stated as: 'That the amendment moved by the member for Goldstein to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Curtin be agreed to.' Members agreeing should vote 'aye' and members disagreeing to the amendment should vote 'no.' As the division has been deferred, of course the bells will be rung. The question that the amendment be agreed to will be stated. Whilst it's always important for members to listen carefully to the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker in the chair, as this reversion to the usual practice and procedure of the House is not familiar to members, especially the members who have taken their places in the House in this 47th Parliament. I encourage all members to listen carefully when a question is being stated and put to the House for decision. DOCUMENTS 37 DOCUMENTS Presentation 37 15:25 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I table documents in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 37 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 37 15:25 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Prime Minister's broken promise to address the cost of living crisis. 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— 15:26 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It's with pleasure that I speak on this very important matter of public importance, namely this government's broken election promise on the cost of living and broken promises on addressing the cost-of-living crisis in this country. This morning the Treasurer said, 'Oh, if you're struggling with the mortgage cliff, go and see your bank. They might be able to put some special measures in place for you.' He's given up. Just now we heard the Minister for Cliimate Change and Energy say that the recent rise in energy prices is absolutely nothing to do with him or this government and they don't propose to do anything about them, and the member for Fairfax was effectively just laughed at. We've seen the Prime Minister actually jeer and sneer at every single member on this side of the House when they have raised genuine matters about the cost-of-living crisis facing their constituents. This Prime Minister laughs at them and makes fun of them and the whole frontbench just collapses and giggles. This is a government that's just given up on the cost of living. This is a Prime Minister who's key election promise was: no-one left behind and no-one held back. I should add that, in spite of all these things the government has given up on, they were able to save the Great Barrier Reef in just 12 months. I'm very happy, Prime Minister, if you slip a note of thanks under my door for the $1.2 billion that the Liberal and National parties provided to protect the communities on the reef, because it's communities that we care about. Right now it's the cost-of-living crisis that our communities, your communities, Australia's communities are facing that should be front and centre of the debates in this parliament in question time. Time after time, we ask a question and the Prime Minister says, 'What would you ask that for?' as if there's some objection. It's question time. It's time for the government to step up and be held accountable. As I said, we all remember that key election promise: no-one left behind and no-one held back. He promised people would have cheaper electricity and cheaper mortgages. We've all gone past the $275 promise. We know the 97-times-repeated $275 promise will never eventuate. But, Prime Minister, we haven't gone past your break in faith with the Australian community. That was the first signal that you continue to believe that you're better than the promises you made and that those promises don't need to be kept. He promised people would have cheaper electricity. He promised a better future for families and a better future for businesses. Do you remember when he said, 'It's been a pretty good 10 months'? Then we got that famous prime ministerial smirk. It's been a pretty awful 15 months and I challenge anyone—members opposite or members on my side—to talk to anybody who's saying they're doing it better now than they were at the time of the May 2022 election, because they're not. The Prime Minister promised that if he was elected people would pay less and earn more, but today you're paying more and earning less. He promised that if he was elected people would have a cheaper mortgage, but we've seen interest rates go up and up. He promised that if he was elected people would get ahead, but instead they're falling behind. No-one is better off. That's not what Australians were promised. Again and again, Labor's promises on what they would do have been broken. Australians decided to give Labor a go because they were told that things would be better under Labor, but the Prime Minister has delivered the opposite and, more than 12 months on, this tricky Prime Minister needs to fess up and admit it. Day after day we're reminded that the biggest issue for the Australian public at the moment is the cost-of-living crisis. Let's have a look at the data. The consumer price index rose by 0.8 this quarter. Importantly, over the 12 months to the June 2023 quarter, the CPI rose by six per cent. Under Labor, prices are going up and inflation is still running rampant. We've got the 'Jim-flation' problem. You won't hear this Treasurer admit it. We've got a big-spending, productivity-crushing Labor government that will take the credit for record job numbers that they inherited from us, setting up this economy as it came out of the pandemic. But they refuse to take responsibility for the cost-of-living crisis. In the last fortnight, like all of my colleagues I've been out in the real world—on factory floors, in manufacturing businesses, in cafes, in bakeries, among truckies, at food logistics suppliers—in so many small businesses across this country. And I always, when I get a chance, want to pay tribute to our small businesses. They get up every day and face an uncertain environment. They put a smile on their face. There's always chaos at home, children at school, the million things they have to do to manage, these often female-led small businesses, and they get up there and they face the world. But they don't have a government that's backing them in. And as we all visit them—because we all do—we know that they put that brave face on, but it doesn't take much for the anxiety to show, for them to show you their power bills, for them to explain that 30 per cent hike in energy costs, for them to actually say that they are uncertain about the future. It doesn't take much of a walk around our major shopping strips so see 'For lease' sign after 'For lease' sign, to call into businesses, as I have done, where no-one has called in all day, where no-one has spent any money, where the landlords are putting up the rents. And do you know what? The small businesses say, 'We understand that,' because they know that everybody is feeling this crunch. The CPI figure that I just quoted doesn't really capture some of the high increases we're seeing, and that's particularly in food. The cost of milk and cheese rose by almost 15 per cent compared to this time last year. The cost of bread is up by 12 per cent and of fruit and veg up five and four per cent. But the point is that nothing is going down and everything is going up, and it's a big hit to households and a big hit to small businesses. Just days ago I was standing in Phelans Bakery in Caboolture with the member for Longman, and the baker told me a familiar story. The increases in costs across his business as the price of milk goes up, as the price of butter goes up, mean that he has to put up his prices. Somebody in that business said, 'Will tradies soon be asked to pay $30 for lunch?'—for a pie, a couple of sandwiches and a cup of coffee. Families are getting hit by increases in the basics. But they're also seeing the price of everything, from a loaf of bread to a meat pie to a birthday cake, going up under this Labor government. Now, energy is important. People often say to us, 'It's all just a continuation of things that were happening before.' Well, it's not. It's the deliberate policies of this Labor government. It's their ham-fisted intervention in the energy market—one huge, big, fat fail. The other one, of course, is their intervention in the industrial relations market. Those two things, in the more than 12 months that they've been in government, have acted to really help crash this economy. Energy prices go up; families go backwards. Energy prices go up; small businesses go broke. Today households and families are paying some of the highest power prices in the world, with energy bills soaring by up to 28.7 per cent across this country. That's an extra $564 a year, on average, that families will need just to keep the lights on. And for small businesses it's up by $1,738 a year. But what did this Prime Minister do when the member for Mallee asked about a genuine constituent, when she gave the constituent's full name and the costs and uncertainties they were facing? Well, he just kind of laughed; he jeered and sneered. That's what we're used to. That's what's so awful from this Labor government. So, as I went into business after business in the last week, from a cobbler to a wholesale food distributor, from Brisbane to Hobart and from Adelaide to Deception Bay, I saw that they're all reeling from these power bills. They absolutely do not know what to do about this rude shock to hardworking Australians who were promised a reduction. And the latest data has revealed that the cost of generating electricity soared by a further 31 per cent between April and June. Imagine that being passed on through the retail chain. It's going to continue to hurt. I said at the beginning that I was listening to the Treasurer's interview this morning and he had nothing to offer people who are falling off a $95 billion refinancing cliff. That's happening in the next three months for 150,000 households. He simply said, 'Throw yourself on the mercy of the banks.' In a not-often reported interview a couple of weeks ago I think he said, 'No, we haven't got any more things we're doing on cost of living.' He actually ruled that out. So this is a government that's given up. We're reminded every day of what happens when you have a Prime Minister who doesn't understand how to run a budget and a Treasurer with a PhD in politics but not in economics. Under Labor, Australia's economy is going backwards. We're all starting to see this Prime Minister for who he truly is: a bloke without a plan, always focused on the politics and never focused on the people. When times get tough, a lot of Australians step up. I want to recognise those Australians today. I met them: volunteers packing hampers for people who have never had to access these services before so that they could hand them over with dignity. I met volunteers, in Adelaide, with Senator Liddle, who put boxes together of clothes that would last a year for each age group of children—carefully, discreetly, nicely packed—so they could be handed quietly to them at a moment they needed them, so they didn't have to face the indignity of walking into a big warehouse with a charity name across the top, important though that is. I met people in food services and cafes, in the cold, when the homeless people had one hour to come in. I spoke to them. They said, 'We never imagined before that we would be here.' I want to say thank you to those people. This is a political environment, but those people to do amazingly. They step up when times get tough, and this government steps back. Prime Minister, if you want to fight an early election, bring it on, because the Australians that I have spoken to want to toss you out. 15:36 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance. Listening to the complete hypocrisy of the Liberals and Nationals, coming in here and talking about the cost of living, when we look at their gross mismanagement over that past decade, their harsh actions, their cruel policies, the fact they block anything now that might assist the cost of living, it is the complete height of hypocrisy. They constantly come in here and lecture us when we have a whole suite of measures that we're putting in place to address so many of those cost-of-living pressures. Remember that these parties, the Liberals and Nationals, are the ones who voted against lowering energy prices. They voted against giving relief to people for their power bills. I don't know how they look people in the face. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talking about the many people she was chatting to, but does she tell them that she voted against some sort of relief for their power bills? That's the reality of what's happening. Remember also that they voted against a $10-billion investment in social and affordable housing, and they voted against laws for secure jobs and better pay. They consistently vote against the better interests of all Australians. Today we have legislation before the Senate, the safety net bill, which will really help take the pressure off many of those vulnerable people who are doing it tough. What are the Liberals and Nationals doing now with that? Trying to delay it, teaming up with the Greens. That is the reality of what is happening. When it comes to assisting vulnerable people, we have seen what has been highlighted, in terms of their actions, around robodebt. How horrific that was. It was unfair and illegal and people's lives were devastated. The Liberals and Nationals can't come in here and talk to us about assisting vulnerable people when they consistently vote against any support for them, and their policies in government were so destructive. We on this side of the House understand the challenges that many Australians are facing, particularly in terms of the cost of living. That is our No. 1 priority, and that's why we have a whole suite of measures to provide assistance. In doing that, we're also delivering stronger foundations for a better future, dealing with many of those very strong pressures and challenges, right here and now. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is committed to providing that social and affordable housing. We're strengthening Medicare and helping Australians save on their prescriptions, which is so important. We're making child care cheaper for 1.2 million families. That is in place, and I know many families who are now utilising that and it's making such a difference. Cheaper child care is good for children, good for families, good for job creation and good for the economy. We're funding fee-free TAFE places for over 480,000 Australians. Thousands, particularly, of young people are taking up these offers to get training, to get better skilled, to get more jobs. That helps with our overall economic growth. Really importantly, we're working with the states to deliver $3 billion of electricity bill relief. It's so important to have that in place. As I said, they voted against that. They voted against providing that assistance for Australians. We're also backing real pay increases so that millions of workers can receive pay rises and so that aged-care workers get a historic 15 per cent pay rise. It is so important. Through our $14.6 billion cost-of-living relief plan, this government has a firm plan to help those millions of Australians in different settings and circumstances, because we're on their side, listening to them and delivering for them in challenging times. Of course, this is all designed to not put pressure on inflation. We are very cognisant of that. As I said, this whole suite of relief includes relief for power bills, cheaper medicines, our historic investment in Medicare to triple bulk-billing rates, cheaper child care and our paid parental leave, which is vitally important. After a wasted decade under the Liberals and Nationals, now in opposition, here we have Labor, who are working hard every day for Australians. I mentioned before how in the Senate we currently have the Liberals and Nationals teaming up with the Greens, trying to delay our very critical safety net bill. This is vitally important. The strengthening the safety net bill delivers $9.5 billion in targeted cost-of-living relief to more than two million Australians who need that help now. Our safety net bill incorporates our increases to JobSeeker, Commonwealth rent assistance, and parenting payment single, all announced in the budget. But the thing is that the safety net bill must pass this sitting in order to ensure the increase to payments can be in place by 20 September. It must pass. These games and delays must end. Delays to the passage of this bill will impact more than two million Australians who are desperately waiting for these increases. The bill includes extending eligibility for parenting payment single by increasing the cut-off age from eight to 14, which will provide direct relief to 57,000 single parents, predominantly women; a 15 per cent increase in the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance for 1.1 million households; and a $40 per fortnight increase for working-age and student payments, including JobSeeker and youth allowance, helping 1.1 million Australians. As we said at the time, this increase would be combined with an increase from indexation for those payments. As we have highlighted, we've calculated this change. It means that a single person on JobSeeker with no dependents will actually receive an increase of $56 a fortnight. In addition, this very important bill expands eligibility for the existing higher rate of JobSeeker to single recipients aged 55 and over who've been on income support for nine or more continuous months—that's down from 60 years. The bill, so importantly, includes a measure expanding eligibility for parenting payment single to parents with their youngest child under 14. We know how tough it can be for single parents, and that's why it's so important to have this passed. We announced in the budget those increases to the maximum rates of Commonwealth rental assistance. It's an increase of 15 per cent—the highest increase in 30 years—which will also be indexed. That will make a huge difference. But all of this can only happen if they stop playing games in the Senate. This is vitally important. These people need this absolutely important cost-of-living relief. Instead we just see them playing more games with it. We've heard the Liberals and Nationals saying that they're opposed to having this increase in JobSeeker and youth allowance—absolutely appalling. Here they are saying they want to make savings from this bill. This is the party that racked up $1 trillion of debt, but now they want to take savings from the most vulnerable. And yet again they're saying they want to vote against cost-of-living relief for people who are really doing it tough. As I said, they voted against the energy relief in December, and it's looking like they'll be doing the same with JobSeeker. They've put forward their policy, the income-free area they are putting forward. It would do nothing for the 77 per cent of jobseekers who don't access the income-free area at all. I think that's another thought bubble by them. What they should be doing is getting on board and supporting our legislation so we can make sure that that really important support flows through as soon as possible to those people who desperately need it. Can I also make a point that ACOSS put out a statement today calling on the parliament to pass the strengthening the safety net bill without further delay, to deliver the increases to income supports to people desperately in need, so they should absolutely be doing that. Of course, when it comes to delaying or blocking support for vulnerable Australians, we've seen the Liberals and Nationals teaming up with the Greens—yet again they've done that—to block our $10 billion housing fund for Australians in need. Remember, this is 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in that fund in the first five years, including 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence or women at risk of homelessness. These are houses that could have started being built now or even earlier, when we wanted to get that bill through. Yet again and again they delay it. It's shameful that the Liberals are doing it, it's shameful that the Nationals are doing it and it's shameful that the Greens are doing it as well. The costs of delay make it so much worse. We on this side of the House have been approached by so many people in all of our areas across the country and so many different housing groups who are saying, 'We desperately need to have that here,' and we say, 'Yes we do, and these people are blocking it.' We have particularly highlighted the hypocrisy of the Greens, who may talk about the need for more social and affordable housing, but what do they do when they get in here? They're not supporting it. Every day they stop it makes it harder for those Australians who desperately need to have access to social and affordable housing. So I call upon them to pass it. It's vitally important. When it comes to cost-of-living relief, the Labor Party is the only party that actually addresses the concerns of everyday Australians with our entire suite of measures—whether it's about electricity, bill relief, cheaper child care, paid parental leave or cheaper medicines—because we listen and we stand by the side of everyday Australians who need the support of the Labor Party. We are delivering for them. 15:46 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page On my side of politics, all of us walk around in communities and talk to small businesses and families, and the issue that all of them raise without exception is the cost of living. Families and businesses are doing it really, really tough right now. The cost of everything people buy is going up much faster than people budgeted for, faster than they thought would happen. Just one example—I could give many—is that in the recent school holidays I held, as many of us do, a young sporting champs morning tea with the 12- to 18-year-olds who've represented my community, whether at the state, national or international level. We get them in, we have a cup of tea, we give the kids a certificate and they get $5 to $800, depending on how far they've travelled, and we do a little media thing with them as well to acknowledge the elite young sports girls and boys they are. What I specifically noticed at the last two of these, and at the last one specifically, is that all the families that turned up were talking to me about the cost of living and their frustration about what they were told before the election and what has happened since. This is a well-worn statement, but I'm going to repeat it because people need to remember. The government say they take responsibility, but I've never heard this government take responsibility. Before the election and after the election, the now government said that their $275 price cut promise was the most modelled policy ever done by an opposition in Australian history—a pretty big statement. Never have they stood up and said: 'You know what? We got it wrong.' They've blamed other things. They've blamed some of the things that were happening. The Ukraine war is their favourite, but of course it started before the election, but many of these Labor members and ministers after the election were still claiming this $275 cost. We know it's gone up by $500. There are higher mortgage costs. They promised cheaper mortgages, but mortgage costs are up, electricity bills are up, grocery prices are higher—everything has gone up. And the government don't accept any responsibility; they play the blame game on everybody else but themselves. They have no solution. Nothing the previous minister, the member for Richmond, just said would lower inflation. Not one thing that she mentioned would lower inflation. Let's look at what the government has done. There are three things I want to pick out which have actually made things worse. They have introduced a truckie tax. What do I mean by that? Everything that comes to a house or to a business arrives on a truck. They've increased the operating charges for trucks with an increased tax of between six and seven per cent. So everything that arrives on a truck is going to go up six or seven per cent just on that one tax that this government has introduced. No idea about the cost-of-living pressures. We introduced a $1,500 low- and middle-income tax rebate through COVID. Through what was going on, we introduced that. We realised that families needed some cash surety and cash bonuses. What has this government done? They abolished it. They didn't extend it, and it's run off. A $1,500 rebate that previously low-to-middle-income families would have got, and this government let it run off and didn't extend it when families are going through one of the biggest cost-of-living crises they've seen. They talk about the budget—the bottom line of the budget was $180 billion of increased spending from the government that wasn't there the previous year. That in itself is inflationary. That in itself is going to embed inflation in prices of goods and services. The other thing they like to talk about is their intervention in the energy market—they lay great claim on what a great initiative that was. Their intervention in the energy market has meant prices have gone up. They haven't gone down; they've gone up. Not only did their intervention in energy prices make prices go up but it has increased supply issues and there's a lot of investment that now isn't going to happen in that part of the energy market. There are certain countries that view us as being a sovereign risk as far as investment goes because of the government's intervention in the energy market. What families want and what businesses want from this government is they don't want the blame-game anymore. They don't want the blaming of previous governments from over a year ago anymore. They don't want you to blame other people around the globe. They want your solutions to the cost-of-living crisis—of which you are offering none. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Bendigo's mic isn't on. Mr Hogan 218019 That's probably best. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Page, please! 15:51 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo How disappointing and childish of the member for Page to make that comment, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised given his contribution was so incredibly misleading. To say that this government has offered nothing just demonstrates the member for Page is ignoring the facts and his head is in the sand. Let's talk about what the previous budget put forward in terms of cost-of-living relief, particularly to our most vulnerable. It extended the eligibility for parenting payment—and if those opposite ever actually met a single parent, they would understand how fundamental this change is—from eight to 14. It will provide direct relief to 57,000 single parents, predominantly women, giving huge cost-of-living relief that will help so many that are vulnerable. There's a 15 per cent increase to the maximum rate of rent assistance for 1.1 million households—that's another 1.1 million people that will directly benefit from cost-of-living relief. That is how ridiculous this MPI is and how ridiculous the comments from those opposite have been. Some 1.1 million Australians will be better off by 15 per cent because of this one change alone. It gives a $40 per fortnight increase for working age and student payments, JobSeeker, and youth allowance, helping another 1.1 million Australians—more cost-of-living relief to those who are doing it tough. These are three of the many changes that our government has already put forward. Let's also not forget the cost-of-living relief to our aged-care workers—another promise we took to the last election that we've delivered on. A 15 per cent pay increase, a lift to the award, and it is making a real difference to those aged-care workers, those angels who are keeping older Australians in the dignity and respect that they deserve. One aged-care worker in my electorate told me last week that it's a boost to her take-home pay of $300 a fortnight. How is that ignoring those workers? How is that a broken promise? It is not. This is where the opposition is lazy and misleading the Australian people. You could tell that they're bored—they're just ticking the boxes and moving forward. We know that Australians are doing it tough, and that's why we put them at the centre of the decisions that we are making. We are looking at how we can strengthen the safety net. That is why it is so disappointing to be here in this House, debating these changes and this silly MPI, when those opposite in the Senate are blocking this very bill that would help so many households and so many individuals that are doing it tough. Cost-of-living measures that were due to commence on 20 September have stalled in the Senate, and that is disappointing. It is disappointing that the Greens have joined the Liberals and the Nationals in blocking these fundamental reforms that will help so many. I call upon the Greens to listen to those who need this help now. A 15 per cent increase to the maximum rate of rent assistance is the best thing that they can do to help renters today. This is what we can do in this House. It is not an ambit claim that can only be done by the states where they're talking about rent freezes. That's the role of the states. This is something that we can do as parliamentarians in this place and in this chamber, and that's by working together to lift rent assistance. It isn't just what we're doing for the people relying upon the safety net, and it isn't just what we're doing for our low-paid workers like aged-care workers. We're committed to industrial relations reform which will help lift the wages and the working conditions of millions of working Australians. That will help ease cost-of-living pressures. Cheaper medicines and cheaper child care—all that we have talked about in this place. Maybe they're not listening during question time or the debates, but we've talked a lot about these fundamental changes that will help people. Maybe they should think twice about what they want to do in the Senate in relation to cheaper medicines. This will help deliver needed cost-of-living relief to those that are doing it tough. This MPI is silly and demonstrates just how lazy the opposition is. 15:56 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee This risky Albanese Labor government promised to reduce electricity bills by $275, but they are going very fast in the opposite direction. Risky Labor governs beside the Greens, alarmed about—what did the UN Secretary-General call it this week? It's not 'global warming' anymore; it's 'global boiling', apparently. There was a hot summer in the Northern Hemisphere, and apparently now it's 'global boiling'. I'll tell you what's boiling in the electorate of Mallee. It is not the kettle, and it's not the climate. What's boiling is the anger of voters, furious that Australia has one of the highest core inflation rates among advanced economies and the highest collapse in real wages on record. Australian tempers are boiling, but risky Labor is more focused on a divisive referendum and fantasising about a double dissolution election than making good on their promises on living costs. Risky Labor's energy intervention has failed. Energy bills have increased by over 28 per cent on average, or an extra $564 per annum, yet those opposite would lead the Australian people to believe that, by the end of 2025, households will get their $275 saving. Well, that is if they haven't had their power disconnected because they actually cannot pay their bills. The cost of generating electricity soared by a further 31 per cent between April and June this year. Yet, in my home state of Victoria, what is the Andrews Labor government doing? Banning gas. Victoria will no longer be cooking with gas. Gas will be banned in new developments to prevent supposed 'global boiling'. We're taking Victorians off gas and forcing them onto electric stoves. The gas needed for a smooth energy transition is being abandoned because of those with power such as Minister Bowen, who claims that renewable energy is the cheapest form of electricity. The lived experience of Victorians and all Australians is that energy bills are not going down; they are going up to boiling point. My constituents, like Brendan, are experiencing bill shock. With his young family, they'll fork out around $970 more this year. Or take Clem in Ouyen, for example, who needs heating and cooling due to a chronic medical condition. His bill is increasing by $380 over the next 12 months. Increased childcare subsidies might be cost-of-living relief for urban voters but not for Mallee residents and not for the working mums and dads in regional Australia. Those who live in childcare deserts pay through their taxes for the subsidy for those in urban centres who earn up to $500,000. You can't get ahead on cost of living if you can't work and raise your household income. Regional Victoria has low unemployment, at 2.8 per cent. It's better still in my area, at 2.4 per cent. The lack of child care is compounding worker shortages like the crisis we now face in regional health and aged-care staffing. The lack of child care limits the nursing and carer workforce. Mallee's horticulture worker shortage has been in dire need with recent harvest, but risky Labor's industrial relations policy in agriculture is making it even harder to ensure food security and growth in horticulture. I pushed for the agricultural visa when we were in government to assist in getting workers, but risky Labor put a stop to that. Risky Labor's return to water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin will also see horticulture production reduced, not increased. The Mildura Swan Hill region in my electorate is the largest horticultural region in the nation on the cusp of 32 per cent growth or half a billion dollars by 2030. How can that happen if fruit actually can't be picked, harvested or processed? Risky Labor's minimum 30 hours a week for Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme workers and mandating a 30 per cent increase from 1 July happened for those on skilled visas and has Mallee's horticultural industry in despair. Risky Labor knows 'same job, same pay' is on the nose and could be rebranded. We know on this side of the House that it's 'same Labor, same risks'. Increased horticulture labour costs are becoming cost-of-living costs at the supermarket because risky Labor cares more about paying the piper than rewarding working Australians with cost-of-living relief. 16:01 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Another day, the same coalition, the same conversation, the same complaints, the same complete lack of responsibility and the same lack of interest in being part of the solution. The cost of living is a real issue for lots of Australians. It's an issue around the world; it's an issue here in Australia. We inherited that. We inherited that from a government on whose watch interest rates began to go up, on whose watch we experienced the largest jump in inflation in the course of this century, who racked up a trillion dollars worth of debt, who actually changed the legislation in order to hide scandalously from the Australian people rises to energy prices they didn't want the Australian people to pass judgement on. We know that the cost-of-living pressures on the Australian people are very serious, and we are acting to do something about it. If they cared about it, we wouldn't mind if they wanted to help pass some of the measures we have committed to delivering for the Australian people and have been delivering month in and month out. But that's not their interest. They want to come in here day after day, conversation after conversation, and pretend to be angry and pretend to care about the people in their community. They want to come along with these overheated, confected complaints. It suits them, and it suits their political interests, and that's all they are ever interested in. That's all they ever want to do—find something to bang on about that will be in their political interest. They could not give a stuff about Australians who are facing cost-of-living pressures. If they did, they would have supported our energy price relief bill; they would have supported any number of measures that we've taken; and they wouldn't be blocking in the Senate right now measures that provide relief to some of the most disadvantaged Australians. At the same time, they abjectly fail to take any responsibility for one of the great scandals in Australian political history, the robodebt scandal, by which they sought to make some budget savings on the backs of the poorest and most disadvantaged Australians. Not one person has been prepared to stand up and say: 'This was wrong. We made a terrible mistake. We turned a blind eye to one of the most gross industrial acts of cruelty perpetrated on the poorest and most disadvantaged Australians in this country and probably in any country.' Elsewhere, dozens of people have taken responsibility when similar things have happened. There have been multiple ministers who have lost their jobs. People have had the decency to say 'sorry'. When the topic comes up here, it's the only time that the complaints, the rubbish, the catcalling and the carry-on stop. They all look at their phones and their desks, and not one of them has the courage to stand up. Today during question time, when we were pointing out the multiple and serious failures of the member for Cook, there were members opposite who went around and clapped him on the shoulder, had a good laugh, and probably talked about having a drink later on. It is disgusting. They come in here day after day and pretend that they care about ordinary Australians, that they care about cost-of-living pressures, when in the other place right now they're blocking the increase that we're trying to deliver for people on JobKeeper, JobSeeker and youth allowance. They are standing in the way of the expansion of single parenting payment to 60,000 single-parent households—some of the poorest households in the country, like the household that I grew up in, a single-parent household. They are denying the expansion of the higher rate of JobSeeker to older Australians, when we know that some of those households, particularly involving single women over the age of 50, are not going to get the benefit, because they can't bring themselves to support it. They're blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund—30,000 affordable houses, $70 million in direct support for homelessness support services and crisis services that they can't bring themselves to support. So, it is ridiculous that they come in here day after day after day pretending that they give a stuff about Australians who are at the sharpest end of the cost-of-living crisis. They don't care one bit. They would like that to continue for month after month, because they think it's their ticket back onto this side of the House. That's the only thing they have ever cared about. The only thing they've ever cared about is being in positions of power, being in positions whereby they can suit themselves and the people they support, and that's not Australians who are doing it tough. They're the people those opposite don't have the courage to stand up and actually say sorry to after the scandal of robodebt. But they'll come in here day after day and they'll talk about cost-of-living pressures and measures that they won't support. They'll bring in emails that they're probably happy to receive. They get an email from a business or a household that's doing it tough and they're happy, because they think, 'I can come in here and talk more crap about the cost of living.' 16:06 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, which concerns the Prime Minister's broken promise to address the cost-of-living crisis. Australians are hurting. They are hurting throughout the country; they are hurting throughout my electorate. The impact of inflation and rising interest rates is being felt by businesses and families right across our country. Rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills are all eating away at already very tight household budgets. Australians are having to work more hours and dig into their savings to make ends meet. Let's look at real facts, real data. Quarterly CPI data now shows that inflation is still running rampant, at six per cent. Recently released data from NAB reveals that more than two-thirds of Australians under the age of 50 say that the rising cost of living is their biggest cause of stress. Lifeline is reporting that 80 per cent of its calls now relate to cost-of-living pressures. And this is certainly what is happening, what I'm hearing about, in my electorate. I've recently continued to conduct mobile offices around my electorate in suburbs including Bonnet Bay, Sutherland, Jannali, Heathcote, Illawong, Como and Engadine. I thank all my constituents who came out to speak with me. Regardless of which suburb I was in, almost everybody told me the same thing: the cost-of-living crisis is causing real stress, real struggles, and is hurting those Australian households. If we turn to some of the broken promises of the Prime Minister and of this government, on the cost of housing, just before Minister Collins's failed housing bill was brought into this place she promised, 'There will be $10 billion for housing, and this will build one million new homes.' Instead, the bill revealed nothing but a Ponzi scheme, a scheme so badly put together that not even the Greens party could support it. And now we're not talking about one million new homes; we're talking about 30,000. It dropped very, very quickly. Talking about why we have these pressures on housing, the average Australian household paying the average Australian mortgage is now paying $1,700 per month more than they were paying in April 2022. In my electorate of Hughes there are over 22,000 mortgage holders. More than 3,000 of these mortgage holders are now in mortgage stress. They are now contributing more than 30 per cent of their income to servicing their mortgage. There are almost 10,000 people renting in the electorate of Hughes. More than 3,000 of these renters contribute more than 30 per cent of their income to facilitating their rental payments. Again, this is real financial and housing stress. What did we hear this morning from the Prime Minister's Treasurer about mortgage holders struggling with interest rates? He said, 'They can go and speak to their bank.' That was on ABC radio this morning. Interest rates have increased 11 times on this government's watch and, at 4.1 per cent, rates are the highest they have been since 2011. Taming inflation must be this government's priority. Instead, it has had its foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank has had to put its foot on the brake. It should not be left only to the Reserve Bank to solve the economic problems facing our country. Energy shock is promise No. 2 broken. The Prime Minister's promise during the election was a $275 cut to power bills. We know where that has ended up. In New South Wales, in my home state, we are paying an extra $564 a year, and that looks like increasing by at least another 30 per cent over the next quarter. Something that was not mentioned in the last election campaign was the radical industrial relations policy that's just been announced. Casual workers will now be forced to become permanent employees, regardless of whether that suits them or their employer. This is something that was not mentioned during the election campaign. The Prime Minister must address this cost-of-living crisis now for all Australians. 16:11 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I was a bit pained to sit here and think what I could talk about for this faux outrage of an MPI. Every day it's the same drivel, the same talking points, the same rubbish—all complaints no solutions. I listened to some of the rubbish previous members spouted, about us not putting our best foot forward to do things to support families, to try to tackle inflation—inflation that was left to us when they left office. The member for Hughes raised an interesting point. He mentioned the Prime Minister had said, 'Go and talk to your bank.' Let's remember what the Liberal Party's idea was when interest rates were rising. Remember the former Prime Minister, standing up in this place, at that dispatch box, saying, 'Go and get rich parents'? That's the solution to a housing crisis. That's what we had under the former government. Before we had the member for Bendigo make a very eloquent contribution, we had the member for Page make what I thought was a misogynistic attack on the member for Bendigo by saying she shouldn't be heard. But he sits there and says, 'We're sick of hearing excuses from the Labor Party.' There's another thing that hasn't happened over there. You've had the sook from Cook claim that robodebt wasn't his fault; it's everyone else's fault. Let's go to one more thing. Those sitting opposite—particularly those on the frontbench who were sitting there laughing all the way through the member for Hughes' contribution—never apologised for deliberately misleading the Australian public when they hid the power price increases that we are facing today. You know that they always get— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just a moment. A point of order from the member for New England? Mr Joyce e5d He mentioned that everyone on the frontbench didn't apologise. I actually did. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You can get a personal explanation at another point of the day. That's not a point of order. Sorry, member for McEwen; please proceed. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E They get very angsty about this, but they never do anything. They left a trillion dollars worth of deficit. Remember, they made these great big mugs—there are plenty of mugs over there—with 'back in black', because they were going to bring a budget surplus. But they never did. We heard those opposite say, 'The best way to curb inflation is a cash handout.' That's coming from one of their shadow ministers, apparently the best and brightest. What we know is that to curb inflation, to stop pressure on inflation, you've got to be able to do things like lower the cost of living. That's why you do things like support families with cheaper child care. This is so people—predominantly women, this impacts—can go to work more days a week, to earn more, to help their families and businesses. It's about supporting things like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will deliver new homes. It means people will stay in jobs. It means the housing and construction industry, which is very important in Victoria, will continue to grow. It means people fleeing domestic violence and veterans who are homeless will have an opportunity to get a roof over their head. But no, they want to team up with their mates in the Greens and say no, because it's not an idea that suits their inbuilt, ingrained hatred for people who are doing it tough. You always notice that people who are doing it tough are the first people they attack. We're trying to raise the age for family support to 14 so that people on single-mothers pensions, predominately, can get support for their children. They're saying no. Mind you, this was a policy that they had when they were in government. It takes a special kind of nastiness to oppose your own policy, but it's consistent with what we've seen with this opposition. The government has been working extremely hard. In my electorate we've been benefiting heavily from things like the Medicare urgent-care clinics and what we did with supporting families that are doing it tough and what we're trying to do with electricity. We keep hearing them talk about the $275, but they never actually complete the statement, because if they completed the statement they'd have to go back and apologise for all the untruths. It was by 2025. Mind you, this was a former government which promised $500 off electricity bills but actually increased them by 45 per cent. The MPI was led by the member for Farrer, who's currently under a preselection threat and wants to talk about values and ethics and doing everything properly. Let's remember, I sat in this House when that member was pummelled off the frontbench for misuse of travel funds and then brought a live animal export bill in here. 'This is the most important thing,' she said. 'We've got to stop live animal exports.' But she quickly pulled that apart to make sure she got back on the frontbench. So it's very hard to stand here and hear them talk about morals and ethics when that's the leadership that they offer to the Australian people. 16:16 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I remind the House what this MPI is titled 'The Prime Minister's broken promise to address the cost-of-living crisis'. A promise goes straight to the heart of integrity, because promises should be judged by what we do, not what we say. We all remember what the Prime Minister said when he was desperate to move from here to over there, and now we see the consequences of that. The consequences of that are a matter of public importance—that's what MPI stands for. We hear comments from the member for Fremantle—and I listened carefully—such as, 'We see the coalition talk more crap about the cost of living.' What a disgraceful thing to say about an issue that is affecting every household and every Australian in the country. We saw at 2.30 today that rates were, thankfully, kept on hold. But inflation is still too high. At six per cent, it is double the statutory target of two to three per cent. That is why we welcome today's decision, but we won't be celebrating. We won't be engaging in hubris like we saw from the Treasurer today and from many members in this MPI debate. That is why we also recognise that the RBA did something other than just keep rates on hold. They said something ominous. They said that further rate rises might be necessary, and that is a message to you to do more of the heavy lifting so that it's not left to the RBA to raise rates again. This is not a time to celebrate. It's not a time for hubris. It's a time to do the work that you were elected to do. It's a time to do the work that you promised. Inflation is a cloud that hangs over every household. It is an insidious tax that is indeed levied on every Australian. When you open your insurance bill and see that it has doubled, that is inflation. When you find yourself putting fresh food back on the shelf because it is out of your budget, that is inflation. When you see a power bill increase by close to 30 percent, as many people have seen, including in Victoria, that is inflation. When families are paying $25,000 more than they did the previous year on the average mortgage, that is inflation. When Lifeline is reporting that 80 per cent of its calls now relate to cost-of-living pressures, that is inflation. So when we come here and talk about this core problem that's affecting every Australian household and every Australian, we're not talking crap. We're talking about the things that matter to them. Inflation saps productivity, hurts families and destroys hope. Australians are looking to us in this place to provide solutions. Providing solutions must start with having a discussion and a debate about it. Again, when we do that, we're not talking crap; we're talking about the things that matter to Australians. What did we see today? At 2.31 we saw a question put to the Treasurer. The Treasurer stood up with a big smile on his face and made jokes. He made jokes about the tactics of question time, not about the substance of the problem that Australians are facing. He dodged questions that were put to him with things like, 'The first rate rise occurred on your watch.' Yes, it did. No-one's denying that. But what are you going to do to solve the problems that Australians are facing today? We saw the Treasurer fail to mention the Measuring what matters report. What is that document? I had the pleasure of reading it, and I encourage others to read it. It's 131 pages, but there is a neat summary at the start. On the website it says that this statement 'is the first iteration of Australia's national wellbeing framework'. It has criteria other than just GDP, including health, security, sustainability, cohesiveness and prosperity for all Australians. We know that there was a massive error in that document. It referred to two-year-old data on mortgage stress. That's a bit of a clanger. The Treasurer may like to blame someone else, a staff member or a public servant—we heard all of the speeches about how only that side loves public servants, but we all do; we don't need to hear more speeches like that from the other side. When we look at a document like that and it talks about mortgage stress, one of the most important stressors facing families, and it uses data from 2019 and 2020, there's a serious question about competence from the Treasurer's office, the office that people are looking to to solve this problem. There won't be any health, security, sustainability or cohesiveness if the Treasurer is not up to the job. 16:21 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Our learned friends opposite would actually do well to reminisce and reflect on their great hero Winston Churchill, who said, 'My friend, the opposition sits in the benches across from you, but the enemy sits behind.' It reminds me of another great military strategy, the old pincer manoeuvre, where you simultaneously attack the opposition from both sides. That is what's happening to the Australian people under this opposition at the moment. They are being attacked on both flanks. They're being told that the Australian economy is in terrible shape. They're being told that their government is providing a disservice to them, while simultaneously voting against every single measure that this government is trying to put in place to make the lives of Australians much better, to ease the pressure on those people who go to the supermarket and spend their money. I don't know if you're like me, but I remember going to the supermarket. I'd just duck in for a carton of milk, a loaf of bread and a couple of things, and it would always magically be $47. Now it seems to be $97. Things have gone up. But that's not because Jim Chalmers is the Treasurer or because Anthony Albanese is the Prime Minister; it is because we are seeing a world that is under pressure and change. What this government has done has responded to those pressures. What we are seeking to do here with the assistance of those opposite: the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and the Independents—let alone what is going on in the other place this afternoon—is to take the pressure of Australians. The Treasurer today said that Australians are under the pump. We know they are. We get it. We are legislating to back that pressure off, but we are doing it single-handedly, with no help from the opposition, with no help from the Leader of the Opposition and with absolutely, categorically no help—in fact active impediments—from the Greens. They're not only blocking housing; they are stopping it. They do not want that construction. Heaven knows whether they don't want to chop down the trees or dig up the minerals to make the steel—I'm still a bit lost on that. They don't want to build any houses. They won't even pass the bill on the good paper over in the Senate. Let's get a few facts straight here in this debate this afternoon. It's a matter of public importance about the Prime Minister breaking promises. Let me say: every person who has been in this place and stood at that table down there and made an oath—whether or not they've got the bible or any other sacred book with them or just said to themselves they're going to affirm it—has come here to affirm that they will make the lives of Australians better. Yes, this place is a contest of ideas, and we all welcome that. But there are some absolute truths, and they are before us. We are saying: the Australian people need a hand; why would you vote against it? That's the criminal thing here. If I were actually able to give any sympathy whatsoever to the Greens, it would be because they're bearing more of their share than they should be because the coalition is simpering and hiding behind their trouser tails and saying, 'No, it's all the Greens.' Let me tell you: if you voted Liberal or National, the members in this place who you put in place to represent you are not voting in this place to help you. It is an absolute scandal. We know that Australians are feeling the pressure of the rising cost of living, but, as part of the Labor team, I am working closely with this amazing frontbench, this terrific government. They're coming up with good ideas and they're putting them into legislative form. All those opposite have to do is say 'yes'. It's not that difficult. Those opposite conveniently forget that, under their final months of government, the cost of living was still out of control. Interest rates were starting to rise, not stabilising, as we've seen. Inflation was soaring. Don't get me wrong, there were also some global incidents happening then too, but now we see that things are still going on in the world. The Ukraine war continues. Those opposite had no plan, no direction and simply no idea of how to reduce or manage the effect that any of these things had on Australian families. I tell you what: this government has ideas. We have energy, we have legislation and we will help you. Those opposite just say 'no'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 47 BILLS Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 47

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 47 16:27 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin to the motion for the second reading of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter before the House is the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. 53 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Joyce, B. T. G. Keogh, M. J. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:37 The SPEAKER 53517 The next question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 48 16:38 Ms LE 295676 Fowler by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 16), after item 2, insert: 2A Paragraph 10A(1)(g) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (g) recognises and promotes the diversity of the Australian community and fosters a diverse perspective in the workplace. (2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 8), after item 5, insert: 5A Section 18 Repeal the section, substitute: 18 Promotion of employment equity An Agency Head must: (a) establish a workplace diversity program: (i) to allow for the proactive development of individuals of diverse backgrounds; and (ii) to assist in giving effect to the APS Employment Principles; and (b) promote diverse and inclusive recruitment within the Agency to give effect to the APS Employment Principles. The Australian Public Service is a privileged profession within Australian society, and there is an expectation that it is carried out with both diligence and competency—and now, with the introduction of this bill, the added value of stewardship. However, the sector is not able to wholly meet Australians' expectations if the workplace does not foster the diverse and multicultural needs. Australia's culturally diverse population is drawn from more than 300 ancestries and is visible in everyday life. Yet, as soon as one views the leadership circles of many institutions, including the Australian Public Service, this rich tapestry of cultures and ethnicities of representation suddenly disappears. The deep-set circle of networks, entrenched views on leadership styles and structures of traditional Australian institutions have created many systemic barriers for diverse voices, lived experiences and perspectives to be heard and included. This is a significant loss of opportunity, because there is a wealth of experience and knowledge from CALD talent that remains untapped. A Public Service that has a diversified workplace will enable greater representation, diverse perspectives to problem-solving and solutions, an increase in expertise and a collaborative environment. As stated in David Thodey's report, the APS requires a whole of service diversity and inclusion strategy to ensure that talents are well utilised and harnessed to serve the Australian public. Particularly, the APS would benefit from taking advantage of individuals from various corners of life and perspectives. It is disappointing that the government has rejected my amendment to make it law, and the APS must act on implementing the necessary changes that would enable a diverse and robust APS. In rejecting the amendment, the government will miss the opportunity to really reform the APS with the contribution of a member, like myself, who has lived experience and speaks from a perspective that's often lacking at the decision-making level, as well as incorporating Thodey's recommendation 25 on diversity and inclusion. The Public Service Act touches base on the recognition of diverse communities within the APS workplace. The language of this notion of recognising diverse communities is quite condescending. This, in itself, shows how important it is to include the amendment that I propose. CALD communities do not need just to be recognised. We know our value, our contribution and the impact we have on the economy and society overall. If the government had accepted my amendments, it wouldn't just need to have recognised us but, rather, it could have implemented and put into action policies that can strengthen the employment principle based on diversity. The proposed amendment to paragraph 10A of the Public Service Amendment Bill would ensure that a career based Public Service is one that acknowledges and promotes the diversity of the Australian community and creates an environment where diverse ideas and lived experiences are valued. This is in line with Thodey's recommendation that the APS should address the need for greater representation of diverse groups and perspectives. By having such a direct APS employment principle, encouraging diversity of views and experiences, the APS would have the confidence that their voice has power and can be utilised to address diverse Australian communities' needs and expectations. The proposed amendment to section 18 will place a positive obligation on agency heads to ensure that a workplace diversity program is established, to allow for proactive development of individuals of diverse backgrounds and promote diverse recruitment within the agency, to give effect to the APS employment principles. Ultimately, highlighting the benefits and value-added proposition of a diverse and inclusive workforce will ensure that the APS can deliver for the needs of our wider community. 16:43 Mr JOYCE e5d New England For the benefit of the House, I want to briefly speak to the consideration-in-detail stage of this debate. The opposition thanks the work of the crossbench and the member for Fowler, who has just spoken, on the amendments that have been circulated. The opposition will not be in a position to support the amendments moved but intends to consider these matters when the bill is before the Senate. We will be reserving our own position on this bill, noting that we have some concerns with how the bill is drafted and will seek assurances and changes from the government prior to giving final support. Noting this, we will be supporting the passage of the bill so that it can be considered by the Senate. 16:44 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I, too, want to thank the member for Fowler for engaging in this discussion around how we make sure that we have the very best Public Service delivering for the very best country in the world. I inform members of the House that the act already states, in section 10A: (1) The APS is a career based public service that: …   …   … (g) recognises the diversity of the Australian community and fosters diversity in the workplace. So we already have something in the act that goes to the matters which the member is rightly advocating for in terms of recognising that diversity in our Public Service is a strength and something which we can strengthen further. This amendment bill would replace a substantially similar section of the act with other words, and, as I noted, the current act already recognises and fosters diversity in the workplace. One of the key pillars of the government's ongoing APS reform agenda is for the Australian public sector to be a model employer. I think we all know that that expectation is something which every minister of the Albanese government takes very seriously in terms of the conversations we have with our departments and in terms of the responsibilities we have through the Australian Public Service Commission and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. There is already significant work underway—commissioned by the Minister for the Public Service and being led by the Australian Public Service Commission—to promote further diversity in the Australian Public Service. This includes the work that is already underway to develop an APS Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Employment Strategy. The CALD employment strategy is something which will ensure we harness the full talents of this nation, as the member for Fowler spoke about. There is huge benefit in doing so. We recognise that, and that is why we've commenced that work. We're consulting widely in the development of the CALD Employment Strategy—including across the Australian Public Service and other jurisdictions and with the Australian Human Rights Commission, community groups and academic and subject-matter experts—because we want to get this right. The result of this work will come to government in the coming months and we will consider it closely. Therefore, it is the view of the government that these amendments are not necessary to ensure that the government is promoting diversity in the Public Service. We share the value of recognising that diversity in the Public Service is something which many in this place champion, and we know it will get us the best results—again, not just for the Public Service but for the community which it serves. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the chair is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

14 AYES Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 52 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gillespie, D. A. Gorman, P. Joyce, B. T. G. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:56 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name: (3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 25), after item 8, insert: 8A Section 45 Before "The Commissioner", insert "(1)". 8B At the end of section 45 Add: Requirements for appointments (2) Before recommending to the Governor-General on or after the commencement of this subsection that a person be appointed as the Commissioner, the Prime Minister must: (a) ensure that the person was selected as the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) ensure that the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates. (3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Prime Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (4) In this section: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. 8C Subsections 58(6) to (8) Repeal the subsections, substitute: Requirements for appointments (6) Before recommending to the Governor-General on or after the commencement of this subsection that a person be appointed as the Secretary of a Department, the Prime Minister must have regard to a report: (a) prepared by the Commissioner; and (b) describing a selection process conducted by the Commissioner for the appointment. (7) The selection process conducted by the Commissioner must include: (a) publishing the selection criteria for the appointment; and (b) widely consulting for candidates (using professional executive-search expertise as appropriate); and (c) rigorously considering candidates against the selection criteria; and (d) preparing a ranked shortlist of at least 3 candidates to provide to the Prime Minister. (8) If under subsection (1) a person is appointed who is not on the shortlist referred to in paragraph (7)(d), the Prime Minister must: (a) prepare a report naming the person, and giving reasons why the person has the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience to be appointed; and (b) cause a copy of that report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the day the person is appointed under subsection (1). I commend the government for starting the process of giving effect to the recommendations of the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review. The Thodey review was a significant piece of work resulting in a report with wide-ranging proposals for how the Public Service could be enhanced and improved. Given the shocking revelations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, these changes could not come at a better time. With the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 we have an opportunity to rebuild and strengthen the independence and integrity of the service, but we need to get it right. So today I rise to propose an amendment to improve this bill. In amendment (3) the changes I propose aim to strengthen the appointment process for departmental secretaries and the Australian Public Service Commissioner. These are modest amendments designed to foster greater integrity within the operation of the Public Service by creating a more independent and transparent appointment process for these important roles. I have previously tabled in this place a private member's bill which would introduce an independent selection process for major Commonwealth public appointments, my 'ending jobs for mates' bill. The amendments I'm proposing today to the appointment process of the departmental secretaries and Public Service Commissioner draw upon that gold standard model for Commonwealth appointments. However, these amendments also acknowledge the close working relationship that is required between a departmental secretary and a minister, a relationship of trust and confidence, so they allow for a higher level of ministerial discretion than for the other major Commonwealth public appointments. The amendments in relation to the appointment of the departmental secretaries are also similar and consistent with what was recommended in the Thodey review. In short, these amendments dictate that, when a department secretary is to be appointed, the Public Service Commissioner would be required to conduct a robust selection process, including publishing selection criteria for the appointment, widely consulting for candidates, rigorously considering candidates against the selection criteria and preparing a shortlist of at least three candidates for the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister decides to select somebody for the position who is not on the shortlist, they must table a report within seven sitting days of the appointment naming the person and providing reasons why that person has the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience for the role. For the appointment of the Public Service Commissioner, the so-called 'guardian of an impartial Australian Public Service', as described by Thodey, there are a couple of additional requirements: that the independent panel be chaired by a former judge, and that the Prime Minister consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment. This is in recognition that the Australian Public Service Commissioner is a unique role and reinforces to the Australian public the independence and impartiality of both the commissioner and the Australian Public Service. 17:00 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I want to thank the member for Mackellar for her engagement throughout this process of the bill progressing through the House and her commitment to building that robust Australian Public Service, which is regarded by all Australians and internationally as one where those values of integrity are key. Going to why the government is not going to support these amendments, I will firstly note that the bill that we have in front of us today. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, is part of an ambitious and enduring APS reform agenda. This bill in large part reflects a range of ideas and policy initiatives outlined by the Minister for the Public Service in October 2022 and has been consulted on widely. But it is just one part of our APS reform agenda. The proposed amendment to repeal the value of 'ethical' and add new values of integrity doesn't, in the government's view, substantially change the meaning of the existing value. The existing value of 'ethical' requires that 'the APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity in all that it does'. So, the commitment to integrity is already there in the existing act, and, as I said before, we do expect that our Public Service is seen as one where integrity is key to everything it does. Furthermore, we see that the new value of 'excellence' is well represented by the values of being committed to service and respectful—that is: 'The APS is professional, objective, innovative and efficient and works collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the government.' So, again, we see that these matters are already addressed. Going to the questions around the proposed appointment of the Australian Public Service Commissioner, we believe that this is far too highly prescriptive for appointing a very important role that we in this place look to for leadership of the Public Service and that public servants themselves look for in leadership. But we do think that to be that prescriptive about the forming of an independent selection panel, so prescriptive of who could be the chair in saying that it must be a former judge and requiring that in some cases a former judge is the only person who could be appointed as chair, when you are looking for people who have broad understanding, knowledge and experience of the Australian Public Service—its history, the good parts of its culture and what it is seeking to do for the future—may result in unintended consequences. Then we get to the questions around the proposed appointment of an agency secretary. We believe this is too fundamental a change in the process. It would require a far broader consultation, not just with other members of parliament but with many of those who require those secretaries to be their leaders in these Public Service organisations. What this amendment would do, for the information of members of the House, is repeal existing subsections 58(6) to 58(8) and replace them with the new provisions. The amendment would require the APS commissioner to have sole responsibility to prepare a report and would remove a range of consultation mechanisms that are already there. And I think one of the things we see when it comes to getting good advice to government from the public sector is that consultation and different points of view are a good thing. We don't believe that the case for that fundamental change has been made. It is a substantive decision and one that we think would need quite wideranging consultation. I do note that the Thodey review recommends that this should be a joint function of the APS commissioner and the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, so it would be going against that recommendation. And we believe that it's appropriate that the secretary of the lead coordinating agency—that is, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—is involved in that very important appointment process for a secretary of a department. Thank you. 17:04 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise in support of the proposed amendments moved by the member for Mackellar. What we've seen consistently from the member for Mackellar is a commitment to improving transparency, integrity and accountability in the ways in which appointments are made by governments, be it this government, any past government or a government into the future. There is no doubt that we keep being asked by the government to trust that their processes will be different, that there is a piece of legislation coming which will ultimately deal with appointments, but that piece of legislation is yet to be tabled. I thank the member for Mackellar for continuing this fight and I urge the government, if they are not accepting these amendments today, to please actually prioritise the tabling of the legislation that they keep telling us is coming. Show us the ways in which you are bringing integrity, transparency and accountability back into the appointments process, because we are still not seeing that from this government. There is significant lack of information around how people who are taking charge of inquiries are being appointed and significant lack of information around how senior public servants are getting moved between departments. It's clear that while the intention may be there, the practice still very much in place is 'jobs for mates'. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:10]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

14 AYES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 50 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marino, N. B. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:14 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 16), after subsection 10(6), insert: Integrity (7) The APS fosters and upholds integrity through honesty, ethical behaviour and the highest standards of professional conduct, where APS employees act in the public interest, maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Merit (8) The APS fosters a culture in which recruitment, selection and promotion decisions are based on a fair and objective assessment of an individual's skills, qualifications, experience and abilities. Openness (9) The APS embodies a commitment to conducting government affairs in a manner that allows public scrutiny and fosters public trust by sharing information, engaging with the Australian community and promoting a culture of collaboration and inclusiveness. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 21), omit "not". (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 22), omit "not". (4) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 20), after item 10, insert: 10A After Part 9 Insert: Part 9A—Other matters relating to Agency Heads 70 Requirements for Agency Head appointments (1) An individual must not be appointed as an Agency Head on or after the commencement of this section unless: (a) the Agency Minister for the Agency has made a declaration under subsection (2) in relation to the appointment of the individual; and (b) the period within which the declaration may be disallowed under section 42 of the Legislation Act 2003 has ended; and (c) the declaration has not been disallowed. (2) The Agency Minister for an Agency may, by legislative instrument, declare that an individual has been selected for appointment as the Agency Head of the Agency. (3) A declaration under subsection (2) must include the following: (a) details of when, and the manner in which, the appointment was advertised; (b) details of the selection process that was undertaken; (c) the number of applicants who were considered at each stage of the selection process; (d) the reasons that were determinative in selecting the individual for the appointment, as compared to other applicants. (4) This section applies despite anything in this Act or any other Act. (5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (after line 7), at the end of section 78B, add: Applicat ion to Parliamentary Service employee census (9) If a survey of Parliamentary Service employees (within the meaning of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999), that is equivalent to the Australian Public Service Employee Census, is conducted in a financial year, this section applies in relation to the survey as if: (a) a reference to an Agency were a reference to a Department of the Parliament established under that Act; and (b) a reference to the Agency Head of an Agency were a reference to the Secretary of a Department within the meaning of that Act; and (c) a reference to the Commissioner were a reference to the Parliamentary Service Commissioner appointed under that Act; and (d) a reference to census results were a reference to the survey results. (6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (after line 7), after section 78B, insert: 78C Response to Independent Review of the Australian Public Service (1) The Public Service Minister must prepare a written statement that sets out: (a) a response to each recommendation made in the final report of the Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, published in December 2019; and (b) timelines for implementation of each recommendation. (2) The Public Service Minister must cause a copy of the written statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament by no later than the last sitting day of that House in 2023. The motivation behind these amendments is to strengthen what is a pretty weak bill. The government railed against the undermining of the Public Service's independence and integrity during their time in opposition. A slew of inquiries and investigations have exposed the extent of damage: inappropriate appointments to the AAT; secret ministries; the abuse of integrity law and independence through robodebt; and now serious questions around corruption in the Department of Home Affairs. Exposing the failures of the past, especially the failures of your opponents, is fine politics but the point of good government is to do better. This is the Albanese government's opportunity to build a strong, independent Public Service offering frank and fearless advice. We need a complete transformation, but this bill fails to deliver that. The amendments I propose make a number of changes which would significantly enhance this bill, as well as enhance our Public Service. First, they would introduce integrity, merit and openness as values of the Australian Public Service. Second, they would make the APS purpose statement disallowable. As drafted in the bill, the purpose statement will be prepared by senior public servants and bind the Public Service, but with no oversight by the government or by parliament. If the government does not wish to oversee this, it must fall to parliament to do so. Third, the amendments would improve transparency and parliamentary oversight of executive appointments by requiring the minister to table a statement clearly setting out its recruitment process. This provision would also make appointments disallowable by the parliament, a power which I expect would be sparingly used but that would create a powerful incentive for the government to make appointments based on merit rather than on jobs for mates. Fourth, it would expand to the parliamentary departments the transparency provisions relating to the APS census. Finally, they would compel the minister to publish a comprehensive response to the Thodey review by the end of this year. The Thodey report has laid out a powerful vision for reform of the Public Service. If this government is serious about reform, it needs to act on its recommendations. I believe these amendments should be uncontroversial. They strengthen the independence, effectiveness and transparency of our Public Service—objectives the government claims to be committed to achieving. I hope the government will reconsider their position and support these changes. Everyone in this place should support merit, integrity and openness in the Public Service. They are what Australians want and are one reason why the people of Wentworth sent me to this place. It's time the government backed up its fine words with actions. 17:18 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth While I share the member for Wentworth's passion for ensuring Australia has the best quality Public Service anywhere in the world, I would have to respectfully disagree with the description of this bill as 'weak.' This bill gets things done, some of which have been waiting to happen since we received the Thodey report back in 2019. I also note that we can't dismiss the important processes that are started when you do things such as a royal commission, as was characterised just then. You do those deep royal commissions so that you can get the answers that only a royal commission can give to government around the sorts of improvements that we need. As the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Public Service, the Minister for Human Services and others have said, we are committed to reviewing that report, giving it due regard and, if necessary, legislating a response to that report. But I note that we brought this piece of legislation into the parliament prior to receiving that report. Some people in this place might think they can predict what was going to be in a royal commission report. We had to wait to receive that report to respond to it. On the specific proposals in these amendments, it is important that we recognise that this bill is one part of an ongoing APS reform agenda, an agenda that has been developed over the last year. The consultation that has happened included some 11,000 people engaging. When we go back to 2019 for the Thodey review, I think there were 400 consultation sessions that were part of that review. We've had deep engagement when it comes to speaking with members of the Public Service, past and present. We've had engagement in this forum and other parliamentary forums. I do want to thank not just those who have engaged in the consultation but all of the public servants who engaged in this process. We had deep engagement with the Public Service in developing this piece of legislation. What we are concerned about in particular with these amendments is that, while they are both detailed in nature and propose quite dramatic change, they haven't gone through that same process of consultation. There is a concern from the government that, when it comes to changes to the appointments of agency heads, including secretary appointments and making them disallowable instruments, that would head us in Australia more towards a system where you have political contestability over who those appointments are. I would hate to think that you get to a point where, to cut a deal in the Senate, you are changing who is the secretary of a department to appease someone's political interests. It would be the sort of thing—and we've seen this in other countries—where you see appointments overpoliticised because they become effectively subject to Senate confirmation hearings. You would see, potentially, appointments held hostage in the Senate and departments going without secretaries for months and months after they've been announced by the government. When it comes to the other issues around changing and adding further values for the Australian Public Service, we believe that much of what the member has rightfully identified as the sorts of guidance that you'd want to give to public servants is already captured. The existing APS value of 'ethical', which I referred to before, is: The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy and acts with integrity, in all that it does. We already have a section in the act as it stands today that states: The APS is a career-based public service that: …   …   … (c) makes decisions relating to engagement and promotion that are based on merit… That is already there. The existing APS value of 'accountable' states: The APS is open and accountable to the Australian community under the law and within the framework of Ministerial responsibility. We believe that these appropriately capture and send the right message to the Public Service. I note that it's an obligation on every public servant to uphold those values. I think there's also an obligation on all of us when we engage with public servants to uphold those values. So, while I really do welcome the deep engagements we've had from a range of members on this bill, the government won't be supporting these amendments. 17:23 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Thank you to the minister for the engagement on this bill. I just want to respond to a couple of points that you've raised. Firstly, on the question of the disallowable nature of the transparency of appointments, we consulted with the minister's office regarding these amendments, and, had you agreed to say, 'We'll pass this amendment without the disallowable piece,' frankly, we would have absolutely put it forward, but there was no engagement in terms of options for this to be removed in terms of being considered at all. Secondly, you raise an issue around the disallowability. I thought very hard about this because I don't want to see the politicisation of appointments as you might see in countries like the US. However, if you look at the US, for example, the appointments that get most politicised are often political appointments, and deliberately so. They become very politicised. These are public sector appointments. These appointments should never be politicised. Part of the point of making it disallowable is to stop appointments being politicised, because if an appointment was very significantly politicised then you would expect it to be disallowed. I think what we are looking for is actually for the public sector to be less politicised than it currently is. Certainly, the history of appointments shows that there's actually an increasing politicisation of public sector appointments. That is partly what we are trying to address in this bill. I note your points about the values of openness, merit and integrity. I note also that these are themes that were strongly in the Thodey review, and that is why I have drawn them out. I take your point about whether they're covered or not, but I think these are quite fundamental values that are worth drawing out. Certainly, we're very supported by, I think, the extensive consultation that the Thodey review addressed. Finally, on the point of the Thodey review, I support, and I've certainly heard from other colleagues that they support, increased integrity in the public service. We support that investment and we're passionate about it, but we don't want to see a bill that doesn't go far enough while still not understanding where the government is going to go in relation to the Thodey review. That was why an amendment was put forward to say, 'Get a full view of the Thodey review.' We want to understand the government's direction of travel on this to a greater extent because the integrity our public service is critical to this country. 17:25 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth A value that the member for Wentworth and I share that is very deeply held is the value of consulting and listening to people and making sure that we respond to those consultations. I want to very briefly note that the consultations on this bill involved 1,500 responses, received through consultation between 24 March and 28 April. We had public servants at all levels respond. We took a really deliberate decision as a government to make sure that we didn't just get feedback from those who are often involved in the development of government policy. We reached out across the service—people at all levels within the service. When it comes to, particularly, the consultation on the new value of stewardship that we're inserting in this bill, we wanted to talk about what that meant in practice. I was really encouraged to see some of the reports we got back around what stewardship would mean for public servants in terms of recognising that long-term obligation they have. As I've said before, our public service is an institution, and we should treat it as such. I want to note the other actions the government has taken when it comes to those broader questions of integrity measures. The government has established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's been in operation for a month today and something that many people in this place should be rightly proud that they have helped bring to life. We have announced an independent review of public-sector board appointments and processes. We have established the APS Integrity Taskforce. We've had some work led by the Australian Public Service Commissioner to establish a range of measures to strengthen behaviours and outcomes-based performance management within the public sector. 17:27 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I'll speak briefly in support of the member for Wentworth. With respect to the minister's comments, one point I will make is that we are once again being asked to trust the government on future intentions. We stand here not as individuals; we stand here as representatives of communities that have lost trust. They have lost trust in leadership, they have lost trust in government and, in many ways—particularly in light of robodebt and other things—have unfortunately lost trust in the public service. In the reflections that you've heard today from the crossbench on this bill is a concern that once again we're seeing a cart-before-the-horse approach. I respect the minister's inclination to accept many of the recommendations of the Thodey review, but only part of that review is reflected within this bill. There will now be a process, of course, in the other place. I hope to see some of the concerns that have been brought by the crossbench reflected in amendments to the legislation before it lands in finality. I finish by saying that the government puts bills on the table, I think, for debate and improvement by this place. The crossbench seeks to contribute to that, and all of us have made contributions in various ways. Reflecting on the comments made by my colleagues today, I consider the fact that, if the government had accepted the member for Mackellar's amendment, it might not have been necessary to accept the member for Wentworth's amendment because, if the jobs-for-mates issue were resolved with increased integrity, accountability, oversight and transparency, the necessity for further amendment might not have been needed. I finish by thanking the minister for the engagement and look forward to the further development of this legislation to improve it in the other place. 17:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I just wanted to reiterate: thank you very much to the government for consulting with us on this. Integrity is a major issue for many of us on the crossbench. It was one of the most important issues at the last election. We thank the government for their moves on this. Yes, we do have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, yet it is only a first step. It investigates corruption after it has happened. What we are calling for is greater integrity to be built into all the different aspects of our political system and our democracy. Unfortunately, the inquiry into board appointments does not go nearly far enough. What we're calling for is an independent selection process that is open, transparent and everyone can understand and have trust in for these most important Commonwealth appointments. The Public Service Commissioner is one of those vitally important appointments that is absolutely crucial to the integrity of our political system, so we would urge the government to look further into these, to look at how we can make these appointment processes far more independent and transparent. Thank you. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 58 17:32 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 58 Membership 58 17:33 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Mr Rae to be a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in place of Ms Murphy. 17:33 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan by leave—I move: That Ms Murphy be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in her place, Mr Rae be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 59 Membership 59 17:33 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator McKim has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and that Senator Barbara Pocock has been appointed a member of the committee; and that Senator Barbara Pocock has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 59 Report 59 17:34 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the following reports: Report on the 2021–2022 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act, Statutory inquiry into ASIC, the Takeovers Panel, and the corporations legislation: ASIC licence transfers and Corporate insolvency in Australia. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HAWKE HWO by leave—Section 243 of the ASIC Act requires and empowers the committee to undertake certain actions in order to maintain oversight of the activities of ASIC, the Takeovers Panel and the corporations legislation. The three reports which I've tabled today have been completed pursuant to this section. I do want to make some remarks about our corporate insolvency report. The committee resolved, as members will know, to commence an inquiry into corporate insolvency in Australia in September 2022. The terms of reference adopted by the committee were wideranging and included matters such as trends in insolvency, the operation of the existing framework, areas for reform, supporting access to corporate turnaround capabilities, the role, remuneration, financial viability and conduct of insolvency practitioners, and the role of government agencies. The committee received 78 submissions and held five public hearings, and the committee's final, unanimous report contains 28 recommendations. In the committee's assessment, Australia's corporate insolvency system is overly complex and difficult to access. It creates unnecessary cost and confusion for both debtors and creditors. Tellingly, few parties seem satisfied with the system as it currently stands. Unsecured creditors are understandably frustrated by stubbornly low returns in insolvency processes. Debtors, particularly smaller businesses, regard opportunities for restructure as lacking and the system costs as excessive. Insolvency practitioners and other observers consider the system is not appropriately resourced to achieve its purposes. The committee concluded that to address the shortcomings of the corporate insolvency system there is a need for an independent and comprehensive review that addresses the system as a whole. The committee's final report identifies a number of issues that should form part of such a review, including the purposes and objectives of the system, the interaction between the personal and corporate insolvency systems, and a holistic review of the current insolvency pathways. The committee has also highlighted several matters that should be dealt with in the near term outside of any comprehensive review, which will take time. These include implementing the recommendations of the safe harbour review, reforms to the eligibility requirements to become a registered liquidator, and improving the treatment of trusts in insolvency. I want to say a few words about statutory oversight as well. This is the committee's first report of the 47th Parliament under its statutory inquiry role under subsection 243(a) of the ASIC Act. ASIC licences to operate financial services are being transferred between companies without ASIC being able to check whether the new licence owners meet the licence requirements. ASIC has advised the committee that such transfers occur about 200 times a year. In our unanimous report the committee concluded that existing regulatory arrangements for ASIC license transfers could be improved by ASIC including information in its annual report about how many licence transfers are occurring, ASIC auditing on how many occasions a licence was transferred to an entity that previously had a licence application rejected by ASIC, ASIC examining the transfer of all high-risk licences, and, finally, a review of the economic incentives for companies to acquire an ASIC licence through a transfer rather than applying to ASIC for that licence. On the annual reports front, subsection 243(b) of the ASIC Act requires the committee to examine reports prepared by the bodies established under that act. In undertaking the review of the reports prepared for the 2021-22 financial year, the committee reviewed the reports of eight bodies: the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Takeovers Panel, the Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board, the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Office of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Office of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. The committee was satisfied that each of the annual reports met their reporting requirements and was pleased to see that the bodies had implemented recommendations made by the corporations committee in previous reports. The annual reports bring important matters to the parliament's consideration. For example, the Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board's annual report highlighted ongoing resourcing challenges both in its administrative support and in appointments to the board itself. The committee observed that these matters have now been raised in consecutive reports. CADB observed, in its most recent report, that the constraints impacted its ability to effectively discharge its statutory mandate. While noting that additional appointments have been made in the intervening period, the committee has encouraged Treasury, ASIC and CADB to work together to urgently remedy this issue and ensure that it is not repeated. I commend the reports to the House. 17:39 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser by leave—I also thank the other committee members who were involved in the production of this report and all of the witnesses who gave their time to give evidence. It's a very significant contribution to the development of policy in this important area. When some people think of insolvency, they think of it as a very technical area not necessarily relevant to people's day-to-day lives. But I would argue that insolvency law is in fact one of the key underpinnings of the economic dynamism of our economy. In 1911, Nicholas Murray Butler, who was a philosopher and, at the time, president of Colombia University, said, with respect to limited liability: … I say that in my judgment the limited liability corporation is the greatest single discovery of modern times, whether you judge it by its social, by its ethical, by its industrial or, in the long run,—-after we understand it and know how to use it,—by its political, effects. Even steam and electricity are far less important than the limited liability corporation, and they would be reduced to comparative impotence without it. The Limited Liability Corporation is in one sense a bureaucratic and an administrative creation, but it does have a huge effect on our economy. If you read the paragraphs around this quote, you see that the impact of the limited liability scheme that was created in advanced economies was partly the ability for people to come together in their investments and create organisations of scale. But I would argue that the limited liability is also very important because it is a very effective risk allocation mechanism, and it is risk allocation which is so critical in the modern economy. Investors, of course, are protected from losing more than the capital that they put in, in general terms. The reason I raise this is that insolvency law is also partly about defining risk and allocating risk within our economy in a way that promotes economic dynamism. I believe it's deceptively impactful, in much the same way that I think the creation of the Limited Liability Corporation is deceptively impactful. In its 1999 document titled Orderly and Effective Insolvency Procedures, the IMF stated that it's possible in broad terms to state there are two objectives of most insolvency systems. The first overall objective is the allocation of risk among participants in a market economy that is 'predictable, equitable and transparent'. The achievement of this objective plays a critical role in providing confidence in the credit system and fostering economic growth for all participants. The second objective of an insolvency law that it defined was to protect and maximise value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy in general. Clearly, risk management is at the heart of it; value maximisation is at the heart of it. A recent OECD paper framed the importance of insolvency law when it said: Policies affecting the way failing firms can exit markets or be restructured can shape aggregate productivity through a variety of channels … These include the strength of market selection—which increases in the economy's ability to dispose of non-viable firms and facilitate the restructuring of viable firms—and the scope and speed at which scarce resources consumed by failing firms can be reallocated to more productive uses. Insolvency law is absolutely critical to the efficient allocation of capital, to risk taking and to efficient risk allocation. That is why I believe getting insolvency law right is so important. The report that was completed recently by our committee made a number of observations about Australia's corporate insolvency system, as the previous speaker indicated. It is that it is overly complex, difficult to access and creates unnecessary costs and confusion for both debtors and creditors and that much reform of insolvency law in recent years has been piecemeal. The report contains a number of recommendations in relation to how we consider strengthening insolvency law and 28 recommendations that aim to either address shortcomings or improve outcomes in our corporate insolvency system. It also contains a number of recommendations in relation to near-term reform or actions that should be progressed independent of any future comprehensive review, for example, steps to improve data access, particularly longitudinal time series data of key aspects of our system, and reforms to the small business restructuring pathway and changes to eligibility requirements for registered liquidators to address the gender imbalance in the profession. This is an incredibly important aspect of our law. It is one that has a profound impact on our overarching economic dynamism and productivity. I recommend this report to the House. 17:44 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That the House take note of the report CorporateInsolvency in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 61 17:45 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 61 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 61

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

Second Reading 61 17:45 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. This is a bill to strengthen our economy and help consumers by enhancing the integrity of consumer markets for credit products, removing obstacles to financial advisers and fostering competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities. I'd like to start by thanking the Assistant Treasurer and Minister of Financial Services for his important work in making the financial services sector in Australia a safer and fairer place for consumers, advisers and businesses. Well-regulated consumer markets for credit products are crucial in a robust and inclusive economy. That's why the Albanese government is reforming the regulation of payday lending in consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022, which was in response to the 2016 review of small amount credit contract laws. That review highlighted the need to address avoidance practices employed by entities using business models not regulated by the credit act. Any avoidance provisions are aimed at reducing the risk of consumer harm from predatory lenders who modify their business models to dodge consumer protections in the credit act and other financial services legislation. These provisions also extended the scope of ASIC's product intervention orders under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. Schedule 1 to this bill ensures that anti-avoidance provisions also apply to ASIC's product intervention orders related to credit products made under the Corporations Act 2001. By doing so, we ensure that predatory lending practices, which pose significant detriment and harm to consumers, are appropriately addressed. ASIC has already issued several product intervention orders to combat this harm, but it is crucial to align the anti-avoidance provisions with orders made under the Corporations Act. Predatory credit products take advantage of people who are already financially vulnerable, subjecting them to exorbitant fees and interest rates—people like Frank, from my electorate. That's not his real name. He's a father in his 30s who works full time. He turned to payday loans when his son was hospitalised for six weeks. He took out loans to cover expenses, including accommodation costs, household bills and the high repayments incurred on his growing payday loan debts. The lenders allowed him to take out multiple loans. Some he took out to keep up with the debt he'd been sucked into. He ended up owing more than $6,000 to about 10 different payday loan providers and is now on a mental health treatment plan to help him cope with the stress. Schedule 1 of this bill will reduce the risk of harm and limit the operation of predatory lenders who engage in avoidance behaviours, ultimately protecting consumers from exploitation, such as that which Frank experienced. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to the financial advice industry. It recognises the significance of the financial advice industry and the need to establish robust professional standards within the sector. Good financial advice provided by quality financial advisers is one of the most important pieces of guidance that Australians can use in their lifetime. Quality financial advice can set us up for life and ensure we have enough to live on and enjoy in retirement. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that Australians have access to high quality financial advice. Unfortunately, the current education requirements fail to adequately acknowledge the practical experience of financial advisers, thereby neglecting the valuable contributions of experienced professionals. Since 2019, more than 10,000 financial advisers have left the industry, including experienced advisers with unblemished records. Experienced advisers play a critical role in mentoring and supervising new entrants during their professional year, sharing their knowledge and expertise. To address this issue, schedule 2 of this bill removes a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to remain in the industry, ensuring a pool of mentors to guide, supervise and enhance the skills of new advisers. This measure guarantees that consumers receive quality advice as the affected experienced advisers must possess a clean record and pass the financial advisers exam. Schedule 3 of the bill acts on recommendations from the Council of Financial Regulators to enhance regulatory powers and foster competition within clearing and settlement markets for cash equities traded in Australia. The ASX Group currently holds a monopoly over these services. The proposed reforms will yield substantial benefits for businesses operating in other sectors of the cash equities market, such as financial market operators. Entities that rely on the ASX's clearing and settlement services, like clearing and settlement participants and share registries, will also experience positive effects. Any delays in accessing these systems, coupled with a lack of transparency surrounding fair pricing, can escalate costs and impede innovation. These reforms will empower ASIC to establish rules concerning the governance of clearing and settlement facilities, including those related to board composition and user input in governance matters. This will grant ASIC the authority to formulate rules governing the ASX's CHESS replacement project. The delayed implementation of this project has incurred significant costs for the broader industry. If a competitor emerges in the provision of cash equities clearing and settlement, ASIC will ensure that competition is both safe and effective by establishing rules pertaining to interoperability between competing facilities. Should a competitor fail to emerge, rules will be in place to ensure competitive outcomes. ASIC will be able to create rules regarding the activities, conduct and governance of clearing and settlement facility licensees. This will guarantee that these services are provided on fair, reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory terms. To address situations where clearing and settlement services are controlled by a monopolistic entity, or one with significant market power, the bill introduces an arbitration mechanism. This mechanism will be available to industry participants who rely on access to clearing and settlement services to resolve disputes pertaining to access terms and conditions, including pricing. The intention behind this provision is to serve as a final efficient backstop when good faith commercial negotiations break down. The framework draws inspiration from the national access regime of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, with some modifications to enhance the efficiency of the arbitration process and ensure timely outcomes for all parties involved. Finally, schedule 4 of this bill introduces several improvements to the First Home Super Saver Scheme specifically tailored to enhance the experience of first home buyers. The current legislation governing the scheme is inflexible and can lead to poor user experiences, such as instances where individuals mistakenly lock their savings in superannuation until retirement due to application errors. By implementing schedule 4, the operation of the First Home Super Saver Scheme will be enhanced. First home buyers using the scheme will enjoy greater flexibility to amend or revoke their applications to correct errors and ensure the timely release of their savings. These changes will grant the Commissioner of Taxation increased discretion to amend and revoke scheme applications, and individuals will have the opportunity to withdraw or amend their applications prior to the release of the funds. To ensure a smooth transition, the bill includes transitional provisions that apply the technical changes to eligible applications made from July 2018. This allows flexibility for past cases. Transitional provisions extend the flexibility provided by the amendments to users who previously applied to have funds released under the scheme and have since started holding a relevant interest in real property or land. This bill is an important piece of legislation, and it builds on the progressive reforms already accomplished by the Albanese Labor government in its first year in office. Whether it be reforms to payday lending and short-term credit that we've legislated, making our industrial relations system fairer, or making our world-class superannuation system more sustainable, since coming to government we have been upfront about the challenges facing the economy and the budget. We've inherited $1 trillion of debt and growing spending pressures. Our government is working to build a stronger economy to help ease cost-of-living pressures without asking people to compromise their longer-term financial security. This legislation builds on this by ensuring the financial services sector in Australia is a safer and fairer place for advisers, businesses and consumers—particularly vulnerable consumers. 17:55 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill. Today the Albanese Labor government continues its work in standing up for consumers, and this bill will make some necessary changes that will undoubtedly help and serve as a reminder that the economy's priority should be with the consumer. When a consumer purchases a product or service they are entitled to believe that it will serve its function. At the bare minimum they should have the certainty that it is safe and that it will not cause harm. But that was not what we saw in the royal commission into the misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry—we saw systemic abuse and consumers being ripped off. This government, after being elected last year, has been working to fix the system to make it fairer and safer for consumers. Today we are supplementing the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 with another key piece of legislation passed by this government. It was originally passed to reinforce compliance with the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, passed in 2009 by a previous Labor government. Australians have come to expect that Labor governments will look after them, and we will continue to do so. It is a responsibility of government to minimise harm, to protect and to serve, and that is why there will often be product intervention orders put in place—to protect those consumers. It should be expected that if an order is put in place, it will be followed. There would be an outcry if a recall order was put in place for a food product and vendors ignored the order and continued to sell it. We should expect the same of credit facilities. If a product intervention order is in place, will now be able to stop the avoidance activities that others have engaged in previously. Consumers have the right to be protected. They have a right to be informed and to have access to advice. Sadly, we've seen an almost halving of the number of practising financial advisers in this country. Recently, I spoke to a constituent who had only just been informed, a couple of weeks before the end of the financial year, that their financial adviser was retiring and would no longer assist them. It being so close to the end of the financial year, just as tax time was rolling around, made it very difficult for this constituent. They now have to try to find a new financial adviser as soon as possible. That's why the Albanese government is delivering on its election commitment to better recognise the experience of existing financial advisors. This is to retain those who have been diligently working for consumers and provide further incentives for others to enter the profession. It makes sense in legislation to encourage good behaviour just as often as we discourage bad behaviour. The amendments we are making today are for experienced financial advisers—those with a decade of experience and no adverse findings against them. To stay in the industry, if they've pass the required exam, there will not be a requirement for them to complete up to eight tertiary-level units before 1 January 2026. Since the introduction of this requirement, the number of practising financial advisors has dropped from 28,000 at its peak to approximately 16,300 now. Also, many new financial advisors have been unable to, or for technical reasons have been prevented from, joining the industry. In order to address the short supply of financial advisors, this government will not be making it harder for those who have done the right thing, and will act in the best interests of consumers. That's why we will be encouraging more competition in clearing and settlement cash entities. As I'm sure many year 12 economics students around the country will tell you, competition is good for the market but also good for the consumer. It leads to better prices and better outcomes. The only one who wins in a monopoly is the monopoly, and it is the same when it comes to clearing and settlement services. In order to make a more competitive and fairer environment, we have followed the recommendations made by the Council of Financial Regulators. We've heard the calls to empower the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as well as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This legislation will give ASIC the ability to put in place rules to ensure that consumer outcomes are protected from monopoly abuse and to oversee any competition that may develop. It will also strengthen the ACCC to enable it to arbitrate and produce binding decisions to protect consumers from price gouging and stop providers from abusing their share of the market. Consumers already have enough to worry about, and that is why the Albanese Labor government will protect them and reduce their burden. This is also seen in the bill through improving the flexibility of the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Trying to buy a home is stressful enough, so we are making multiple amendments to previous tax legislation to avoid seriously punishing first-home buyers. This will allow them to correct mistakes made during the release process of the First Home Super Saver Scheme. We will be improving the scheme so that individuals can amend and revoke their applications to have funds released without being prevented from reapplying in the future. I know that all the schedules of the bill have been the subject of consultations with stakeholders and other interested bodies. The government and the Minister for Financial Services has, as the government does with all changes, listened and considered all submissions. We will increase the period in which first-home buyers can request a release authority after entering into a contract to purchase or construct a home, from 14 to 90 days. It is laudable that this government has worked to provide more rigorous and extensive reforms to the financial industry, to protect consumers while also recognising where to show discretion, to understand the pressures that everyday people are under and to make it easier for them to manage their finances. The Albanese government has always recognised that its duty is to everyday Australians: to keep them safe, to give them access to information, to ensure that their industries are well maintained and regulated, and to give them the opportunities to improve their lives. I commend the bill to the House. 18:02 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No 3) Bill 2023, primarily because I like speaking on TLABs. They're structured and they're direct. They contain the detail on policy ambitions of our government. They do the heavy lifting and simplify our complex laws, and in many instances they're like the spring-cleaning of administrative legislation. This bill contains four schedules designed to improve government programs and, as I said, clean up some of that legislation. I'll deal with each of them accordingly, some of course in more detail than others. Schedule 1 of this bill introduces new rules that prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of a product intervention order in relation to a credit facility made under part 7.9A of the Corporations Act 2001. This amendment helps ensure that a person or a business cannot respond to a product intervention order by engaging in avoidance activity that is not covered by the order but results in similar detriment to customers. Schedule 1 supplements the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022, which contains anti-avoidance measures to encourage compliance with the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and for product intervention orders made under the Credit Act, with a view to minimising consumer harm. Schedule 1introduces into the Corporations Act equivalent provisions regarding the prohibition to avoid relevant product intervention orders. Safe, well-regulated consumer markets for credit products are a core element of a strong and inclusive economy. Anti-avoidance provisions are aimed at reducing the risk of consumer harm from predatory lenders who modify their business models to avoid the application of consumer protections in the Credit Act and other financial services legislation. Predatory credit products take advantage of people who are already very financially vulnerable, and charge excessive and unreasonable fees and interest. So schedule 1 of the bill will reduce the risk and harm, and limit the operation of these predatory lenders who are engaged in avoidance behaviours. We know that predatory lenders have had it too good for too long. In April 2022, just before the last election, our corporate regulator, ASIC, made an extraordinary statement, saying that predatory lending in Australia was at 'endemic' levels, and that unregulated innovation in the industry—particularly in the buy now, pay later industry—had created rising risks for financially disadvantaged people. In the same month, ASIC launched legal action against two companies, Rent4Keeps and Layaway Depot, for allegedly disguising loans as lease contracts for white goods. The regulator alleged these companies breached consumer protection laws by developing business models that avoided obligations on credit providers, including the 48 per cent annual cost cap, to extort low-income earners out of enormous sums. The court filing from ASIC referenced one customer who, after entering a lease arrangement, had to use his Centrelink payments to pay almost $2,500 for a fridge which retailed at $365. ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said at the time, 'These practices had an enormous impact on vulnerable Australians.' As an update: in June 2023, the Federal Court ordered Layaway Depot to pay a penalty of $375,000 for breaches of the Credit Act. The case against Rent4Keeps has been listed for case management in August this year and trial in 2024. I encourage the regulator to continue to monitor this sector. These laws, proposed today, will close loopholes that are currently exploited by predatory lenders, and I commend them to the House. I'll come back to schedule 2 a little later. Schedule 3 of this bill implements recommendations made by the Council of Financial Regulators to strengthen regulatory powers and facilitate competitive outcomes in the market for clearing and settlement of cash equities traded in Australia. The ASX group has a monopoly over those services. These reforms will have a significant benefit for businesses that compete with the ASX in other parts of the cash equities markets, such as financial market operators—all ones that rely on ASX's monopoly on clearing and settlement services, such as clearing and settlement participants and share registries. Delays in being able to access these systems, and a lack of transparency around a fair price for these services, can increase costs and stall innovation. Schedule 4 to the bill makes a number of improvements to the operation of the First Home Super Saver scheme to ensure it works better for first home buyers. Currently, the legislation underpinning this scheme is inflexible and can occasionally result in a poor user experience—including some people who have made an error in their application process and have had their first home savings locked up in superannuation until retirement. Schedule 4 of the bill improves the operation of the scheme by providing greater flexibility, and using the scheme to amend or revoke applications to correct errors that we all sometimes make. Transitional provisions will ensure that these changes apply retrospectively back to 1 July 2018. This ensures flexibility can be afforded to past cases—very important spring cleaning there. Back to schedule 2 of the amendments. They fulfil our government's pledge, made during the election, to better appreciate the experience of existing financial advisers. It is of the utmost importance that our industry remains vibrant, dynamic and accessible to all. As a government, we hold a deep commitment to nurturing an advice industry that upholds robust, professional standards, thereby granting Australians access to top-tier financial guidance, yet it has become increasingly clear that the current educational requirements fail to adequately recognise the lived experience of financial advisers. We must strike a careful equilibrium: one that both professionalises and keeps the industry professionalised, and retains all the experience that has been gathered over the past few decades. Financial advice can play a pivotal role in the lives of individuals, families and businesses, guiding them in making informed financial decisions. In an ever-evolving and intricate financial landscape, the demand for professional advice has never been more pressing. With more and more Australians getting access to their super by coming into retirement, that might be the most cash they've ever received in their lives. Having cheap, affordable, reliable financial advice is incredibly important, and that's what this schedule seeks to address. Financial advice fosters financial literacy and empowerment. Countless individuals lack the requisite knowledge and confidence to competently manage their finances, and advisers stand as educators, endowing their clients with the financial knowledge that they've built up over decades. They help break educational barriers surrounding intricate financial concepts and investment alternatives and provide guidance to risk management. By bolstering financial literacy, advisers equip clients with the necessary tools to make informed decisions and assume command over their financial future. It's essential to acknowledge that financial advice extends beyond individuals to encompass businesses and organisations. Small businesses and startups often rely upon the wisdom and expertise of financial advisers. These professionals offer guidance in areas such as business planning, cashflow management, financing options, risk evaluation and strategic growth. By working alongside financial advisers, they are able to build towards a prosperous and sustainable business. This not only is good for those small businesses but provides wider support to economic expansion and job creation for our communities. Ever since the introduction of the requirement for financial advisers to undertake additional studies, we have witnessed a significant decline in the number of practising advisers. At its peak, the industry boasted around 28,000 advisers, but now that number is around 16,300. This decline is troubling as it directly affects the accessibility of quality financial advice for Australians and Australian businesses. What's more concerning is the fact that aspiring entrants to the financial advice industry face hurdles that hinder their ability to meet these requirements, thus impeding their path to joining the profession. So it's abundantly clear that the current requirements fail to strike that proper balance between professionalising the industry and using the expertise of seasoned professionals. Just recently I had a conversation with a local constituent from my electorate of Bennelong about his extensive experience as a long-term financial adviser and the accessibility of the FASEA exam. Mr Todd highlighted the issue of accessibility of this exam. He is an experienced financial adviser with over 40 years of dedicated service, and he has encountered challenges with the current format of the exam. To address the issue, Mr Todd has proposed alternative methods for participants aged above 65, such as oral examination, role-play, paper based take-home written exams or assignment based assessments. I commend Mr Todd for putting forward this proposal, which sheds light on some of the technical disadvantages that older Australian financial advisers may face. The knowledge and skills that seasoned financial advisers like Mr Todd bring to the sector are integral to its ongoing success to ensure that Australians and Australian businesses continue to have access to robust and informed financial guidance. By providing further support and making accessibility changes for experienced financial advisers, we can create a more equitable system that allows these accomplished advisers to demonstrate their competence and continued contributions to the industry. To address these concerns and ensure the industry's continued growth, schedule 2 of the bill proposes amendments that enable experienced advisers with at least 10 years of experience and a clean record who have successfully passed their exam to continue practising without the need for additional education. These amendments not only ensure the retention of these experienced advisers but also facilitate the entry of fresh talent. By creating a supportive pathway for new entrants, we can maintain a pool of advisers who can mentor, supervise and upskill these individuals, ensuring the continuity of quality advice for consumers. It's important to emphasise, though, that these amendments do strike that balance. They do not compromise consumer protection. On the contrary, they uphold the highest standards of quality and professionalism. The experienced advisers affected by the amendments must have a clean record and must pass the exam, ensuring that consumers can trust and rely on the advice that they receive. This measure effectively safeguards the interests of consumers whilst recognising and leveraging the significant experience held by these professionals. To ensure that these proposed changes reflect the diverse perspectives and needs of stakeholders, this schedule was of course subject to a comprehensive consultation process. The Treasury conducted public consultations on the policy settings, engaging with industry bodies, licensee representatives, financial advisers and higher education providers. Feedback, as you would expect, from the sector was mixed, with differing opinions on the best approach to recognise. The government has carefully considered these perspectives and has made the decisions that we believe strike a fair and balanced outcome for consumers, advisers and businesses. Timely passage of this legislation is integral to providing experienced advisers with the certainty they require, regarding the future, in their industry. Let us stand together in support of an advice industry that thrives on experience, professionalism and, importantly, accessibility. By recognising the value of experience, we can ensure a prosperous future for both the advice industry and the clients it intends to serve. The changes proposed in schedule 2 are imperative to acknowledge and honour the experience held by these advisers and guarantee the accessibility of financial advice for all Australians. Our commitment remains in maintaining robust professional standards while valuing and harnessing the expertise and contributions of advisers. I commend this bill to the House. 18:16 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I also speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. We know the importance of integrity, in proper governance, to the broader economy. At its foundation, the national economic environment requires effective laws and regulation, and confidence in our governments and in this place. We want an economy that works for all in the community, an economy where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. We want growth in the economy that is inclusive. As the OECD notes, on the importance of inclusive growth, we want growth that is 'distributed fairly across society and creates opportunities for all'. We also know that a safe, well-regulated consumer market for credit products is a core element of a strong and inclusive economy. Credit products do have a role to play. We want people to feel more motivated and involved with the benefits of economic growth. We are making our tax systems fairer and more effective. We are creating a business environment that improves our communities and helps repair our biodiversity deficit. Although the items in this legislation can seem a touch dry, they are important. That is why the Albanese government has introduced long-overdue reforms to the regulation of payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. This act implemented the Albanese government's response to the 2016 review of small amount credit contract laws, which included a recommendation to address avoidance behaviour by entities using business models not regulated by the credit act. Anti-avoidance provisions are aimed at reducing the risk of consumer harm from predatory lenders who modify their business models to avoid the application of consumer protections in the credit act and other financial services legislation. The provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 also extended to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission product intervention orders made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, the credit act. This bill packages together four separate policy measures that aim to improve the regulation of Australia's financial industries. Schedule 1 of the bill prohibits activities that are designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders that relate to a credit facility. Schedule 2 delivers the government's election promise to recognise the experience of veteran financial advisers as equivalent to tertiary qualifications. Schedule 3 gives additional powers to ASIC and the ACCC for the purpose of facilitating competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for Australian cash equities. Schedule 4 makes technical amendments to improve the flexibility of the First Home Super Saver Scheme. As noted in the Bills Digest, five consumer advocacy groups made a joint submission to the Treasury in support of the draft bill. They recommended that the government should finalise and present the draft bill to the parliament as a matter of priority. I am sure that these consumer groups would welcome that this debate is progressing today. I will work through the schedules in more detail. Schedule 1 to this bill ensures that anti-avoidance provisions also apply to ASIC product intervention orders relating to credit products that are made under the Corporations Act2001. ASIC has identified credit products that it has said cause significant detriment and harm, especially to vulnerable consumers, and it has issued several product intervention orders, or PIOs, to address this harm. These product intervention orders were made by ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001—and not the Credit Act—to help ensure that the avoidance behaviour of predatory lenders is adequately captured by the law. But the anti-avoidance provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 do not apply to these PIOs. These changes will ensure that anti-avoidance provisions do apply to PIOs made under corporations law. As I said, predatory credit products take advantage of people who are already financially vulnerable and charge them excessive and unreasonable fees and interest. The Albanese government wants to reduce this risk of harm and limit the operation of predatory lenders who are engaged in avoidance behaviours. As noted earlier, we want a safer market for credit products. Schedule 2 works to recognise the experience in the financial advice industry. The government is committed to an advice industry with strong professional standards that gives Australians access to high-quality financial advice. However, as implemented, the education requirements fail to appropriately recognise the lived experience of financial advisers. The current requirements do not properly balance the desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced, skilled workforce. This schedule also delivers an election commitment to ease the education requirement for veteran financial advisers who have at least 10 years experience and an unblemished disciplinary record. If enacted, it will allow veteran advisers to access the experienced provider pathway by making a self-declaration confirming that they meet all the criteria to be an experienced financial advice provider. We know that since 2019 over 10,000 financial advisers have left the industry, particularly many experienced advisers with no history of misconduct. This serves only to reduce access to quality financial advice. Experienced advisers also make a valuable contribution to the financial advice industry. They play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year and sharing their knowledge and experience more broadly across the profession. Importantly, for an inclusive economy, this bill ensures that consumers will continue to have access to quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry, ensuring instead that a pool of advisers to mentor, supervise and upskill new entrants will remain available. Consumers can be sure of receiving quality advice as those experienced advisers affected by the amendments must have a clean record and pass the financial advisory exam. This is in addition to the broader work of the Albanese government, which will take steps through its Delivering Better Financial Outcomes package to ensure that the five million Australians who are at or near retirement can access quality financial advice. This is important now more than ever. The success of the superannuation system means that Australians are retiring with more wealth than ever before. The average Australian now has a superannuation balance of around $200,000 at retirement. However, the high cost of providing advice and the declining number of financial advisers means that it's becoming increasingly difficult for all Australians to access helpful information and advice that could make a meaningful difference to their quality of life. Labor will always put the consumer first in financial services. We are the party of the future of financial advice reforms and the party that called for the banking royal commission. This is the focus that we bring to improving access to financial advice. Schedule 3 covers competition in the clearing and settlement of cash equities. Schedule 3 of the bill implements recommendations made by the Council of Financial Regulators to strengthen regulatory powers and facilitate competitive outcomes in the market for the clearing and settlement of cash equities traded in Australia. The ASX group has a monopoly over these services. The reforms will have significant benefits for businesses, particularly those that rely on ASX's monopoly on clearing and settlement services. Delays in being able to access these systems, and a lack of transparency around a fair price for these services, can increase costs and stall innovation. The reforms will enable ASIC to write rules relating to governance of clearing and settlement facilities, including rules related to board composition and user input to governance. This will have the additional benefit of allowing ASIC to make rules which apply to the governance of the ASX's CHESS replacement project, the delay of which has resulted in significant cost to the wider industry. If a competitor does emerge in the provision of cash equities clearing and settlement, ASIC will be able to ensure that competition is safe and effective—for example, by making rules with respect to interoperability between competing clearing and settlement facilities. If a competitor does not emerge, rules will ensure competitive outcomes can still be achieved, by allowing ASIC to make rules regarding the activities, conduct and governance of clearing and settlement facility licensees. This is intended to ensure these services are provided on fair, reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory terms. Where clearing and settlement services are provided by an entity which enjoys a monopoly or significant market power, arbitration for industry participants that rely on access to clearing and settlement services will be available to resolve any disputes about the terms and conditions of their access, including price. This is intended to be a final but efficient backstop where good-faith commercial negotiation breaks down. It has largely been based on the national access regime in part IIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, with some changes to improve the efficiency of the arbitration process and provide timely outcomes for all parties. Schedule 4 deals with First Home Super Saver Scheme changes. As background: the First Home Super Saver Scheme helps boost savings for a first home by allowing an individual to build a deposit inside superannuation, giving them a tax cut. Under the scheme, prospective first home buyers can make personal contributions to superannuation of up to $15,000 a year. Up to $50,000 of these contributions can then be withdrawn to finance a first home. Should an individual decide not to buy a home, personal contributions can be withdrawn, but the person is liable for additional tax to compensate for contributions being made at a concessional rate of tax. Individuals who chose to save for a house deposit via this program have been able to withdraw their deposit from the scheme since 1 July 2018. Problems with the administration of the scheme developed due to the inflexibility in the governing legislation. On this side of the chamber we know the value of superannuation and the importance of maintaining the integrity of super. The parliament, therefore, needs to make a number of improvements to the operation of the scheme to ensure that it works better for first home buyers. As referenced above, currently the legislation is inflexible and can occasionally result in a poor user experience, which has included some people who have made an error in the application process having their savings locked in superannuation until retirement. These changes will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke applications and will allow individuals to withdraw or amend applications prior to release. Transitional provisions will ensure the technical changes apply to eligible applications made from 1 July 2018. Transitional provisions extend the flexibility provided by the amendments to users who have previously applied to have funds released under the scheme and have since started holding a relevant interest in real property or land. This will provide greater flexibility for first home buyers using the scheme and will help ensure their savings are released. In conclusion, as I noted at the top of my contribution, we know the importance of integrity and proper governance to the broader economy. At its foundation, the national economic environment requires effective laws, effective regulation and confidence in our governance—confidence in this place. We want an economy that works for all in the community. We want growth in the economy that is inclusive. This bill is about giving confidence to Australian consumers to ensure people are protected from predatory practices and can better access financial advice when they need it. I commend the bill to the House. 18:30 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. I've had the benefit of being in the chamber while the members for Bean and Bennelong both gave thoughtful and passionate contributions reflecting on the importance of this legislation to constituents within their electorates. I haven't had the benefit of listening to every speech, but those I have listened to have underscored the importance of the reform project. At great risk of causing offence to those members I don't single out, I had the benefit of listening to the contribution of the Chief Government Whip, the member for Lalor, who spoke passionately about the impact that schedule 1 of this bill will have on payday lending, on small amount credit contracts, which is a matter that she has been a passionate advocate for since she entered the parliament in 2013. So I acknowledge that and her longstanding contribution to public policy in that area. Schedule 1 of the bill introduces new rules that prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders made under part 7.9A of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to a credit facility. As many speakers have said, we know that a well-regulated consumer market for credit products is at the core of a strong economy that works for everyday Australians. That's why the Australian government introduced reforms to the regulation of payday lending. That's why we have a reform project on foot at the moment around buy now, pay later products. All of it is about ensuring we have strong competition but right-size regulation to ensure consumers' interests are protected. That is why the Australian government introduced reforms to payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. These changes gave effect to the government's response to recommendations of the 2006 review of small amount credit contract laws and made a range of recommendations to introduce laws which prohibit avoidance behaviour, and that's what these provisions do. The 2022 Financial Sector Reform Act introduced anti-avoidance provisions with respect to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission product intervention orders made under the National Consumer Protection Act 2009. This bill simply extends these provisions to similar orders made under the Corporations Law. ASIC has made several product intervention orders under the Corporations Act targeting predatory lending and products causing significant consumer harm. This amendment will quite simply ensure that a person or business cannot respond to a product intervention order by engaging in avoidance activity that is not covered by the order but results in a similar detriment to consumers. The government has an enormous pro-consumer agenda, and I am very pleased to be leading a significant part of that agenda on behalf of the Albanese government. In addition to the protections that we put in place to help people avoid getting into debt spirals with payday loans and consumer leases, we're standing with consumers to fight back against scammers. I see the enthusiastic member for Lyons in the chamber. I see the member for Lingiari in the chamber, and the member for Fowler in the chamber as well—all passionate. An honourable member: Werriwa! Mr JONES A9B I should say the member for Werriwa! I am sure the member for Fowler is passionate about these issues, but not nearly as passionate as the member for Werriwa—I am in regular receipt of her correspondence in advance and advocation of the consumer interests of members in her constituency. It's a big part of our agenda, whether it is fighting scammers, regulating 'buy now, pay later' products, supporting mitigation in disaster-prone areas, ensuring that the insurance market works efficiently, putting in place a compensation scheme of last resort, or ensuring that we put in place schemes to provide justice for victims of financial misconduct. It's part of a broad agenda and this schedule fits within that. In addition to all of that, we are working to make financial advice more available and more affordable, and schedule 2 to this bill is a part of that work. If you want a good explanation of why that needs to occur, I refer you to my second reading speech or the excellent contribution made just now by the member for Bennelong, who spoke of members of his constituency who are directly affected by these provisions. Specifically, the amendments will remove a disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry and will assist to stabilise numbers within the financial advisor cohort to ensure that we have a pool of financial advisers to mentor, to supervise and to upskill new financial advisor entrants to the industry. It is important. We need them—we need them now. There are five million Australians at or approaching retirement and they will need access to decent financial advice. Schedule 3 is going to assist in providing competitive outcomes in the current monopoly provision of clearing and settlement services in Australian equities and related markets, particularly cash equities, to ensure that we have competition and, as it emerges, that it occurs in a safe and effective way. An important part of our microeconomic reform project is an equities market. Schedule 3 to the bill will provide ASIC with a rulemaking power, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with an arbitration power in the event that access disputes are unable to be resolved through normal commercial negotiations. ASIC's rulemaking power will ensure that the monopoly clearing and settlement services are provided on a fair and reasonable, transparent, and non-discriminatory basis—a methodology familiar to those who have been engaged in access regimes for otherwise monopolistic service provision. If competition does emerge, the rules will ensure they are safe and effective. The ACCC's arbitration powers will ensure that if commercial negotiations for access to clearing and settlement service fail, we can have expedient and biding decisions through an arbitration process to ensure a swift resolution of those commercial disputes. Together, these reforms will give regulators not only greater powers but also the essential powers they need to oversee the conduct of providers of critical financial market infrastructure, and will give industry greater certainty about access to clearing and settlement services, the pricing of those services, and the timeliness of commercial negotiations. Before I move on to schedule 4, I note that other jurisdictions around the world are well in advance of where Australia is on this. Competition is an effective means of ensuring innovation but it is also an effective means of ensuring we have appropriate price discovery and the right pricing arrangements for the provision of these critical services in an open equities market. Schedule 4 is essentially about technical savings. The previous government left us with the First Home Super Saver Scheme. It sounded good in theory but in practice was too clunky—it was not effectively working, and in many instances the regulator, in this case the Australian Taxation Commissioner, simply did not have the discretion to resolve otherwise what any normal person would have seen as a straightforward matter of fairness and equity. These amendments will afford the Taxation Commissioner and users of the scheme greater flexibility to correct mistakes and avoid adverse financial outcomes, ensuring that people who access the scheme have a very tax-effective way of getting a high-performance savings product as a sidecar to a superannuation fund, and ensuring that it operates in the way parliament intended it to. With those brief comments, I once again thank members for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 69 18:40 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 70

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023

Second Reading 70 Third Reading 70 18:42 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 70

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

Second Reading 70 18:43 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the former Coalition government implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance including by: (a) playing a leading role in the original OECD BEPS project, and committing to the OECD two-pillar solution to multinational tax; and (b) introducing the Multinational Tax Avoidance Law; the Diverted Profits Tax; strengthening the thin capitalisation and transfer pricing rules; doubling penalties for multinational tax avoidance; and establishing the Tax Avoidance Taskforce; (2) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Labor Government have broken promises to raise taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, and end small business tax incentives; (3) that the original form of this Bill, and its last-minute changes, show once again that Labor have an anti-business approach to consultation, regulation and policy to support business; (4) independent economist Chris Richardson expects that Labor will breach the 23.9% tax-to-GDP cap in their first year in office; and (5) that higher taxes are not a solution to a cost-of-living crisis and collapsing productivity under Labor". I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. This is a two-schedule Treasury omnibus bill. Schedule 1 introduces new rules on the disclosure of information about subsidiaries for financial years commencing on or after 1 July 2023. Australian public companies, both listed and unlisted, must disclose information about subsidiaries in their annual financial reports. Schedule 2 to the bill aims to strengthen the thin cap rules in division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The amendments seek to address risks to the domestic tax base arising from the excessive use of debt deductions. They introduce new thin cap earnings based tests for a certain class of entities. The safe harbour test will change from debt deductions up to 60 per cent of assets to debt deductions up to 30 per cent of profits defined as earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation—EBITDA. The amendments also establish an arms-length debt test in the form of a third-party debt test. The schedule introduces new subdivision 820-EAA, debt deduction creation rules. These rules disallow deductions to the extent that they are incurred in relation to debt creation schemes. Importantly, the new test excludes related party debt, supporting property and infrastructure investment. The coalition won't be opposing the bill, whilst noting the shambolic approach to consultation that we've seen with this legislation. Schedules were pulled just hours before introduction, to the point where the explanatory materials refer to schedules of the bill that actually don't exist, Mr Deputy Speaker. We know Labor wanted this bill to be much more onerous, to tie businesses down in more red tape, which would not have improved the revenue raised by the bill but would have cost dearly in terms of the productivity of our economy. We know the government wanted this bill to go further because their own explanatory materials, on page 9, refer to a third schedule. We know that at the last minute, amid extensive backlash, the government gutted this bill from what they'd proposed. They pulled out schedule 3 even though their reference to it remained in the explanatory materials. We welcome that change—it was the right change to make to the form that went to consultation—but we can't commend the government for the overreach in what was proposed to be in the bill. It's just another example of Labor's desire for overreach on tax, going further than was promised at the election and ignoring concerns of the community. I see the member opposite, the member for Lyons, shaking his head, but the truth is that this is beyond what was promised at the election, ignoring the concerns of the community. And it was pulled, in a shambolic way, because of a big backlash against an unworkable proposal. They've been ignoring the concerns they've heard and denying and spinning to avoid the problem. We saw this with franking credits. We've seen it with superannuation taxes. We saw it with the gas industry. We almost saw it here, but, happily, that schedule and those proposals were pulled. It's important to note that the coalition took extensive action over nine years in government to address multinational tax avoidance, and this is highlighted in the second reading amendment that I've moved. As 2014 G20 hosts, Australia played a leading role in the original OECD BEPS project, which was initiated in 2013 and delivered in 2015. We played a leadership role as an early and vigilant adopter of the OECD and G20 bas erosion and profit-shifting—that is, the BEPS—recommendations. These establish a multilateral approach to prevent tax avoidance and increase tax transparency for administrators. The sorts of measures that we pursued included introducing a diverted profits tax, which limits a company's ability to shift profits out of Australia; introducing the multinational tax avoidance law, which ensures companies do not avoid a taxable presence in Australia; strengthening the thin capitalisation rules; strengthening transfer pricing rules; doubling the penalties for tax avoidance; and establishing the ATO Tax Avoidance Taskforce. The task force, which was created in mid-2016, enforces existing laws and supports the government's new tax avoidance measures. It targets multinational enterprises, large public and private groups and wealthy individuals. From 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2021, the ATO raised $24.2 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations and privately owned and wealthy groups. This generated collections of $17.3 billion. Of the liabilities, $15.3 billion were raised against large public groups and multinationals. Our system is undermined when people or organisations avoid their tax obligations. We welcome the continuation of the OECD two-pillar solution to multinational tax avoidance, which was started by the coalition and continued by this government. But this legislation also highlights an important point, as I mentioned earlier, about Labor's broken promises on tax. Those opposite often seem to think that election promises are there to be broken. We've seen many broken. No Australian has seen a $275 reduction in their electricity bills. No Australian has seen the cheaper mortgages promised by those opposite. They promised only to increase taxes on multinationals before the last election, and they have clearly broken that promise. They're raising taxes on superannuation. We know that for young Australians around half will be caught by what is proposed through a sneaky tax. Their excuse is: 'It's okay. They won't pay it until later.' The nature of superannuation is that you don't get the money until later. Labor is taxing unrealised capital gains. Unrealised capital gains are just that—they are unrealised. So a small business that has unrealised capital gains will have to go and realise them. That means they have to sell their assets, and that means, whether it's a farmer or a small business with a piece of land that they operate on, they are going to have to sell that off. I've seen families in that position who are going to lose the assets that are the basis of their businesses. But they're not unionised businesses. They're not the kind of businesses that the Labor Party is particularly interested in. Labor is increasing taxes on franking credits, and they promised they wouldn't do this, but they're banking half a billion in taxes from Australian companies and retirees. Ultimately this is all paid by Australian investors. Labor has ended small business tax concessions and decimated the instant asset write-off, all but burying the technology investment boost and ending loss carry-back measures. These are all important measures to encourage investment by the small- to medium-sized enterprises that are the backbone of our economy—or were. I hate to think where this is all going for small- to medium-sized enterprises in this country, but the position is clearly grim. This is despite independent economist Chris Richardson predicting Labor will breach the coalition's tax-to-GDP cap in their first year in office. You don't beat a cost-of-living crisis—that's what Anthony Albanese called it, by the way, before the election. He doesn't call it that anymore. In fact, we've seen the Treasurer in the last week put out his wellbeing report, where he clearly ignored the mortgage stress that Australians are facing because he focused on the data on mortgage stress prior to 2021. He used data from three years ago. He came to the conclusion that there's no problem with mortgage stress because there wasn't. The problem is now, and he's burying that. He's trying to imagine that it isn't true. The truth of the matter is that higher taxes will not help a cost-of-living crisis. Higher taxes will not help the fact that in the last 12 months labour productivity has collapsed by 4.6 per cent. That has never happened before. Labor's broken promises on tax won't help with the cost of living or collapse in productivity, but what we are seeing is that Australians are paying six per cent more for everything they buy than they were a year ago. Core inflation, at 5.9 per cent, remains amongst the highest of the advanced economies in the world. Of course, that data just tells us what we know. We're seeing it every day on the ground: Australians are paying more for their mortgages, for their groceries, for their rent and for their energy bills. Australians are actually having to work more just to make ends meet, and we're seeing this in the data. They are working. They're taking on extra jobs. It means they can't pick up the kids after school, it means they can't go on holidays when they might have otherwise been able to and it means they don't get the family time they would otherwise want because that's the only way they are able to make ends meet. I see small businesspeople in particular who are dealing with these challenges, and the hours they're putting in are completely unsustainable—completely unsustainable. But when you're under this kind of pressure, this is the resilient nature of the people who go into small business in this country. Meanwhile, the extraordinary thing about this is that the economy is shuddering to a halt. Of course, this is the answer that Labor has come up with to inflation: you just stop the economy. You stop the economy! That's what has happened: GDP per capita has gone backwards in the last quarter—it's negative. I see the member opposite shaking his head— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 More than 400,000 new jobs! Mr TAYLOR 231027 GDP per capita has gone negative in the last quarter. Labour productivity has gone backwards: minus 4.6 per cent in the last year! It has never happened before, but he thinks it is funny! He thinks it's funny that Australians can't pay their bills. He thinks it's funny that Labor has broken its promise on bringing down energy prices by $275. He thinks it is funny that the Prime Minister promised cheaper mortgages, and no Australian is seeing cheaper mortgages. In fact, we read today that we're going to see, in the next three months, 150,000 Australian households going over the mortgage cliff. That's $95 billion, and the member opposite thinks it's funny. Is this what the Labor Party stands for? If that is true, it's very, very sad. Now, back to the important issues in this bill. The last-minute changes to this bill show that this Labor government does not know how to work with business, does not know how to manage the economy and is pursuing the wrong priorities. Changes to the multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make up for Labor's attack on aspirational Australians—those hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead and don't want to become the working poor. They don't want to become the working poor. The changes to multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make up for Labor's year of inaction on dealing with the issues it promised it was going to deal with. Australians deserve a government that doesn't think these issues are funny and that doesn't want to bury them in a wellbeing report that uses data from three years ago. Australians want a government that takes these issues seriously, doesn't make jokes about them and gets on with the job. That's what we want to see. We won't oppose this legislation, but do not apologise for holding this government to account on its broken promises on tax, on its failure to take action on productivity—in fact, allowing it to go into an unprecedented reversal on their watch—and on its failure to make aspirational Australians the centrepiece of its focus. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Pike 300120 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:58 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. The purpose of the legislation is to make multinationals pay their fair share of taxation. This was a commitment that the Albanese Labor government took to the 2022 election, and it's a commitment that the government is fulfilling with this legislation. The bill implements measures announced in the October 2022-23 budget and forms part of the government's Multinational Tax Integrity Package. Ensuring that multinational firms pay their fair level of taxation in Australia on profits made from Australian consumers is a principle of our government. This bill adopts the guidance of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to align debt deductions with economic activity—that is, earnings—and includes an Australian-specific approach for external debt in the form of a third-party debt test. There are two schedules to this bill. Schedule 1, entitled 'Multinational tax transparency—disclosure of subsidiaries', introduces new reporting requirements. Australian public companies, both listed and unlisted, will be required to disclose information on the number of subsidiaries and their country of tax domicile. This will hold companies accountable, particularly the larger corporate groups. The measure will require them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are utilising complex and opaque tax arrangements for the purpose of avoiding their tax obligations in Australia, such as through the use of subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions. This information will support more precise economic analysis and help inform whether tax laws are operating as intended in collecting the correct amount of revenue. Companies will disclose this information as part of their annual financial report, which will help reduce compliance burdens. The United Kingdom has a similar measure already in place. The measures contained in the bill are in line with international approaches. The new requirements are a step change to ensuring increased tax transparency and complement the ongoing work to implement a beneficial ownership register and public country-by-country reporting, on which the government is continuing to engage with stakeholders. The new requirements have an announced starting date of 1 July 2023. Schedule 2, entitled 'Thin capitalisation', introduces a number of changes and is a revenue-raising measure. The schedule introduces measures to strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules to address risks to the domestic tax base posed by profit-shifting techniques used by global firms to avoid paying a fair level of taxation in Australia. It targets a known tax-planning arrangement by limiting multinational enterprises' debt deductions. The measures will strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules by limiting an entity's debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits, using earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation, or EBITDA, as the measure of profit. This new earnings based test will replace the current safe harbour test. The measures will allow debt deductions denied under the entity level EBITDA test—that is, interest expense amounts exceeding the 30 per cent EBITDA ratio—to be carried forward and claimed in a subsequent income year for up to 15 years. This will provide more flexibility for smaller entities with earnings volatility. In addition to this, the measures will allow an entity in a worldwide group to claim debt related deductions up to the level of the group's net interest expense as a share of earnings, which may exceed the 30 per cent EBITDA ratio. This new group ratio will replace the existing worldwide gearing ratio. The bill retains an arm's length debt test, but only as a substitute test which will apply only to an entity's external, or third-party, debt, disallowing deductions for related party debt under this test. This is an Australian-specific test designed specifically for the infrastructure and property sectors to allow debt to be deducted with no earnings test. These sectors tend to be more heavily geared and, especially in the construction phase of a project, have minimal earnings. This test will address the criticism made by some that making multinationals pay their fair share of tax will harm investments of foreign capital in Australia or make it harder for Australian businesses to expand overseas. This is nonsense. The amendments are designed to support ongoing investment in Australia, particularly in the infrastructure and property sectors. They are also designed to minimise costs for stakeholders. As with schedule 1, these provisions have an announced starting date of 1 July 2023. There has been extensive consultation in relation to these measures. This included public consultation on the design of each schedule via a consultation paper in late 2022 and public consultation on exposure draft legislation in March and April of this year. The government has continued to engage industry stakeholders on a targeted basis with respect to schedule 2, specifically in respect of the property and infrastructure sectors. Furthermore, these policies are grounded in the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting, which commenced in 2013. Over 135 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating on the implementation of the measures to tackle tax avoidance, improve coherence of international tax rules and ensure a more transparent tax environment. The shift to an earnings based approach to debit deductions ensures that deductions are tied directly to a firm's economic activity. Most OECD countries—including the United Kingdom and United States, and many of the European Union—have already implemented this form of earnings based interest limitation rules. This bill will bring Australia into line with these other jurisdictions. Given the global momentum towards ensuring multinational firms pay an appropriate level of taxation, it is clearly in the public interest for the legislation to be implemented. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and amid growing multinational profits, failing to take action is, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, utterly unconscionable. Companies like Google, Facebook and Apple make a substantial level of profit from Australian consumers. They also should contribute a fair share of tax. Australian workers and taxpayers are paying their fair share, especially those I represent in Werriwa. Global firms must also be compelled to pay their fair share. When large multinational companies devise strategies to minimise and avoid their tax obligations in Australia they leave less money to be spent on important services that the government provides. Multinationals avoiding paying tax leaves less to be spent on Medicare, continued subsidies for medicines, social security payments and other forms of assistance that many Australians need to rely upon. This legislation will also level the playing field for Australian businesses, particularly small businesses. It will also increase the transparency of firms' tax obligations. I commend the bill to the House. 19:07 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney In the explanatory memorandum that accompanies this bill, the minister says, 'Transparency is a key factor underpinning the integrity of the tax system.' On this observation, I could not agree more. However, the reality of this legislation is that it barely touches the tip of the iceberg when it comes to bringing that transparency to be, and we remain left waiting to see real, substantive improvements in the ways in which multinational companies are being held to account for their income and expenses in our market. The measures contained in the bill, as currently drafted, do two things: (1) they require public companies to disclose information on the number of subsidiaries and their country of tax domicile; (2) they strengthen the thin capitalisation rules to limit multinational debt deductions in Australia. While I'm supportive of both of these measures—after all, they are important, long overdue elements of increasing tax transparency and integrity—alone, they do not go anywhere near far enough. Indulge me on a short, potted history of these reforms. In the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, the Labor Party announced a multinational tax integrity package to address tax-avoidance practices of multinational enterprises and improve transparency through better public reporting of tax information. The election commitment included public reporting of tax information on a country-by-country basis, requiring large multinationals to publicly disclose how much tax they pay and how many workers they employ in each jurisdiction in which the enterprise operates. In the recent budget, the government reiterated its intention to implement public country-by-country reporting—a commitment they then repeated when the exposure draft of this legislation was released earlier this year. And, yet, the bill we have before us today does not contain measures to implement public country-by-country reporting. It appears now that the implementation of that policy has been pushed back at least a year. What we have before us, in this bill, is what I sincerely hope is the tasting plate or the entree, rather than the total meal. If this is as far as this government is prepared to go, as Australians seeking reform, we are going to be left wanting much, much more. So what is country-by-country reporting and why is it so urgently needed? Public country-by-country reporting is an accounting practice that requires companies to publish how much profit and cost they incur in each of the countries they operate in, instead of publishing all of the profits and costs they incur around the world as a grouped sum amount. The introduction of country-by-country reporting here in our economy would require large multinationals operating in Australia to report key information about basic finances, such as earnings, profits, losses, the number of staff and taxes paid or not paid, for every country where they operate. By requiring companies to detail how much profit they're making in each country they operate in, we increase transparency. This is important because, where there is transparency, it makes it possible to spot companies shifting profits out of countries where they do business and into tax havens so they can pay less tax than they should. Country-by-country reporting doesn't just expose profit shifting; it actually deters it, too. Since 2014, a huge number of documents, including those from the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers scandals, have been leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, unveiling how tax evasion and avoidance have become standard business practice right across the globe. The Tax Justice Network estimates that at least one in every four tax dollars lost by the world to multinational corporations using tax havens can be prevented by requiring multinational corporations to publish their country-by-country reporting data. If available, country-by-country reporting data would give us a clear line of sight not only of the scale of a company's activities in our market but also of the company's profits declared and tax paid in each jurisdiction where they operate. Making the data transparent allows public scrutiny of profit shifting and has been shown to raise the effective tax rates paid, even without additional policy changes. In this context, then, none of us should be surprised that the OECD has called for this level of reporting to be adopted internationally. Why wouldn't we heed those calls here in Australia when you consider that the annual tax transparency report released earlier this year by the Australian Taxation Office revealed that over 30 per cent of the nearly 2½ thousand large and medium corporate entities operating here in Australia paid no tax at all here in the last financial year? They paid no tax at all. An industry breakdown showed that half of the mining, energy and water companies, like Adani Mining, ExxonMobil Australia and Santos, paid no income tax in the financial year of 2020-21. Shockingly, despite having a total income of $9.1 billion and a taxable income of $113 million, Chevron paid just $30 in income tax in Australia, according to the report. When you bring that right back to what it means daily in economies right around the world, it can be argued that this sort of behaviour—tax evasion and avoidance—is fuelling poverty and denying nations, including our own, their capacity to achieve their ultimate goals. There are 11 more billionaires in Australia now than before the COVID-19 crisis. With extreme wealth and extreme poverty on the rise, our government needs to identify and collect tax where it is fairly due. The United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, representing investors with $89 trillion worth of assets under management, states that tax avoidance is the key driver of inequality, which is associated with poor long-term business and social performance. By increasing transparency over what profits are made and what taxes are paid by global corporations in every country in which they operate, we could hold big corporations to account and ensure they pay their fair share of tax to lift people out of poverty. According to recent academic research, Australia lost an estimated 14 per cent of its corporate income tax to multinational companies' use of tax havens in 2019. That represents a loss of over US$9 billion. If country-by-country reporting could help us recapture this lost revenue, our government would have more than enough money to do any one of a number of things that it is seeking to do, including meeting the needs of our childcare educators, teachers, nurses and aged-care workers or working with communities right across Australia to electrify everything. Importantly, by ensuring that those who should pay do just that, we could shift the burden away from individual taxpayers, who in this year's budget alone accounted for 48 per cent of our total revenue. This overreliance on personal income tax is unsustainable, especially as the number of workers per retiree is rapidly decreasing. In this context, I call on the government to lead us through a process of comprehensive tax reform to reduce reliance on personal active income and review opportunities that are fairer to future generations by looking at how significant passive income is taxed. Corporate tax transparency is just one reform. Globally, companies and governments will be under increasing pressure to respond to demands for transparency. Large financial sector firms in the European Union have been required to disclose public country-by-country information for nearly a decade. Recently investors advanced shareholder resolutions calling on Amazon, Microsoft and Cisco to begin publishing tax and operational data on a country-by-country basis, garnering the support of independent shareholders collectively and representing hundreds of billions of dollars. To address briefly what I suspect may be some of the objections of some multinational enterprises to country-by-country reporting, I'd like to note that the potentially in-scope companies here in Australia have in many instances been reporting similar data, albeit confidentially, to the tax authorities in the OECD, and many are preparing to comply with the EU public country-by-country reporting directive. I'm convinced, therefore, that these experiences to date in other jurisdictions demonstrate that country-by-country reporting can be done without revealing commercially sensitive information and without a negative impact on competition. It's hard to see the detrimental effect of increased transparency, and in fact country-by-country reporting would level the playing field for companies operating in Australia. It seems completely counterintuitive, but the reality is that here in Australia multinational companies that are domiciled elsewhere are not held to the same level of account as Australian companies. In this way, incredibly ironically, we are stacking the cards against Australian listed companies, who pay the corporate tax rate of 30 per cent while their direct competitors operating in Australia but domiciled elsewhere are not. Public country-by-country reporting would create a fairer and more competitive environment for Australian businesses by removing a competitive disadvantage for local businesses who are doing the right thing while also closing a loophole for foreign companies. Ultimately, most businesses that don't create complex corporate structures to shift profits to tax havens and avoid domestic obligations are losing out. These are the good guys. The good guys are being left high and dry whilst they're doing the right thing. The revenue base of Australian taxpayers is deliberately and systematically gamed. I call on the government, then, to stand bravely by its pre-election promises and its legislated budget measures and introduce public country-by-country reporting. To do anything less than that would be to fail to live up to the expectations of those who have sent this government to lead in this time. It is time to deliver true corporate tax transparency so that community trust in the tax system can be restored. Thank you. 19:17 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The Albanese government, during the 2022 election campaign, made a strong commitment to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. This pledge is founded upon the principles of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting initiated in 2013. As part of this collaborative effort, more than 135 countries and jurisdictions are working together to tackle tax avoidance, enhance international tax rules coherence, and foster a more transparent tax environment. The first schedule of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 focuses on improving multinational tax transparency by introducing new reporting requirements for Australian public companies, both listed and unlisted. This mandate will require disclosure of crucial information, including the number of subsidiaries a company possesses and their country of tax domicile. This measure is a vital step towards holding corporations accountable, particularly larger corporate groups, by compelling them to be transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are employing opaque tax arrangements such as utilising subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions. In short, we are demanding, on behalf of Australian taxpayers, signposts through the legal mazes these corporations have built. By doing so we aim to make better-informed economic analysis and ensure that as a government we can collect the right amount—the fair amount—of revenue. This information will be disclosed as part of the company's annual financial reports, thereby reducing compliance burdens. Similar approaches have already been implemented successfully in other countries, such as the UK. The implementation of schedule 1 represents a significant stride towards increasing the accountability of Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, with regard to their subsidiaries and tax domicile. By mandating the disclosure of this information, we are empowering the public, investors and regulatory authorities to gain a clearer understanding of corporate structures and tax arrangements. Transparent corporate structures are essential for fostering both public and investor confidence and ensuring that companies are operating in a fair and responsible manner. By revealing subsidiary information, we can identify potential tax avoidance or profit shifting, bolstering our ability to collect the right and fair amount of revenue. This increased transparency will enable better economic analysis, and that helps us make better informed decisions regarding policies and improving the coherence of international tax rules. This measure reduces compliance burdens for companies as it is aligned with international best practices. Countries like the UK have already adopted similar measures, showcasing their effectiveness and practicality in promoting corporate transparency. This schedule is the result of extensive stakeholder consultations conducted in August 2022 and April 2023. It reflects the inputs and concerns of various entities, ensuring a more balanced approach to addressing tax transparency issues. In conjunction with other initiatives, such as the beneficial ownership register and public country-by-country reporting, this measure demonstrates our commitment to enhancing tax transparency and combatting tax evasion. Schedule 2 provides a critical measure designed to strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules and address potential risks to the domestic tax base arising from the use of debt deductions as a base erosion or profit-shifting technique. The approach taken aligns with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidance—now run by that well-known socialist Mathias Cormann—which advocates for debt deductions to be linked to economic activity. This is achieved through the implementation of entity-level earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation or an EBITDA test limiting debt related reductions to 30 per cent of profits. This new earnings based test replaces the existing safe harbour test. In recognition of the unique characteristics of certain industries, such as the infrastructure and property sectors, an Australian-specific approach has been developed. The third-party debt test allows entities in these sectors to claim debt related deductions without an earnings test, providing them with more flexibility during the construction phase of projects where earnings may be minimal. To maintain fairness and align with international efforts, the proposed thin capitalisation amendments will bring Australia in line with many OECD countries that have already implemented earnings based interest-limitation rules. Such rules have been adopted by the UK, the US and most of the EU. Schedule 2 constitutes a crucial measure designed to address tax planning practices, utilised by multinational enterprises through excessive debt deductions. By limiting MNEs' debt deductions and aligning them with economic activity, we aim to ensure these corporations contribute their fair share of taxes and level the playing field for Australian businesses. The entity-level EBITDA test, capping debt related deductions at 30 per cent of products, is a robust approach to curbing base erosion and profit-shifting techniques. By basing deductions on earnings, we prevent MNEs from manipulating their debt levels to minimise tax obligations. This alignment with OECD guidance and international best practices reinforces Australia's commitment to global efforts in addressing tax integrity risks. Furthermore, the measure allows for any debt deduction denied under the EBITDA test to be carried forward and claimed in subsequent income years, up to 15 years. This provision provides flexibility for smaller entities facing earnings volatility, ensuring they can maintain a stable financial position whilst still adhering to the debt deduction limits. In addition to the entity-level test, an Australian-specific approach for external debt, known as the third-party debt test, has been developed to support ongoing investment, particularly in the infrastructure and property sectors. By allowing entities in these sectors to claim debt related deductions without an earnings test, we aim to promote investment and development in projects that contribute to Australia's economic growth. It's important to note that this measure does not apply to financial entities and authorised deposit-taking institutions. We have taken into consideration the unique nature of these entities and their relevance to the broader financial system, aligning Australia with global efforts of most OECD countries, including the UK, US and EU, which have already implemented earnings based interest limitation rules. By adopting similar rules, we are harmonising our tax system with international standards and reinforcing our commitment to combating tax avoidance practices globally. While we acknowledge that some sectors such as infrastructure and property have sought exemptions from these changes, it is essential to address potential base erosion risks across all sectors to maintain the integrity of our tax system. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about ensuring Australian workers don't bear an unfair tax burden. We are happy for multinationals to operate in Australia and make stonking profits, but we want them paying their fair share of tax and not manufacturing legal labyrinths to escape those obligations. United States Senator and former presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has a terrific quote that I'd like to read. She said of the US: There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory … Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. I think that's a terrific quote that really comes to the heart of what a fair taxation system is all about. What Senator Warren is saying is simple: you have a right to build your empire, and we support the entrepreneurship, the innovation and the drive that people have when they want to build their businesses. No-one wants to take that away. But, when you utilise public roads and transport goods to market, police services to provide protection and security to the town you are based in, and doctors and nurses when you need medical attention, you too should pay your fair share of tax because your fair share of tax helps build the infrastructure and the social fabric that enables that wealth creation in the first place. Australia is the land of opportunity, and you have the right to make your money, but we need to make sure Australia remains the land of opportunity for this generation and generations to come. That's why we need a fairer tax system, and that's what this bill will ensure. The Australian government understands the importance of foreign capital and investment in stimulating economic growth. These measures are essential to ensuring companies operate on a level playing field. A transparent and equitable tax system ultimately fosters investor confidence in Australia's economic stability and contributes to long-term, sustainable growth that benefits us all. Stakeholder consultation has been integral to the development of these legislative proposals. I won't pretend there's no opposition to this; of course there are some multinationals out there that would like to hold on to every dollar they are currently making and don't want to pay more tax. I get it. But we're here to create a fairer tax system for all. The Australian government has engaged with various entities in multiple rounds of discussions and considered feedback to shape the final legislation. While complex changes require careful consideration, we believe the introduced measures strike the right balance between transparency and practicality. The global 15 per cent minimum tax is a significant step towards curbing tax avoidance. Our measures align with these global efforts and strengthen our commitment to promoting fair and transparent tax practices worldwide. By actively participating in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, we contribute to the progress towards a more equitable international tax environment. The loopholes are closing for companies that try to evade their obligations. These legislative proposals before the House are both a fulfilment of the Labor government's election commitment and a fundamental step towards fostering a fairer and more equitable tax system. Schedule 1 enhances multinational tax transparency while schedule 2 strengthens Australia's thin capitalisation rules. By working within the framework of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework we are aligning our efforts with more than 135 countries and jurisdictions to address tax avoidance and promote a transparent tax environment. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 78 19:30 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi As we approach the referendum on the Voice to Parliament set for later this year I feel a sense of hope in the community that we're about to make a momentous and historic change with a positive impact to be felt for years to come. There is also a sense of curiosity—what I call generous curiosity—from many who want to know more about the Voice to Parliament, where it has come from and what it will mean in practice. It's important to me as an Independent member of this place that I assist people who want to go on that journey of learning, of understanding and of walking towards a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. It is incumbent on us as politicians right across this House to listen carefully to the concerns of our community. Certainly throughout my term as the member for Indi I have had many conversations with constituents about our unique position as a nation with the longest continuous culture in the world. I've met many members of the stolen generations and I've heard their stories and their journey towards reconciliation. I've spent time visiting incredible First Nations local businesses, such as TVN On-Country construction in Wodonga where I see fabulous young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women achieving their potential under the mentorship of local leaders. As I move around my electorate I have many conversations about the forthcoming referendum. I'm curious about what people have to say and I'm keen to discuss their questions and provide factual information to help them come to a decision about how to vote, confident that they're fully informed and understand what is truly at stake. That's why it was a real privilege to welcome the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, and campaign director for the Yes23 campaign, Dean Parkin, to Indi for our community forum on the Voice to Parliament this time last Tuesday. The Cube Wodonga, the biggest theatre venue in Indi, was packed to the rafters. More than 400 people braved the cold north-east winter to come and hear about what this historic change would mean for our nation. Hundreds more tuned in online from the comfort of their homes, with technology meaning that they too were able to submit questions and be involved in the whole event. In total there were close to 1,000 people across my electorate participating. With open minds and open hearts people came to learn more about the Voice to Parliament, and learn we did. We were warmly welcomed to country by Dhudhuroa man Derek Murray, who paid tribute to his elders and to elders across the country in his thoughtful and considered address. Minister Burney and Dean Parkin laid out how the Voice will work, busted myths and rallied us to action. Many people in attendance were in support of the Voice, but there were others too—many who were undecided and some who said that they were likely to vote no. At the end of the night though some of those people said that this event had changed their views or they committed to finding out more. I think this is a really good result. We should embrace when people change their mind as they continue to learn and be more informed and not get stuck in one camp or another. I'm particularly grateful to Dean Parkin for also conducting a yarning circle at Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation in Wodonga. Together with John Martin, he created a safe space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to ask questions about the Voice to Parliament. All views were accommodated and discussed thoughtfully and respectfully. There were many different views about the Voice in that room, from elders, young people and many more. It was a terrific conversation. I'm absolutely grateful to every one of those people who shared their views and for trusting us in that circle with their honesty. I believe the Voice to Parliament will have a practical impact on the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I believe that because I've seen the results when people are consulted and listened to when it comes to developing and implementing policies that affect their lives. In my electorate of Indi, we are living our strong principles of community participation and decision-making—active grassroots democracy. And this is what motivates me in this conversation about the Voice to Parliament. When people are able to have their say about what legislation and policy proposals will mean to them, there's a greater sense of empowerment that forms and a recognition of solidarity with others in the community. Having said that, a crucial part of people having their say is there being people ready to listen and open to listening. As elected representatives, we must show that we are willing to listen to the Voice, even when it tells us things that are hard to hear. I am confident that changing our Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the Voice is the right thing to do. (Time expired) Aston Electorate, Albanese Government 79 19:35 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I rise to speak on my experience as the new member for Aston, the first woman to hold the seat and the second Labor representative for the seat, and to speak to the concerns and experiences of my constituents. Since taking office, I have received much support from the community, praising the good governance of the Albanese Labor government, which has committed time and resources to listening to and improving the lives of Australians with initiatives like the energy relief plan, where the Albanese government has partnered with state and territory governments to provide up to $3 billion in electricity bill relief for eligible households and small businesses, and initiatives like cheaper childcare. Over 5,700 families in Aston alone will benefit from these Albanese government initiatives. Our government is doing all this whilst ensuring that the previous government is held accountable for its actions and, indeed, inactions. Many in my electorate have commented on how glad they are to have a member of whom they can be proud—a person who shares their values; a person who has experienced the highs and lows of life; someone they can relate to a bit more. But they also have concerns. Those in the community I represent, like those of many other MPs, have had to deal with the fallout from the policy direction that the former Liberal government took. The Albanese Labor government is doing better because it governs with the principles of social justice, fairness and equality. We are playing catch-up on a lost decade of opportunities, with a system that was barely holding itself together—worse off than we could have imagined. The robodebt disaster has had far-reaching effects on my constituents. The previous member for Aston was one of several former ministers responsible for the implementation of this antisocial, unapologetic policy that lacked empathy and basic human decency at every level. It left frontline workers to pick up the pieces of what was a complete and utter mess. It left people in the saddest, most desperate position ever, feeling they had no way out and no option but to take their own lives. Their families and loved ones were left hurting, forever changed. And this is the legacy those former ministers leave. The NDIS is one of the many policies that Labor brought in and has tirelessly worked towards making right for the people of Australia. Its vision—to provide support to all Australians who need assistance—is one that is deeply important to me. Tilly Aston, who my electorate is named after, was a tireless advocate for vision-impaired people. In her day, the NDIS would have been a pipedream, no doubt. But it could never have been built without people like her. People like Tilly are why the federal Labor government is committed to delivering better outcomes for all Australians. Public housing is also dear to my heart, and, like our prime minister, I also had that experience growing up. That is why it is so crucial that we pass the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill and related housing bills in the lower house next week, which will make it easier to support those who are vulnerable and in need of social housing. How can you build a future when you don't have a roof over your head? We are not going to give up on this bill, and we're not giving up on Australians who need and deserve the security of having a place to call home. Forde Electorate: Community Groups 79 19:39 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As we go around our electorates we see a great many community groups that do tremendous work. Over the break I had the opportunity to catch up with a number of those great community groups. Sadly, one of those groups that has done so much good work over the last 10 or so decided to close their doors as of 30 June. The group I am talking about is the Logan House Fire Support Network, led by the charity's founder, Louie Naumovski. They have said that their announcement to close has been forced by escalating difficulties in dealing with the Queensland state Labor government and also the policies within Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. One of their greatest achievements was when Logan House Fire Support Network lobbied the Queensland government to mandate photoelectric smoke alarms, successfully doing so in 2016. I believe that we are a safer community as a result of this. Logan House Fire Support Network also created the Woodridge Santa Run, which is on Christmas Day every year. Fire, police, ambulance and emergency vehicles would drive through the streets of Logan handing out lollies, toys and presents to those who could not afford them. I hope that somebody else takes up this mantle. Our local community is richer, more knowledgeable and safer for having Logan House Fire Support Network as part of our local community. I would like to thank Louie and Christine for their efforts since the charity started back in 2014. I will also add that, in addition to the tremendous work they've done in this space, they have also done an enormous amount of work in the community in helping out in flood recovery. Another great community institution in the electorate of Forde and the city of Logan is Joncia Gardens, which is a terrific and breathtaking garden wedding venue. But the sad news is that the Queensland state government has advised John and Marcia Rivett that they are going to resume their land to build a new high school. This is despite the state government having land down the road on Park Ridge Road that could be used for exactly the same thing. When I visited John and Marcia, John admitted that rebuilding the gardens and the venue would be impossible. So, sadly they have accepted their fate with heavy hearts. I believe the resumption process is now underway and both John and Marcia have been able to find a new home, but it will not be the same and our community will be the poorer for the loss of Joncia Gardens. On a positive note, Coles Loganholme have done a tremendous job in raising money this year for the Big Freeze, raising a total of $9,308 for motor neurone disease. Due to the generosity of their staff and their customers, they were able to raise these funds and support the wonderful research to fight MND, which we know is a disease that has no treatment. The Big Freeze involves sitting in an ice bath or holding an ice bucket for the challenge to raise awareness, and I know that has an enormous amount of community support. Finally, I want to thank the team at Red Cross Beenleigh. I had the opportunity to catch up with them again last week and spend some time with Barbara and her team to look at the valuable services they provide right across our community of Beenleigh and also across the Forde community and into other parts of the city of Logan and even down into the Scenic Rim and into the Northern Gold Coast. Red Cross offers affordable and reliable mobility aids and equipment for short-term hire at very reasonable prices. This includes commode chairs, bed tables, mobile showers, over-toilet frames, shower chairs, walkers, walking sticks and wheelchairs. The Beenleigh branch of the Australian Red Cross are also in need of more volunteers, so if people could spend some time to come down and help Barbara and her team, they are located in the Beenleigh Showgrounds at gate 3 and they can be contacted directly on 38074085. All of these community organisation groups have made a tremendous contribution to our community. I wish the continuing ones every success, and to those who have finished: thank you for your service. Macarthur Electorate: Infrastructure 80 19:45 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I've often said in this House that I'm very proud to represent the largest electorate in the nation by the number of enrolled residents, with over 140,000 people calling Macarthur home. These are not small numbers, and they only continue to grow as a south-western Sydney continues to be developed and developed and developed. Overdevelopment is severely affecting our region. It is having a major impact on the quality of life and the quality of services and infrastructure that current and future residents rely upon. For example, Oran Park experienced a nearly 16 per cent increase in its population between 2021 and 2022, with over 20,000 people currently living there. Going back to the 2016 census, we can see that approximately 4,700 people resided in Oran Park at that time. So there has been a massive increase in population, all of which was understood to be happening and planning authorities knew how many housing blocks were being sold. They should have prepared for the population growth—they didn't. I want to reiterate that I have no issue with new suburbs being built. Housing shortages are a real concern, as we all know. Rather, the concern that many of the residents of Macarthur and I have, including those in Oran Park, is the lack of infrastructure and public services to accommodate the various health, educational, economic, policing, environmental and other needs of these communities. The lack of green space in newer suburbs is a major concern, and, for many individuals and families, a simple grass park surrounded by homes with very few trees and one or two barbecues that don't work doesn't quite cut it. Residents are beginning to realise that perhaps the services and infrastructure that were promised, or that one would assume would be built, may not come at all. An example of this was when local families started their own action group to have schools built in the newer suburbs of Gregory Hills and Gledswood Hills as they realised government was failing them and their children. These suburbs, located near Oran Park, had a combined population of 7,000 in 2017. By the end of 2022, the population had grown to almost 20,000. By mid-2022, Gledswood Hills Public School had hit double its enrolment capacity, and countless demountable classrooms were being dumped on this site. On top of that, due to poorly designed roadways and traffic management problems, many families and carers, as well as bus drivers, experience hazardous driving conditions during drop-off and pick-up times at our local schools because there's no room for parking. This is in an area that has virtually no public transport. This is an experience shared by parents in Oran Park, which has a very dangerous pick-up and drop-off zone with over 40 demountable classrooms and no deployable, usable playing fields. Unfortunately, previous governments did not seem to recognise this issue. Our local group, known as the Gledswood Hills/Gregory Hills Needs A High School action group, has over a thousand social media members and strongly advocates for building schools in its suburbs on appropriate footprints, which isn't happening. I'm very proud of these local mums, dads and carers for advocating hard for the Macarthur region, but governments have ignored them. Governments have ignored the needs of Appin Road, which is a very dangerous road, with over 20 deaths in the last couple of decades. It is getting busier and busier, with large trucks coming from Wollongong, but there has been no action to improve that. A massive suburb is being developed in an area just to the south of Appin by the Walker Corporation with no infrastructure. It was developed with no infrastructure plan. Only now, after the approval of the development, are they thinking about what infrastructure can be put in. Developers have shown themselves not to be trusted. Since 2016, when I was elected, there has been no movement on appropriate infrastructure. A rail link to Western Sydney Airport from Leppington in Macarthur has been denied, despite it being vital to the success and accessibility of that airport to my electorate and particularly the newer suburbs. Unfortunately, most of our calls, even since I've been elected, have fallen on deaf ears. I am very frustrated by the lack of action, and for this reason I am calling for a royal commission in New South Wales into planning and development, particularly in the newer growth areas, because I think there has been too little political action to provide adequate infrastructure and that too much has been given to developers to do what they want. Child Care 81 19:50 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Childcare services play a crucial role in enabling parents to work, to support their families and to actively contribute to society. In many ways, affordable, high-quality child care forms the cornerstone of economic prosperity and social and emotional wellbeing. However, despite the government's claim that Australian families are better off under their childcare scheme, it's disappointing to see that so many Bonner families are still hurting when it comes to paying childcare fees. A perfect example of these families is the story of Julie; her husband, Trent; and their two children. Like many, Julie moved from the UK to Australia in search of a better life. Chasing the Aussie dream, Julie and her husband have dedicated their lives to building a better future for their family. Both working parents, Julie and Trent have relished in the opportunity to work hard, get ahead, improve their lifestyle and achieve a sense of financial security whilst raising their two children. For many years their efforts were rewarded, and they managed to avoid relying on government assistance and took pride in their self-sufficiency and hard work paying off. Despite their efforts, Julie recently reached out to me concerned over the cost-of-living crisis. Increased interest rates, higher electricity prices and higher taxes have put significant financial pressure on Julie and her family. In their pursuit of financial relief, Julie and Trent turned to the government's childcare subsidy scheme. This scheme was promised to increase their disposable income and provide much-needed financial support during these challenging times. However, this has not been case. Despite the subsidy, their childcare centre increased fees not once but twice this year, by an additional $22 per day per child. This has meant that they are in fact worse off, in Julie's own words, and their savings are non-existent. The reason the centre increased fees to this extent was due to inflation and the government's wage rise. We all value the hard work and professionalism of childcare workers—especially in identifying early learning difficulties, as this early intervention can change the course of a young person's life—and of course childcare workers need to be paid fairly, but there is a delicate balance that needs to be achieved. Raising wages does not automatically mean Australians are better off. In fact, it can drive up the cost of living for them and others. So, instead of Julie and Trent choosing to have their son attend child care an extra day a week so Julie could work and earn more money for the family, they have decided it was cheaper and better for Julie to stay at home with their son. Their story is not an isolated one; it represents the struggles faced by many families in Bonner and across Australia who find themselves falling into a cycle of financial stress despite their best efforts to secure a brighter future for their children. This is simply not good enough. The government's measures, even though they were implemented with the best of intentions, are clearly leaving everyday middle Australians behind. We were once known the world over as the country of hard work, reward and opportunity. But, as Julie said, it feels as though, no matter how hard you work, there is no benefit, there are no savings, there is no getting ahead and there is no reward. We cannot leave hard-working Australians behind. Parliamentary Friends of the Republic of North Macedonia, Parliamentary Friends of Sri Lanka 82 19:54 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Among my favourite roles, besides being the member for Holt, is serving as the chair of the parliamentary friends groups for North Macedonia and Sri Lanka. They are both an honour and responsibility that I carry with pride and conviction. Many of us here serve as chairs, co-chairs and vice-chairs of country and non-country parliamentary friendship groups, and I am sure many of you agree that, outside of the crucial policy work we do, parliamentary friendship groups offer an avenue to express our long-term interest and fondness for certain countries and cultures. Country parliamentary friendship groups act as bridges that connect nations, cultures and people. Over the past few weeks I had the privilege of visiting the vibrant lands of North Macedonia and Sri Lanka and engaging with the parliamentary friendship groups for Australia in their parliaments. I was pleased by the warm and welcoming nature of the President of the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia, Talat Xhaferi, and the chair of the parliamentary group for cooperation with the parliament of Australia, Zoran Kocevski, during my visit. What particularly struck me was the distinct harmony that prevails in the light of the confluence of cultures that the nation embodies. This country, rich in its historical tapestry, demonstrated to me that our shared humanity could indeed overcome boundaries, whether geographic, linguistic or cultural. I experienced the resilience and courage of the Macedonian people, their profound spirit of hospitality and the vitality of their customs and traditions. The commitment of the North Macedonian parliament and the Macedonian people to their democratic values, regional stability and economic growth is commendable. It is a testament to their resilience and their dedication to progress—overcoming the complexities of their past, looking towards a future when they will no doubt play an instrumental role. My journey then continued to the pearl of the Indian Ocean and the country of my birth, Sri Lanka. My visit included a meeting and a tour of the Parliament of Sri Lanka with the Speaker, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, a lunch with the Australia-Sri Lanka Parliamentary Friendship Group, and a meeting with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Tharaka Balasuriya. Besides these engagements, the most treasured part of my time there was the opportunity to address the students of the Holy Family Convent Bambalapitiya—my old school. The opportunity to meet and interact with the youth of Sri Lanka, who are filled with ambition, drive and an inspiring vision for their future, was a heartwarming experience. They are the flag-bearers of the nation's development and a testimony to its vibrant potential. Both North Macedonia and Sri Lanka are nations where the past and the present beautifully intersect, offering lessons and aspirations for the future. As chair of the parliamentary friendship groups of these two nations, my aim is to foster stronger ties and facilitate greater understanding and cooperation. There is so much that we can learn from each other, so much that we can achieve together. The lessons I can bring back with me today—the stories of resilience and strength, the spirit of unity in diversity, and the ambition for a brighter future—will resonate in the corridors of our parliament. My visit has reinforced my belief in the power of dialogue, diplomacy and mutual respect. As nations we are more similar than we are different. Our common aspirations for peace, prosperity and mutual respect bind us together more than our diversity sets us apart. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the people of North Macedonia and Sri Lanka, particularly the speakers of the respective parliaments and the chairs of their parliamentary friendship groups, for their warmth and hospitality. It is my sincere hope that the ties between our nations will only strengthen in years to come, and that the friendships we have forged will continue to thrive. Let us cherish these bonds and nurture them. Most importantly, let us build upon them for the prosperity of our nations and for the betterment of our shared global community. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 82 NOTICES Presentation 82

Tuesday, 1 August 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 15:59.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 86 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Climate Change 86 16:00 Mr 300121 Griffith CHANDLER-MATHER () (): Last month was the planet's hottest month in recorded history. Wildfires have devastated Greece, Tunisia, Italy and Algeria. Antarctica is missing a Western Australia sized amount of sea ice, reaching the lowest levels at this time of year since records began. The heat waves in Europe have smashed crop yields. Sea temperatures around the world are soaring, threatening the collapse of ocean ecosystems. Australia is facing down the barrel of another season of devastating bushfires and heatwaves. This is global warming, and the Labor government knows what the major cause is: the burning of coal, oil and gas. But it appears that Labor doesn't care. Instead, Labor is proactively choosing the profits of the multinational coal, oil and gas corporations over the interests and the future of almost every Australian. I say 'almost every Australian' because, of course, the CEOs of Santos or Woodside get a pretty good deal out of this. Let's break this down. Labor claim to believe in the science. Well, the science says you need to stop new coal and gas projects right now. The International Energy Agency, UN Secretary-General and IPCC have all been very clear on this fact. In fact, if we want any chance of limiting global warming to below even two degrees, we can't open up a single new coal and gas project. Australia has a big role to play here. We're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world, and Labor plan to expand Australia's fossil fuel exports every year and use public money to do it. You might hear them talk about their 43 per cent domestic emissions target and the safeguard mechanism. Frankly, that is utterly meaningless if Labor continue to accelerate the digging up and burning of coal, oil and gas. To put this all in perspective: taking just the 116 new coal, oil and gas projects in the approval pipeline, if they were all approved, 1.4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases would be released in the atmosphere annually, compared to Australia's domestic emissions of 490 million tonnes last year. In other words, just the new coal, oil and gas projects will release three times Australia's entire domestic emissions every single year, and that's before you get to Australia's existing coal, oil and gas projects. And yet Labor has approved three new coal projects in the last few months alone. The resource minister, when asked about this, said she was happy to support Australia's export of coal and gas indefinitely as long as the market wanted it. Not only that; they're handing over $1.5 billion in public money for the Middle Arm project, which expands oil and gas production. They're writing gas taxes with gas execs in the room, and as a result we will see them raise more money indexing student debt than they will from this gas tax that the gas corporations now support. Labor will run the defence for the fossil fuel industry by making solutions for climate change sound complicated, but it's simple enough: stop opening new coal, oil and gas projects. If you continue you to do so, you will accelerate a climate crisis that it is abundantly clear is getting worse right now. (Time expired) Barton Electorate: Community Services 86 16:03 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton July was my seventh anniversary as the member for Barton in this place, and every day representing the people of Barton has been a privilege. Last week I met Elise, a nine-year-old student in my electorate, her mother and her older sister, Tiffiny. Elise has just begun treatment for a rare disease. I was floored by her bravery. Despite the effects of treatment, Elise's school principal says, she does her schoolwork every day. She is getting on in a charming and smart way. I would like to recognise the support of her teachers, principal and all the school staff for Elise and her family. This is an example of a community rallying around a family in need, something I see every day in my electorate: the spirit of caring for community. The constituents of Barton are also actively involved in volunteering their time and skills to care for the local community. They have the backing of significant government investment: $10 million to plant trees along the riverbanks of the Cooks River thanks to the minister, who is in the chamber today. This work will be delivered by the Cooks River Alliance, in partnership with Indigenous rangers. The alliance is a partnership of Sydney Water and local council organisations and residents along the Cooks River catchment. I thank everyone involved in this work, especially the hardworking volunteers. Another recent highlight was the Understanding the Voice forum. I was so proud of my community. They came out in their hundreds to spend a Saturday morning at Rockdale Town Hall to learn about the referendum. There was a huge level of engagement among the many culturally diverse groups and organisations. As minister, I travel this country—Tasmania, Arnhem Land and Cape York—and I will always take with me the spirit of Barton. It makes me very, very proud to be the member and see the bravery of people like Elise and the courage, curiosity and enthusiasm of people from Barton. Pharmacies 87 16:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Today is exactly one month to D-Day for pharmacies, the day, 1 September, when 60-day dispensing comes into effect. This is going to sound the death knell, chemists claim, of many of our rural, regional and, perhaps most disappointingly, remote pharmacies. A constituent of mine is Luke van der Rijt. He is a good man. He is a pharmacist. He co-owns Southcity Pharmacy as well as a pharmacy at Uranquinty, a village just south of Wagga Wagga. He told me this morning that the new rules for pharmacies would mean fewer jobs for his wonderful operations because he is going to have to cut the hours by—wait for it—20 hours a week. That's 20 hours a week less time for people in the southern suburbs of Wagga, around Glenfield Park, as well as potentially in Uranquinty later on, when he and his co-owners assess the situation of these new rules brought in by this government. Twelve hundred of the 4,000 pharmacies— Mr McCORMACK 219646 the health minister tells me it's 6,000, but let's just go with 'thousands of pharmacies'—across Australia are in the regions, and some are already planning to close or, as the pharmacist van der Rijt is doing, scale back because they can see, unfortunately, the writing on the wall. An independent report modelled the impact that 60-day dispensing would have on pharmacies, and the report found that as many as 20,818 jobs will go—that's more than 20,000 jobs—665 pharmacies will close and a further 900 community pharmacies will be placed under financial stress. This is simply not good enough. You don't have to take my word for it, though. You can listen to people like Luke van der Rijt, Michael O'Reilly or, indeed, Victor Vo in Ariah Park. Pharmacies say the doubling of dispensing times from 30 days to 60 days means some patients will get double the medicines they need while others will miss out, and in this day and age that is simply not acceptable. Trent Twomey was on Sky News today, and he's asked the Senate to tell the government to go back to the drawing board with its 60-day dispensing rules. He is imploring the government to do the right thing by our pharmacists, by our pharmacies and by those young people who are now undertaking education at university to be the pharmacists of the future. They need guarantees. They can't have this government doing what it's doing as far as the double dispensing is concerned, because it's bad policy, and bad policy is bad government. Maronite Community, Cooks River 87 16:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson This year the Maronite community of Australia will be celebrating their 50-year golden jubilee. In the 50 years since the establishment of the Maronite Eparchy of Australia in 1973, the Maronite community has continued to flourish, establishing schools, aged-care facilities and, importantly, their network of both churches and committee organisations right across the nation. There are numerous Maronite organisations in my own local area that form essential building blocks of the local community. Within these, I count Maronites on a Mission; the Monastery of Saint Charbel in Punchbowl, which includes both a primary and secondary college; and Saint Charbel's Care Centre, which has most recently benefited from $2 million in investment under the Albanese Labor government. But the very inception of that aged care centre was due to funding that was committed back in 2013, when we were last in government. When I reflect on the contribution made by these organisations and by the Maronite community across Australia, I'm reminded of unyielding generosity—not merely to fellow Maronites but to the community more broadly. I want to congratulate all the Maronites, both at the local area and around the country, on the 50-year anniversary. I particularly want to congratulate my friend Sayedna, His Excellency Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay, for his tireless leadership; and His Beatitude and Eminence, Mar Bechara Boutros, Cardinal RAI, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, who will travel to Australia next month to celebrate the milestone. While I'm on my feet, I also want to acknowledge a great announcement we had from my local area just the other week. On Tuesday 18 July I was joined by the Minister for the Environment and Water; the member for Canterbury, Sophie Cotsis; representatives from local councils; the Cooks River Alliance; and the Mudcrabs, and we all got together on the banks of the Cooks River, a river that in the last 10 years has been ranked among the worst-polluted waterways in Australia. That's set to change. It's been a project of mine to turn what was treated as a stormwater drain back into a beautiful urban river. We did some of that when we were last in government, but very little happened in the intervening 10 years. In partnership with the Cooks River Alliance and Indigenous rangers, we will now be using $10 million of government funds to restore and revitalise the river. In Australia, we often refer to the leafy suburbs when we mean the wealthy suburbs. Whether or not you have access to good-quality local environment shouldn't be based on the bank accounts of those in the local area; it should be something that, no matter where you live, you have a pathway to be involved with nature. The rehabilitation of the Cooks River will make a massive difference to that for my part of Sydney. Western Sydney Airport 88 16:12 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to talk about the Albanese Labour government's recent release of the preliminary flight paths for the Western Sydney Airport. Under the cover of darkness, at exactly 12.01 am, the infrastructure and transport minister, the member for Ballarat, released the flight paths to the media—a tricky move to avoid early criticism. My community of Lindsay woke up to the news that there will be 18 flight paths over our residential areas, with an average of 220 flights per day—some as low as 750 feet over Twin Creeks and as loud as 90 decibels, which sounds like a lawnmower, food blender or hairdryer. Penrith's High Street and the Nepean River up into Emu Heights will face over 75 flights a day overhead. There will be a 100 or more flights over communities in Castlereagh, Llandilo and St Marys. On that day I held a press conference with the shadow minister, Senator Bridget McKenzie, to say that my community deserves proper consultation and fair and balanced flight paths. The minister didn't bother to turn up to our forum on the Western Sydney Airport to discuss the flight paths and meet with community members, but, after media pressure, she finally held a small press conference at her Ballarat electorate, many kilometres away from Penrith. These preliminary flight paths come as a shock to my community, as they are significantly different to those of the draft environmental impact statement of 2015 and 2016. Lindsay is now the most impacted community. It is a shame that the first tranche of community information and feedback sessions released by the Albanese government did not have a single session in my local community, even though we are the most impacted. After pushing back, we locked in two; one occurred at the Penrith Panthers club last week, and another one is coming up in St Marys. We had to push really hard for these sessions. We can now see that the infrastructure and roads packages to service the airport are on the chopping block in Labor's 90-day infrastructure review. The review includes funding for Western Sydney Airport's Sydney Metro line. Putting this line in jeopardy is extraordinary, and state Labor is just as bad. We saw, in question time in the New South Wales parliament today, that the state's transport minister refused to rule out cancelling the Sydney Metro line for the Western Sydney Airport. Additionally, the federal review includes the funding for the Western Sydney city road transport network development and the Western Sydney freight line. These are all needed to enhance the economic prospects that the airport will deliver for Western Sydney. We said at the federal and state elections that you just can't trust Labor on infrastructure. Now Labor are showing their true colours. All my community of Lindsay is asking for is to have the infrastructure and consultation that we deserve. Western Sydney matters. Redkite 88 16:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I had some remarks prepared, but after the event I just attended I want to speak for a few minutes on the extraordinary work of Redkite in childhood cancer. I joined the Prime Minister; the Leader of the Opposition; the shadow health minister, Senator Ruston; and a number of other parliamentary colleagues just then in the Speaker's courtyard to celebrate, commemorate and recognise Redkite's 40 years of work supporting families affected by childhood cancer, which is what they have been doing. They started 40 years ago. A group of parents came together to raise some funds for research into childhood cancer. Obviously that is desperately important in and of itself, but as they came together 40 years ago they realised that the most significant gap for families impacted by childhood cancer was in non-medical supports—supports for siblings of the child who has received the diagnosis. Siblings are so profoundly affected by the terror of the diagnosis, by the impact the treatment has and by their sibling—their brother or sister—being absent so long in hospital receiving treatment. Then there's the impact on the parents. We as members of our communities and local members of parliament know from talking to fellow Australians impacted by this directly the impact that this has on families. It breaks up marriages and puts enormous financial strain on families. Forty years ago the vision of Redkite shifted somewhat from research to providing these non-medical supports. We know that Australia delivers to children affected by childhood cancer some of the best medical treatment in the world. We know that this is an area of almost turbocharged discovery, with new types of treatments coming on almost daily. In Adelaide we are putting in place right now the first proton beam, which will be the first in the Southern Hemisphere, that provides treatment for stubborn, mainly paediatric, brain cancers. At the moment families have to travel to the Northern Hemisphere for that treatment. We do know that they are these non-medical gaps. Redkite is not the only organisation that provides this support. People will be familiar with the work of Canteen and Camp Quality, who both provide their own measure of support to the 1,000 or so families who are placed in this invidious position every single year. I'm delighted that they've come together to form the Cancer Hub, supported by the Commonwealth government. There's a bipartisan position to allow them to learn from each other's strengths and provide even better support to those families than the support that they are so rightly proud of having provided for 40 years. Small Business 89 16:18 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Over the winter recess I had a great chance to get all around my electorate and spend time with many of our dynamic and innovative small businesses. The extremely hardworking owners, mostly mums and dads, took great risks to pursue their passions and interests as small-business owners and entrepreneurs. It's easy to lose focus on the enormous courage and determination required to set up and run a small business. From start-up to their day-to-day operations, small-business owners face the hardships of self-employment, often with limited initial financial return and a pretty poor work-life balance. According to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, 97.5 per cent of all Australian businesses are small but they employ more than five million Australians today, 42 per cent of our entire workforce in Australia is made up by small businesses and in Flinders alone our small- to medium-sized businesses are around 15,000 in number. Like elsewhere, our small businesses are in a world of pain at the moment. They are really hurting, and this government doesn't seem to care. As I walked around Rosebud, Dromana, Rye and Sorrento the message was the same. From the hairdressers to the homewares shop, the real estate, retail shops, the cheese shop and the wool shop the feedback was the same: business is down on this time last year—some said by 30 per cent and some said by 50 per cent—people are being much more careful with their discretionary spending and the cost-of-living crunch is real. One business owner in Somerville recently wrote to me about her struggles. It was the day that the local Ritchies IGA announced it was having a 50 per cent off sale because it was closing down. It brought in floods of customers, while her store that day only saw one customer. Ron, who's a resident of Mount Martha, wrote to me about his cost-of-living pain. A month ago, Ron's gas charges went up by 21 per cent, and, as of yesterday, his electricity charges will increase by 30 per cent. Ron and his wife are both retired and on a pension. They asked me, 'How are we supposed to pay these swinging increases?' These stories reflect what everyone is feeling: the spiralling cost of living is smashing fixed-income earners, and it is really punishing our local small businesses. Today, everything costs more, which means that people have less money to spend and small businesses are struggling to meet their overheads. They then, in turn, have to put up their prices, which makes it harder for their customers to afford their products and to keep the standard of living that they have struggled to achieve. Prior to the 2022 election, now Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party promised Australians cheaper energy prices and cheaper mortgages. Neither promise has been kept. As we know, mortgages are the highest they've been in over 10 years, and energy prices are going up and up. This prime minister has failed our regional communities and failed our small businesses. headspace Lake Haven, We Care Connect, Warnervale Wellness Centre 90 16:21 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Last week I had the pleasure of joining the official opening of headspace Lake Haven's upgraded centre, including an incredible garden designed by First Nations Australians, in my electorate on the Central Coast. Headspace is a trusted model of care that, since 2006, has supported more than 770,000 young Australians, providing 4.5 million services to strengthen their wellbeing, support their mental health, help them through challenging times and get them back on track. At Lake Haven, the growth of headspace has been remarkable. The service has grown from a satellite that provided 150 occasions of service to 105 young people in 2015 to now providing 5,000 occasions of service to more than 1,000 young people each year. I thank and congratulate the staff and community for their advocacy and continued commitment to supporting the mental health and wellbeing of young people on the Central Coast. Across my electorate of Dobell, 29 community groups received funding through the latest round of the Commonwealth government's volunteer grants. One such community group, We Care Connect, led by Derryck Klarkowski since 2016, has become an institution on the Central Coast. Their volunteers prepare support packages tailored to individual family needs, including clothes, nappies, bedding, cots, prams, car seats, toys, books and other essential items that families of young children need, especially during winter. We Care Connect was founded with the belief that all children deserve the very best, and since then it has gone from strength to strength, helping close to 6,000 kids on the Central Coast through more than 150,000 generous donations from our community. I congratulate We Care Connect, as a recipient of a community grant, and thank its incredible volunteers for the important work that they continue to do in our community. Last week I was delighted to visit the Warnervale Wellness Centre run by Catholic Healthcare in my electorate. The wellness centre is very close to my heart, as my late father, Grant, was cared for by their dedicated staff, especially the service coordinator, Michelle Webb. Michelle has cared for local people at the centre for over 15 years, providing a safe, welcoming place for older people, including those living with dementia. The service they provide in our community is invaluable. One thing that makes the centre so special and that my father loved was singing. As Nic told me, people sing the words that they can't say. While at the centre, I had the opportunity to meet Margaret, John and Janice, and I tried my hand at tenpin bowling, the Tovertafel and of course a great game of cards. Meeting up with friends, trying something new, and keeping physically, mentally and socially active are all important, particularly in our senior years. I thank the team at the Warnervale Wellness Centre for their commitment to our community. Aged Care 90 16:24 Mr LLEW 265991 Wide Bay O'BRIEN () (): Today, the Petrie Gardens aged-care facility at Tiaro will close its doors for the very last time. It is the 28th aged-care facility to close under Labor, and there will be many more. Labor's rushed policy of having a 24/7 registered nurse requirement amid a workforce shortage crisis is directly responsible for the closure of Petrie Gardens and the elderly residents being forced out of their homes and community today. The Church of Christ's 10-bed low-care facility at Tiaro has cared for the elderly for 28 years. It was awarded a perfect score for food quality. Today we lose this community asset forever, due to the Albanese Labor government having forced legal obligations on aged-care operators without considering the consequences. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that 24/7 RNs be implemented in 2024 to allow time for the sector to prepare and recruit the required workforce. Instead, Labor pumped out a cheap social media slogan during the campaign that rushing 24/7 RNs was the right thing to do, with no analysis of how this would come to be done. Internal health department findings forecast a shortfall of almost 40,000 nurses and care workers by 2024, and the department of aged care expects a shortfall of 85,000 nurses by 2025. Already, the sector is in crisis. As these centres close, beds dry up, waitlists blow out and vulnerable older people are left at risk in their homes or stuck in beds in public hospitals. Assessments to determine whether they qualify for a spot in aged care now have six-month wait lists. The heavy hand of the government in forcing a burden of excess regulation is destroying regional aged care. Instead of making it easier to get nurses, the Albanese government has made it more difficult, changing the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000. These changes mean that aged-care workers who would have been employed on an award rate no longer meet the criteria for entry into the country. This is at a time when the Albanese government is also planning its 1.5 million people immigration policy. We are on the path to a crisis, and Labor needs to take action now. Iraq: Human Rights 91 16:27 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I want to bring to the House's attention a couple of very significant matters that are of deep concern to me and, I think, would be of deep concern to the whole House, and that is the plight of both the Chaldean and the Assyrian people in Iraq. I, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, represent many Australians of Assyrian and Chaldean background, and both have issues which need to be addressed. I want to deal first with the matter of the Chaldean people and particularly the Chaldean church. The Chaldean church— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 16:28 to 16:41 Mr BOWEN DZS As I was saying, the Chaldean church is going through a crisis. Cardinal Louis Sako is the patriarch of the Chaldean church. I was honoured to meet him on his visit to Australia and I was honoured to meet him on my visit to Iraq. But I have to report that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani, took an unprecedented step earlier this month to end the recognition of the Chaldean patriarch. The repealing of decree 147 essentially strips Cardinal Sako of his place as the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church. The decision about who the patriarch of the Chaldean church is isn't one for the Prime Minister of Iraq, it's one for the Chaldean church and it's one for the Pope. This has been made even more egregious by the appointment of Rayan al-Kildani as the church's administrator, somebody who does not have the support or confidence of the Chaldean church and who has run the Babylon Movement. He has received official sanctions by the United Nations for corrupt dealings and human rights violations. I want to say very clearly to the Chaldean people, whether they be in Iraq or in Australia, that this is not on. Religious freedom is important, and the rights of the head of the Chaldean church should be protected and respected. An attack on the head of the Chaldean church is an attack on all Chaldeans and, indeed, on people of all faiths. The Chaldean people deserve that support, and so we send this message strongly from the Australian parliament. I also want to touch on the situation for Assyrians, who are of course another Christian group in Iraq. Like the Chaldeans, the Assyrian people have been oppressed for many years—for many decades and many generations. But we're seeing this today with the persecution against Assyrians in the Nahla region. There are reports of checkpoints heavily disrupting the lives of Assyrians simply going about their daily lives in the villages. I've had constituents write to me about this just this week. Again, we send a strong message to the Assyrians of the Nahla region that we are with you, that you should not be oppressed or disturbed and that your human rights are important. To the Chaldean and Assyrian peoples, both of whom have their human rights under attack in Iraq, we say that this isn't on. We say to the Prime Minister of Iraq that Iraq needs to lift its game and needs to support the Chaldean and Assyrian peoples—to protect their basic rights—and to protect, particularly, the rights of Cardinal Louis Sako, who is the rightful head of the Chaldean church and a rightful cardinal of the Catholic Church. His rights should be respected, and the rights of all Chaldeans should be respected. I say this on behalf of all Australians in a very strong message to Iraq. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for member constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 91 BILLS Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 91

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 91 16:43 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, and I rise to offer the bill my wholehearted support. This critical legislation reflects the unwavering commitment of the Albanese Labor government to establish a sustainable and long-term funding model for biosecurity in Australia. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on its election commitment to introduce a long-term sustainable funding model for biosecurity. In recent times we have witnessed an alarming rise in biosecurity risks driven by various factors, such as evolving trade and travel patterns; changing land use; declining biodiversity; global disruptions; and the undeniable impact of climate change. In addition to these challenges, illegal activities and the increasing presence of significant exotic plant, environment and animal pests and diseases in our region have only exacerbated the issue. Australia Post handled 35 million parcels coming into the country last year, and departmental officers discovered 32,800 biosecurity risk items among them. This alarming figure clearly demonstrates the scale of noncompliance with biosecurity regulations that we must address and protect Australia, and Australians, from. Earlier this year, biosecurity officers executed one of Australia largest single biosecurity detections with Operation Avoca. Operation Avoca uncovered 38 tonnes of prohibited goods, including turtle meat, frog meat, pork, beef, avian products, raw prawns and, I believe, a frozen donkey. It was all successfully intercepted by our dedicated biosecurity officers. Such instances of noncompliance underscore the urgent need for advanced compliance measures to safeguard Australia's biosecurity. The message has to go out loud and clear. Obviously, this is an organised criminal enterprise, but, to people who think they can sneak in a bit of pork meat in their suitcase, or whatever the case may be: if you put Australia's biosecurity at risk, you are a criminal and you will face the full sanction of the law. You shouldn't be able to argue that you didn't know. All the paperwork is there. All the documentation is there when you come into the country, in many languages. There is no excuse for putting Australia's biosecurity at risk. The devastating consequences of biosecurity breaches to our public health and our vulnerable populations, particularly in the aftermath of COVID-19, cannot be ignored. A robust and adequately funded biosecurity system is essential to protect our nation from potential pests and disease outbreaks. This measure will safeguard our national economy; protect vital industries, such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry; support regional communities; and preserve the unique Australian environment. Effective deterrents to noncompliance with Australia's biosecurity laws are particularly relevant post the height of the pandemic—or the former pandemic—during which noncompliance may have had significant impacts on Australia's public health and vulnerable populations. Strong and sustainable funded biosecurity is essential to protect Australia from potentially devastating pest and disease outbreaks, and safeguard our national economy, our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, our regional communities and, of course, our unique Australian environment. Biosecurity is especially important for my home state of Tasmania, which has some of the world's— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 47 to 16 : 59 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Biosecurity is especially important for my home state of Tasmania, which has some of the world's strictest biosecurity requirements. The focus of biosecurity in Tasmania is on keeping out the pests and diseases that are found on the mainland but not in Tassie, helping to protect my island's primary industries, economy and environment. The bill before the House amends the Biosecurity Act 2015 to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in managing emerging biosecurity risks and that penalties reflect the seriousness of offences. Penalty options should reflect the significant long-term economic, social and agricultural industry impacts of contravention of Australia's biosecurity rules. As I said before, we should make no apologies for coming down hard and strong on people who put Australia's biosecurity at risk and who flagrantly disregard this country's biosecurity laws. Specifically, the measures in the bill will ensure that the penalties available under the Biosecurity Act are an effective deterrent against these actions and will enable a more proportionate response to noncompliance that puts Australia's human, plant and animal health at risk. I think I remember seeing something in the media about how under Operation Avoca, which I referred to, those who are being charged with those offences could face something like 10 years in prison or more than $1 million in fines. That's the magnitude of what we're talking about with these criminal enterprises. The amendments in this bill are necessary to advance Australia's biosecurity laws to enable targeted intervention and effective and proportionate responses to behaviour that may have significant and lasting biosecurity impacts. An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, for example, would have an estimated direct economic impact over 10 years of around $80 billion. An outbreak of lumpy skin disease would result in an estimated market loss of $7.39 billion per annum across a range of commodities and markets. Tasmania's $12.8 million honey industry was put at risk earlier this year following the discovery of the small hive beetle in the north-west of Tasmania. Tasmania unapologetically relies on some of the strongest biosecurity requirements in the country to protect our farmers and fishers and the Tasmanian economy. Our island's geographical isolation and distinct climate serve as natural barriers to some biosecurity risks, but the introduction of invasive species remains one of the most significant threats to our delicate ecosystem. My electorate is a farming electorate, spanning more than half the state—the best half, as I like to say, including some of the best of Tasmania's farming lands. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Thank you, Member for Casey. I think you came up with that. Lyons is renowned for our high-quality livestock, horticulture and crop produce. The products we grow are shipped across Australia and the world. Our agricultural quality is second to none and is world-leading. We supply premium beef, dairy products, lamb, wool and so much more. Importantly, agriculture, seafood and value-adding are major contributors to the Tasmanian economy. The Tasmanian Agri-Food ScoreCard released late last year reported the gross value of Tasmanian agriculture at $2.34 billion. Tasmania's ag sector directly employs three per cent of the total workforce and creates a range of downstream employment opportunities. A strong biosecurity system is essential to the Tasmanian economy, environment and business. I take this opportunity to thank the dedicated Biosecurity Tasmania workers—not just the Commonwealth workers but the Biosecurity Tasmania workers—including our famous four-legged officers, who greet many visitors at airports and do their best to keep our industry and state safe from biosecurity threats. The significance of Australia's biosecurity network cannot be overstated. Biosecurity is fundamental to protecting Australia's international agricultural trade and our fisheries and forestry jobs and to keeping our regional, rural and remote communities strong. It helps keep the bugs out. The significance of Australia's biosecurity and what it protects includes $96 billion in agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries; $79.3 billion in exports; $5.7 trillion in environmental assets; $46.5 billion, and growing, in GDP from tourism; 87,800 farms; and 1.6 million jobs across the agricultural supply chain in Australia. The Australian government is investing more than $1 billion in new funding over the next four years and more than $260 million per year every after that to strengthen our biosecurity system. The new funding is locked in and is permanent. This investment will protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that's fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. We all have skin in this game. We all contribute to biosecurity because we all benefit from it. With this legislation, we are paving the way for a biosecurity system that remains agile and adaptable to present and future challenges. A strengthened advisory framework will not only deliver better economic outcomes for our producers and related industries but also protect Australia's rich environment assets and biodiversity while ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our people. We need and deserve a biosecurity system that keeps pace with today's needs and prepares for the threats of tomorrow, because we all know that, no matter what safeguards we put in place, there will always be some joker out there trying to game the system and trying to get through the nets that we cast over it. The stronger our systems get, the more they'll try to get through them, but we have to be prepared for that. A strengthened biosecurity system not only secures better economic outcomes for producers and related industries; it protects Australia's environment, biodiversity and people. I commend this bill to the House. 17:06 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise today in support of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, which updates the Biosecurity Act to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose in managing emerging biosecurity risks and that penalties reflect the seriousness of the offences. I recently spoke to Lyall Grieve, from the Invasive Species Council, and I'm very grateful for the work that they are doing to advocate for strong biosecurity laws and enforcement in Australia. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:06 to 17: 17 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Biosecurity laws are incredibly important. This is important work, and its success is crucial for Australia's environment, agriculture and economy. Their work is especially important in highlighting the importance of addressing threats to the environment, as well as to agriculture and forestry. This is something that is incredibly important as we strive for a nature-positive environment. That is too often overlooked when we talk of biosecurity. The focus is on agriculture, not on biodiversity loss and the risks to native flora and fauna. Awareness of that link needs to be increased from the minister's perspective. I don't have to convince this parliament or the Australian people of the significant threat that invasive species, diseases and pests pose to Australia's environment and economy. Our biosecurity system protects our agriculture, forestry and fishery export industries, which are worth some $51 billion; our tourism sector, which is worth $50 billion; our environmental assets, which are worth more than $5.7 trillion; and more than 1.6 million jobs. Some of the top biosecurity concerns include foot-and-mouth disease, which recently broke out in Indonesian cattle. An outbreak in Australia would cripple the livestock sector, cause immense animal suffering, destroy business for farmers, create food insecurity and have massive trade impacts for Australia. Another continuing threat is the varroa mite. We're fighting to eradicate it from New South Wales beehives. It is a year since it was first detected in Newcastle and new infestations continue to be discovered. Eradication efforts will continue for at least three years. Beekeepers in my neighbouring electorate have, sadly, had to euthanise their hives to prevent the spread of this parasite which has already caused tens of millions of dollars of financial loss. The consequences for agriculture and the environment of a significantly reduced bee population are truly scary as well. Australia is also struggling to contain the spread of red imported fire ants, which were first identified in Brisbane in 2001. When funding to eradicate the ants was prematurely reduced, new incursions led to several new populations spreading. Now, more than 20 years later, Australia is still striving to eliminate red fire ants, and populations have been found in Sydney. If red fire ants become established in Australia, it's projected that it will cost us $1.2 billion, along with more emergency room presentations, loss of the use of outdoor spaces and a 40 per cent reduction in farming output. Fire ants have caused more than 85 deaths in the United States and would have significant impacts on native wildlife. The discovery in February of myrtle rust, a highly infectious and invasive fungus native to South America, has recently led to nearly 70 per cent of Lord Howe Island being closed to non-essential businesses. Rusts like myrtle rust spread rapidly over thousands of kilometres on wind currents and can cause huge losses in plant production. Myrtle rust on the east coast of Australia has already caused the near extinction of at least three rainforest species. In agriculture, wheat rust has been estimated to have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We've been lucky to date that we've only been subjected to the least dangerous form of the rust. We need greater assessment of the risk that rusts and insects can pose to our native environment, and we need improved prevention methods against their spread. Right now in Western Australia a borer mite is spreading, and, if this gets to the east coast, it would have a devastating impact. It impacts a wide variety of native species, including Moreton Bay figs. Imagine Sydney's iconic parks, like the Botanic Garden or Hyde Park, without those glorious trees. It would also be difficult for Australians to forget the consequences of failing to prevent early human biosecurity breaches during the COVID pandemic. We have become all too well aware of the importance of that. A report by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity in relation to the Ruby Princess cruise ship prompted many of the amendments to the Biosecurity Act proposed by this bill. It was identified that the Biosecurity Act needed to be amended to provide greater flexibility in managing human biosecurity risks and provide greater penalties for breaches. Biosecurity threats to Australia continue to grow each year. Australia is home to a unique and fragile natural environment, and protecting it requires consistent adaptation and updating of our biosecurity practices. Threats to Australia's agriculture industry from pests and the like are extremely important and well publicised. However, it's equally important to remember that our natural environment is at risk from biosecurity threats as well. As we move towards rebuilding Australia's environment and meeting our climate targets for 2030, it's extremely important that our government remains focused on our environment. It's fragile, it's unique and, in many areas, it's already under strain from the effects of climate change, so we must ensure that our biosecurity laws and processes are geared towards protecting the environment as much as agriculture. Since the year 2000, Australia has recorded 136 incursions by 106 invasive species. These are species established in the wild that have been assessed as environmental invaders or noted as potentially having an environmental impact. The continuing increase in global trade and tourism, and climate change exacerbate the risk of new incursions and the spread of existing pests and diseases. I commend the government for strengthening the Biosecurity Act with these proposed amendments. But it's also vital that adequate resources be allocated to the identification and eradication of biosecurity risks, and enforcement of penalties. The funding needs to be ongoing and sustainable to safeguard our agricultural sector and ensure our natural environment is protected. Powers of enforcement and increased penalties will be useless if there are inadequate resources for contingency planning, surveillance programs, research, and the policing of biosecurity. Threats to biosecurity must be treated as seriously as cyberthreats. A systemic program which includes key performance indicators for compliance programs also should be introduced. In this regard, I support the position of the Invasive Species Council that the cost of biosecurity services should be primarily borne by risk creators—for example, the importers of exotic plants and animals. We must also strengthen environmental biosecurity capacity, resourcing and focus so that they are at the same level as those for agriculture. So I urge the government to strengthen Australia's biosecurity by ensuring it is properly resourced and securely funded across all areas, and for the natural environment as well as for agriculture. 17:25 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The coalition is supporting the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 because a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial to protecting Australia against the threat of pests and diseases. It is also largely supported by industry. Australia's diverse ecosystem and agricultural industries are the envy of the world. Our produce and exports put us on the map globally while simultaneously supporting livelihoods and enriching our economy. This wouldn't have been the case without strong biosecurity laws protecting our growers and producers, and setting our nation up for success. This bill seeks to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to update our national biosecurity regulation framework—in particular, the compliance measures. Australia has enjoyed, and enjoys, a reputation for clean, healthy and disease-free agricultural production systems through our natural advantage of geographical location. Tourism and international trade have become two of our greatest strengths, but they don't come without risks. With each aircraft, vessel, cargo ship, truck or delivery comes risks that we must mitigate for the sake of our crops and our environment. Strong biosecurity laws are absolutely essential to create thriving industries and a thriving economy. They hold particular importance in my electorate of Casey, which is home to wine producers, horticulturalists, organic producers, large agricultural farms and permaculture—just some examples. These producers aren't just putting food on the table and plants in the gardens of many Australians; many operate on a global scale and export to the world. The agricultural industries of the Yarra Valley are a vital pillar of our local economy and community. We have a proud agricultural heritage and, over time, our rich red soil, diverse climate and natural resources have seen our region flourish as a significant agricultural corner of the nation. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Montague, in a corner of my electorate. I'm sure you've all heard about and enjoyed a JAZZ apple—if you have, they've come from Montague. I met with Scott to tour their incredible facility, where they're using state-of-the-art technology to ensure the very best produce for consumers. They export premium stone fruit and apples all around the world, right through South-East Asia and the north of Asia to the Middle East, Europe and Canada. Biosecurity is paramount for Montague, both in terms of keeping pests out and ensuring that our Aussie produce is held in the highest esteem in international markets. Other countries value working with nations like Australia to prioritise biosecurity, reducing their risk of trade disruption, disease and illness. Our regulations have ensured access to international markets without the burden of restrictions and the disruption of trade barriers. I also recently had the privilege of visiting Yarra Valley Dairy, another major exporter in my electorate, and Yarra Valley ECOSS, a small permaculture farm focused on sustainability and organics. It's clear, when driving through my electorate and looking at the strawberry farms, the vineyards, the dairies, the organic producers, the crops and the rolling hills, that we have an important role to play in protecting our landscape and our local industries. This bill will continue to strengthen our position by making a number of updates to biosecurity regulations. This follows a similar track record, where changes have been made consistently to the act since its inception in 2015 to ensure the strongest protections for biosecurity risks. It is vital that biosecurity arrangements are continually improved, given the potential impact of noncompliance on our environment, our economy and our way of life. The first suite of changes relates to people coming in on aircraft or vessels. The Director of Biosecurity will have the power to seek information for the purpose of assessing the risk associated with a person and to request classes of persons to produce a passport or travel document to assess their biosecurity risk. These documents can be retained for as long as necessary to reduce risks, and there are penalties for failure to comply with certain requirements, including for operators of aircraft or vessels. Importantly, the bill will increase civil penalties where a person gives false or misleading information knowing that the information or document is misleading. This is an important provision, because those who purposely provide false information are risking Australia's human, plant and animal health, which could have drastic impacts on our industries and our economy. Schedule 4 allows for infringement notices to be given in situations of low-level offences where there is currently no way of deterring them other than prosecution or civil litigation. This will ensure all situations of noncompliance are met with the law, to strictly uphold our standards for biosecurity. The last thing we need is importers seeing noncompliance as a cost of doing business or otherwise worth the risk. In my community of Casey, we are home to Fleming's Nurseries, one of the largest nurseries in the country. The company has grown from strength to strength out of the rich red soils of Monbulk at the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges. I recently had an opportunity to meet with Daniel and Leanne from Fleming's. They raised a number of concerns in regard to biosecurity. Their concerns relate in particular to a white paper produced by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. They are deeply concerned about the impact on their business if the changes presented in the white paper are adopted, particularly in relation to food security and future climate and biosecurity risks. Fleming's have been involved in growing fruit and ornamental trees for over a century. They have imported thousands of new plant varieties into Australia, including many of the fruits available in supermarkets today. For growers like Fleming's, our plant importation process must be robust, easy to navigate and cost-effective for importers, to ensure that all plants are imported through legitimate pathways. Currently, the charge for importing a new variety within a 24-month post-entry quarantine period is almost $10,000. If the changes in the department's report are adopted, this will increase—will more than double—to $25,614. Following release from quarantine, each new variety must be tested for performance under our Australian conditions. On average, only 30 per cent of the varieties imported make it to commercialisation. This compounds the cost and time expense of importation. Fleming's varieties allow Australian growers to compete on the global market, providing jobs and food security to Australia. Their ability to import and test varieties will be significantly impacted if the cost doubles as detailed in the white paper. The key lesson here is that, while biosecurity is absolutely crucial, we must be careful not to make it impossible for Australian growers to cultivate, import and test. This, too, will have flow-on effects for our economy, food security and forests. If our successful growers become financially incapable of importing and testing new varieties, it will impact our global competitiveness. We must have strong biosecurity laws, but we must also remember the real-world farmers and growers and not hinder the success of their private enterprise. I encourage the Albanese Labor government to consider the impact on Australian growers and consult with industry before making any decisions that could have negative impacts on our economy, on our growers and on our communities. Similar things could be said of Labor's new farming tax. The coalition introduced the importer container levy to charge importers for the risk they are bringing to our nation. That was common sense. But now Labor has decided to slug farmers with a new tax, forcing them to pay for the biosecurity risks posed by international importers. In essence, they are paying for the risks brought by their competition. This is the type of policy that you could only see under Labor. They don't understand rural Australia, they don't understand farming and they clearly don't understand economics. Many Australian farmers will be hit with a bill equivalent to 10 per cent of their existing agricultural levies from 1 July next year. In Senate estimates, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was questioned on why the levy was set at a rate of 10 per cent. His answer was that he felt this rate 'was a fair contribution to make'. So, no, it wasn't based on any economic modelling or evidence. It was plucked out of thin air because the minister for agriculture thought it would be a figure that seemed fair. This is a minister for agriculture who has not worked a day in his life in agriculture. As someone whose family came to this country in the fifties with nothing and created a life for themselves through farming, I find it deeply offensive to all the farmers across the country that a minister for agriculture with no experience in agriculture would just decide that he thought it was a fair contribution to make. So, while we are supporting this bill and will always support strong biosecurity legislation, Labor's track record in biosecurity to date has been a cause for concern. I would encourage the minister to begin consulting with the community and considering the impact on our economy and our farmers before making any further decisions. 17:37 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro The Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to enhance the government's regulatory regime. It will strengthen its ability to gather information to both assess and manage biosecurity risk and take noncompliance action against those who jeopardise Australia's biosecurity status by breaking the law. This will be done through new measures that enable biosecurity officers to access certain information from people, including travellers arriving on Australian territory on board international flights or voyages, through the provision of their passports or other travel documents. The bill will introduce new procedural fairness requirements relating to the variation of approved arrangements and streamline existing notification requirements relating to proposed suspension or revocation of an approved arrangement. Other amendments will introduce the issuing of a written reprimand as an alternative option to other sanctions that may not be effective or appropriate in given circumstances. The bill will increase pecuniary penalties that apply to specified civil penalty provisions in chapters 2, 7 and 9 of the Biosecurity Act, which deal with managing risks to human health, approved arrangements, and compliance and enforcement. These increased penalties apply to individuals and regulated entities who fail to comply with their obligations under the Biosecurity Act. The increased civil penalties will appropriately reflect the impact that a contravention may have on Australia's biosecurity status. It also serve as a deterrent to anybody considering undermining our biosecurity laws. The bill will insert new strict liability offences to a range of existing provisions in the Biosecurity Act and allow for infringement notices to be issued in relation to these new offences. This will enable a better targeted response for less serious or less factually complex alleged contraventions of the Biosecurity Act, where existing regulatory action may not be appropriate. Passage of this bill will ensure that the biosecurity regulatory regime is strengthened and capable of more effectively responding to noncompliance, with effective and proportionate responses. It will serve in protecting Australia's animal, plant and human health from new and emerging biosecurity and human biosecurity risks. The bill complements the Albanese government's sustainable funding model for biosecurity. I note that some speakers have raised concerns about the biosecurity protection levy that the government is introducing. However, it's important to note that the government is also managing risk creators, like importers, who contribute substantially more to biosecurity costs. While some, like the member for Maranoa, continue to talk a lot about making importers pay more—despite him doing nothing when he had the opportunity—the Albanese government has actually done it. Through changes to our biosecurity fees and charges, we've raised around the same amount as would have been raised by the former government's failed biosecurity import levy. Under our model, importers will contribute 48 per cent of all biosecurity costs, compared to 44 per cent under the previous government and around six per cent from producers. Our sustainable funding model locks in higher and permanent biosecurity funding, along with a fair system to pay for it. Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world. This bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of high-quality produce, while protecting our farmers, economy and environment from biosecurity risks into the future. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 97

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

Second Reading 97 17:42 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton The women's football World Cup is great for this nation. Go, Matildas! Bad luck, Canada! Only adding to the excitement is the knowledge that the 2032 Paralympics and Olympics are just around the corner—under nine years away. Of course, there'll always be a few naysayers, perhaps including a few in this House, but the vast majority of the people of Brisbane, Queensland and Australia are excited about the legacy projects that the Paralympics and Olympics will deliver not just for South-East Queensland but also for the rest of the state. That green and gold runway will deliver a boon for the arts, tourism and disability access to sports, to name just a few. Australia will be on the world stage, and who wouldn't want to come to the Sunshine State? That's a question I often ask myself when out playing sport on a freezing, gloomy Canberra morning, after being taken out by the member for Macnamara on the soccer field, while my family are bathed in sunshine, enduring a mild 20 degrees back home and contemplating whether they should wear a jacket or go to the beach. Although about 85 per cent of sporting facilities are extant, hosting the Olympics and Paralympics does deliver the opportunity to construct new and upgraded infrastructure. This includes opening new tourism opportunities and delivering better access for women and people with disabilities to sport—both as participants and as spectators. Nevertheless, there are a number of challenges around things like intellectual property and the Olympics and Paralympics. I suspect there wouldn't be too many people in Australia who, when they see the Olympic rings insignia or logo, don't know what it is—those distinctive five coloured rings. Maybe the Paralympics emblem, the agitos, is not quite as well known, but that will change in the next nine years, and that is what this bill is designed to do. It will remove loopholes in the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 in preparation for the 2032 Brisbane Paralympic and Olympic Games. The amendments will make it clear that only the Australian and International Olympic Committees can register Olympic insignia as trademarks in Australia. The bill will also give effect to several improvements in the Trade Marks Act 1995 and Patents Act 1990. These amendments will streamline the use of the intellectual property system, correct some minor inconsistencies in the legislation and reduce legal uncertainty. The timely production of the bill is required to provide regulatory certainty in view of the upcoming 2032 Brisbane Paralympics and Olympics. The Australian and International Olympic Committees are in support of the amendments to the Olympic Insignia Protection Act. The changes in the bill are minor, uncontroversial and ready for implementation. The key change will deliver legal certainty to the Australian Olympic Committee and International Olympic Committee, clarifying that only these committees can get protection for trademarks containing the aforementioned Olympic insignia. We need to move on this early so as to minimise the risk of bad-faith trademark applications from other parties which seek to profit from association with the Olympics. We've seen how certain countries and certain companies try to sportswash what they do with things like the Olympics and other sports. Most people might be thinking, 'Why do we need to do this now, with some eight years plus to go and two other Paralympics and Olympics to be held in between in Paris and Los Angeles?' The reason is that these applications can be filed years in advance of the games, so we need to do this now before it becomes a huge problem much closer to the games. We don't want to be spending time, effort and resources sorting this out and weeding out those bad actors as things ramp up closer to 2032, when all the focus should be on the delivery of the games. The bill also makes some minor amendments to the Trade Marks Act and the Patents Act to close gaps, increase certainty and correct some minor inconsistencies. It will align grace periods for late payment of a renewal fee across different circumstances to ensure consistency across all renewal dates. It will align provisions for revoking registration of a trademark. It will enable ANONA to defend their trademark registration against non-use action if they miss a due date but are eligible for an extension of time. It will ensure government can communicate crucial information about trademarks to the public in a modern and flexible way and will repeal spent provisions in the Patents Act 1990 that have had no effect since February last year. The changes align the wording of the Olympic Insignia Protection Act with the Trade Marks Act so they work together to prevent the unauthorised registration of trademark applications containing Olympic insignia. In relation to grace periods for trademarks 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 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. Importantly, 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. With regard to the revocation of registration detail, this amendment simplifies and clarifies provisions dealing with these revocations of the registration of a trademark where a component of a notice of opposition to registration of that trademark has been overlooked. The amendment aligns the provisions for revoking registration in those circumstances with other current opposition processes. With the restoration of trademarks to the register, this bill's amendments clarify provisions to enable restoration of trademark registration where an owner missed a 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. The amendments concerning the official journal allow IP Australia greater flexibility in how it makes trademark information available to the public, including providing information about trademarks through an online search portal instead of an official journal—which is so last century! Customers mostly use IP Australia's online platforms to view trademark information. As you can imagine, in 2023 only a small number of users still use that official journal. So it will benefit business, providing a single, up-to-date source of official trademark information. With regard to the spent provisions, the bill will repeal transitional and saving provisions in the Patents Act 1990. This proposal is machinery in nature and ensures that the statute remains up to date. I know that throughout this process Minister Husic has been working closely with Minister Wells's office around Olympics trademark amendments and our advising the Queensland state government that the reforms will soon be introduced to this parliament. We also worked closely with the AOC and IOC with the proposed changes as part of the previous Regulator Performance Omnibus Bill 2022. Both the AOC and IOC provided minor feedback which was incorporated in the proposed amendments, and they support these changes. Lastly, when it comes to the Patents Act 1990, the changes are repealing some transitional and savings provisions in that act that basically haven't been operating since February last year. As I said, they are machinery in nature. The regulatory certainty delivered by the changes contained within this bill are needed now as an important component of a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032. I'm proud to be Prime Minister Albanese's representative on the Brisbane Organising Committee for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, along with Minister Anika Wells. These games will deliver positive change in south-east Queensland and throughout the state and, in terms of tourism and other connections, in the rest of Australia. There will be legacy projects and concepts that will shape us well into the future beyond 2032 and show how wonderful Queensland is. I commend this bill to the House. 17:51 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 seeks to close a loophole in trademark legislation that would have allowed anyone to register a trademark for the Olympic insignia. The bill clarifies that only the Australian Olympic Committee or the International Olympic Committee can register such a trademark, providing important consumer protection. The Greens support of this particular bill, however, shouldn't be considered support or endorsement of where the IOC, the AOC and the federal, state and local governments are actually heading with the Brisbane 2032 Olympics. Hosting the Olympics in 2032 should be something that Brisbane residents can really get excited about. If well planned, the Olympics could leave us with an incredible legacy. But I fear this isn't where we're heading with these Olympics at the moment. Just yesterday morning, residents of Kangaroo Point got the news that their much loved Raymond Park will be completely destroyed for a warm-up track—a warm-up track for a four-week sporting event. This is not to mention the ridiculous waste of our taxpayer dollars on the Gabba stadium. In fact, if you looked up the definition of madness in the dictionary you might find this: the state Labor government plans to knock down and rebuild the Gabba stadium for the Olympics, only to have to convert it back afterwards. In this process, they will actually destroy a beloved and important heritage school and disrupt a whole community. And what's the budget for this? It's already tripled to $2.7 billion, and construction hasn't even started yet. That's $2.7 billion—likely much higher by the time it's done, given what's happening with building costs at the moment—for a state government vanity project. $2.7 billion for knocking down and rebuilding a stadium? No thanks. That's $2.7 billion we could actually spend on building thousands of beautifully designed public homes, $2.7 billion that could be spent expanding our public transport network with more high-frequency routes or $2.7 billion that could be spent on creating beautiful parklands, community libraries and public swimming pools. But, no. This is clearly not what is actually happening. What kind of legacy is this lack of rational planning leaving? Who will these Olympics actually benefit? Clearly not the community. If the community doesn't have the ear of the Olympic planners, who actually does? We know that the property industry—and I understand this industry—and developers are absolutely salivating at the prospect of government support to build so-called affordable housing and other infrastructure without an overall vision for the future of the city, without a plan or proper controls to ensure long-term benefit for the city and its citizens and, indeed, without any definition of affordable houses. Land close to these Olympic venues is going to increase in value without landowners, who are often those very development companies, having to lift a finger, which actually incentivises land banking and thus exacerbates the housing crisis. While the Greens are supporting this bill to clarify the use of the Olympics logo, we're not endorsing the way the state and federal governments are going about the 2032 Brisbane Olympics to date. Devastatingly, it looks like the usual story—the frankly venal and ultimately economically shortsighted prioritisation of the big end of town over the needs of the community. This massive expenditure could truly catalyse a transformative vision for the sustainable subtropical city, yet what we have here is a missed golden opportunity. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. CONDOLENCES 100 CONDOLENCES Crean, the Hon. Simon Findlay 100 17:56 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to talk on this very important condolence motion about a friend and a Labor giant whose contribution to the labour movement, to public life and to this nation was quite simply as wide as it was deep. Simon Crean started as a mentor of mine, but we ended up as friends. I knew him for more than 30 years. When I was a relatively junior union official in the late eighties, Simon Crean was the president of the ACTU. That was at a time when union membership was about 50 per cent of the workforce. The ACTU, the peak body of the union movement, was at its strongest, and it was working very closely in cooperation with a then reforming Labor government, the Hawke government. At that time, the accord that was struck between the union movement, business and the Hawke government was absolutely critical to the economic reforms that people continue to talk about today. As a co-architect of those reforms in the ACTU, along with the then secretary Bill Kelty, Simon Crean played an absolutely critical role in delivering the economic reform and helping deliver those reforms that were brought about by the Hawke-Keating governments. It was absolutely essential that he was president at that time. You needed people who understood the economy, understood the aspirations of working people and understood what was needed to bring about changes to improve this country's prospects. He was the right person, along with Bill Kelty, to be leader of the union movement at that time, and his contribution in that role was very significant. As a young person, I recall watching Simon on the news. He was well-known to the country well before he was 40 as the leader and spokesperson for the union movement. He came from a remarkable Labor lineage. His father, Frank, was Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer under the Whitlam government— Mr Burns 278522 And the member for Melbourne Ports. Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 and the Member for Melbourne Ports, as I've been reminded. Of course Frank was a remarkable politician and a very successful minister and a critical one, who endured the 23 years in opposition and managed to return to become a cabinet minister.Growing up in a household like that with a father who was remarkably successful would have been informative and added some pressure about realising one's own ambitions, which is what happens if one of your parents or both of your parents are that successful. Simon really did see his role as being a contributor to public life. Yes, he was a Labor person through and through, but he always thought beyond his own constituency. When he was an official of the storemen and packers he understood that, if workers are going to be better off, businesses have to thrive. He brought that understanding to the ACTU and brought that understanding to his contribution to establish an accord with the government that brought about economic growth and improvement in opportunities for many people in this country. And that was before he entered this place. He was already a very significant contributor to the national policy of this country. The esteem in which he was held was so clearly obvious that on his first day in parliament in 1990 he was sworn in as a cabinet minister. I don't know of any other member of parliament who was a cabinet minister on their first day of parliament. In fact, so unusual was that that his first contribution to the parliament wasn't his first speech but was a second reading speech on a piece of legislation that he as the minister was responsible for. That's how early he elevated to the most senior roles in parliament and government in his time in this place. Hawke had so much confidence in him that he was the minister for employment immediately upon arriving in this place. In his role as employment minister he brought about some very significant reforms in that portfolio. Who could be better placed to understand the needs of the economy, business, working people and unions than Simon Crean in a reformist government? Frankly, because of his experience, his ability, his diligence and his untiring efforts he managed to bring about some very significant reforms. You might recall that for a part of that term we were going through a very significant recession with very high unemployment. Indeed, he worked on policies to make sure we reattached unemployed people to the labour market. Working Nation was a policy that was successfully capable of providing support to unemployed people so that they acquired the skills they needed to find ongoing, enduring work. The policies that he developed at that time when there was significantly high unemployment have been successively replicated and when they have been replicated they have led to very good outcomes. I understand Simon's ability to stress test policy and to understand that ultimately we are in this place to make things happen and to make things work. Whatever other theatrics might go on in this place—and politics is full of those things, and that's okay too—he was very much someone who wanted to get things done. He showed that in his first term in parliament as a cabinet minister and he went on to take on other portfolios, including regional affairs. He was well regarded. I know that the member who is going to speak after me, Michael McCormack—and I apologise for not recalling your seat— Mr McCormack 219646 Riverina. Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 My apologies. I know he will attest to the fact that, even in a constituency that wasn't naturally Labor, people held Simon in very high regard because of his sincerity, because he listened to their concerns and because he responded. He did that in any portfolio that he inhabited, including the arts portfolio, which is something that people didn't appreciate at the time to the extent that perhaps they should have appreciated it. His policy, Creative Australia, was reinvigorating the arts and cultural sectors of our society. He understood how critical it was that we told our own stories—that we supported those artists that do just that—and that if we made sure that we had a thriving arts community it's not only in our interests culturally and socially but economically too. He very much understood the fact that to support the arts was to support Australia. I'll quote him, when he said: Creative Australia is about creating excellence, creating jobs, creating prosperity, creating opportunity and creating unique Australian stories— And he went on to say: all vital to an outward looking, competitive and confident nation. He understood that not only was it important for us culturally but he even understood the economic benefits that would flow if we supported the arts community. I'm very happy to say that the current government is following in his footsteps, as Tony Burke, the Minister for the Arts, has so clearly outlined recently in his tribute to Simon. Whichever portfolio he held in whichever government—and he was a very unusual MP in that he happened to find himself a cabinet minister in four governments—he always dedicated himself to ensuring that there would be an enduring reform. Wherever you look in Simon's long, distinguished parliamentary career, you will see enduring policies that outlived his time in those portfolios. That was a testament to his dedication, diligence and unwavering passion about serving the public good. We can say that of Simon because that was in his DNA; he just felt that that was his role. Can I say further to that, that beyond his time in parliament he also continued to contribute. As the Prime Minister said, he would seek Simon's counsel in a number of areas since he became Prime Minister. And Simon was always available to provide advice to each and every one of us in this place. Indeed, I had the good fortune of having access to his insight, his experience and his capacity to understand how to develop policies so that they led to good outcomes. I also had the good fortune of sharing a residence with Simon Crean for many years, along with my good friend Warren Snowdon. In fact, I was getting sick of the furnished apartments I had to keep leaving at the end of the parliamentary week. I wanted to ensure that I found some permanent residence—to the extent that we have that here—while I was here. I found out when Senator Nick Bolkus was finishing up that he had a bedroom in a house, and that there were two other tenants: Simon Crean and Warren Snowdon. I applied for the tenancy and got the chance of living there. This was a good thing, because I could leave some of my belongings rather than taking them home at the end of each week. So in 2005 I moved into that place in Narrabundah, and for eight years I shared this residence with Simon Crean and Warren Snowdon. That was a very good decision of mine to be amongst such good company. At night we would make cups of tea, have a few biscuits, watch the news and sometimes have a conversation about the day's events. It was just the sort of company you like to have in this place—quite often it can be a lonely place for people. I found that moving there was a good thing but, really, having the chance to be with Simon and talking to him about public policy, talking to him about all sorts of matters politically, was great for me and also a friendship did form. It went from me being someone who was really listening to Simon and learning from him to finding ourselves in a very strong friendship. He was a great trekker and walker. I did go on a great walk with him and Carole and others—the Bay of Fires walk in Tasmania. We had dinners on New Year's Eve. Together, we would gather socially, and he was great, great company. The last time I spent time with Simon was only in May this year. I'll finish on this story, but the story started in 2002, when I was about to deliver my first speech as a parliamentarian. My aunty flew over from Ireland to be here for that speech, and with her she had a book entitled Unsung Hero, about the Antarctic explorer Tom Crean. It was given to her by a woman called Mary Crean O'Brien, who was the 90-year-old daughter of this Antarctic explorer who'd explored with Captain Scott, Shackleton and others. She wanted me to deliver the book to Simon because she was absolutely assured that Simon was a relative of this Antarctic explorer, Tom Crean. Simon had just taken on the role of opposition leader, one of the hardest roles, as we know, in politics, and after giving the speech I did provide Simon with this book and said Tom Crean's 90-year-old surviving daughter was convinced that Simon was a relative of this remarkable Antarctic explorer. He put the book down and said, 'I'll have a look at that,' but, of course, as he was always attentive to his work and given the workload that he had, he probably left it in abeyance for some time. He did come back to it and he did tell me later that his father did say that the Creans were from Kerry, in Ireland, and that's where Tom Crean was from. The last time I met him was at Florentino, the oldest restaurant in Melbourne. He was sitting in his usual spot. He'd been going there for more than 60 years. His parents used to bring him there when it was perhaps a more modest restaurant. There he was, sitting there. This was on 2 May this year, only five or six weeks before his passing, and we discussed his trip to Ireland—that he was going to Ireland, to Annascaul in Kerry, to meet with the descendants of Tom Crean to establish the lineage, with his brother, David Crean. So David and Simon went to Ireland. We were going to catch up when he got back. He went to Ireland and then Scotland. He told me he and Carole were going to Germany after that. We never got to catch up or speak about his trip to Ireland, but I understand from David and others that they did establish links with that family. And it's not surprising to me that Simon Crean would be related to a person who had the courage and endurance and tenacity and strength to be an Antarctic explorer. It makes perfect sense to me because, whatever Simon did in public life, whether it was as union leader or Labor leader, whether it was as cabinet minister or Labor elder, Simon was dedicated, he was diligent, he was sincere, he was courageous and he always put in a hundred per cent. He is sorely missed by his family, of course, most of all. I was in India for the G20 and missed his funeral, which was a great disappointment to me. I did see Carole Crean in the chamber yesterday and I extended my deepest condolences to her, and I hope to catch up with her and David and others soon and I conveyed that to them. Simon was a Labor giant. He was a magnificent contributor. And he reached beyond the Labor movement and the Labor Party and he would always look through the prism of what was good for this country. You could not choose a better role model in terms of conducting yourself in public life than one on the path of Simon Findlay Crean. 18:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Simon Crean—a friend; never a foe. He was, as the member for Gorton has just described, a role model. I want to put on record how he was a role model to me. I came to this place in 2010, a backbencher—not like Simon, who was a frontbencher from day 1. I was a mere, humble—or perhaps not so humble—backbencher from the Riverina, a different state to Simon. I was from New South Wales; he was very much a Victorian. To this day, I don't know why he gave me the time that he did, but I'm thankful for it. I can recall that I kept bumping into him and one of his frontbench colleagues in the hallway. I'd always say hello and be very respectful to the other Labor leading light. I'd barely get a grunt out of that person, although later, when I became Deputy Prime Minister, we'd talk and it was good. But Simon, from the get-go, whenever I'd see him in the hallway, I'd say, 'Hello, Minister,' very respectfully, and he'd always give me time and always say hello. One day, on one particular morning, the other person walked past. This other person was in a very prominent role. I said good morning, and that person barely bothered to look at me. Simon was following just behind. I said: 'Good morning, Minister. How are you, Simon?' He stopped. You could tell he was in a hurry—I think it was party room time—but he stopped, and he said, 'You know, I don't agree with much or any of what you say, but you say it with such passion.' He said, 'Why don't you come up to my office this afternoon after question time at four o'clock, and let's have a chat? Let's have a cup of tea.' His staff member said, 'But, Minister, Mr Crean, you have such and such at four o'clock.' And he said, 'I have it now; I've got the member for Riverina.' She was quite insistent, 'No, no, but this is—' and he said, 'I've given the member for Riverina the assurance that we need to talk.' He said, 'You and I need to talk.' So, at four o'clock, I went to the minister's office. I was a bit nervous, I have to say. He was a leading light in the Labor Party. I couldn't think why then, and I still don't know why, he wanted to give me such time. But he gave me such advice, such wisdom, and he was so warm and caring. He gave me assurances: 'You need to be bipartisan. You need to look beyond your own party. You need to look beyond your own constituency. And you need to be, as you are, always yourself.' From that time forward, Simon always put his arm around me, in a figurative sense, and was most interested in my progress through the parliament. He didn't need to, but he did, and it's extraordinary. It's strange. Why would a Labor member do that to somebody from the other side, somebody from the opposition, somebody who was really, quite frankly, a no-one, when he wasn't a no-one? He was somebody important. He was somebody who the nation looked up to for direction, leadership and guidance. Yet here he was, going out of his way to coach, to tutor, to mentor a backbencher from the National Party. Go figure! But that's Simon Crean. We formed a good and close friendship that day. In 2012, I was driving to parliament one afternoon, because parliament was sitting the next day. I got a frantic call from my former deputy editor at the Daily Advertiser newspaper at Wagga Wagga, who quite frantically said: 'I have to put an editorial together, and I don't have time. Can you do one for me?' It was Peter Mahoney. I said, 'Peter, if you have already forgotten, I'm now a member of parliament. It has been some years, about eight years, since I've done that. Besides, why would you ask me to do that?' He said, 'Because I haven't got time to do it.' He said: 'I've got no staff. People are away. Can you please just do it? I don't even care if you write yourself up; just do it.' I thought to myself: 'Here's a good opportunity. I could write an opinion piece in my local newspaper and promote myself!' And so I wrote this piece, and then Peter put his own slant on it. It was under the heading, in the edition of 14 June 2012, 'Regionalism is good for all Australia'. The editorial reads: The Riverina, and in particular, Griffith and Wagga are helping to boost the significance of regionalism. In recent weeks Griffith City Council has instigated the demand for another dam in the Murray-Darling Basin while in Wagga, member for Riverina Michael McCormack organised a highly progressive forum on high-speed rail last week and put on notice his intention to run a forum on dams construction— I couldn't have written it better myself!— The fact that both these issues have gained impetus from major centres like Griffith and Wagga underlines the importance of regionalism in the nation's development. Despite preoccupation with the mining industry, manufacturing, transport and agricultural development in regional and rural Australia remain vital and central to the country's growth. It's what federal Minister for Regional Development Simon Crean calls "joining the dots"; partnerships between governments of all three levels and the private sector. More usage of rail, the need to upgrade it and, eventually, get as much off-road is seen by Crean as essential to regional development. Investing in infrastructure is not something governments can be left to do on their own any more, Crean told those at the intermodal freight and logistics hub announced in Wagga. Crean obviously practises what he preaches. His department has worked with Wagga council on the commercial precinct at the airport; the NBN roll-out both for the fibre option within the city and the fixed wireless component elsewhere, the intermodal freight hub, council's energy-saving lighting program and investment in the base hospital. The next day, with this editorial printed and in hand, I went to Mr Crean and said, 'Look at what the local paper has printed.' He looked at it, read it and said: 'That's pretty good. That sounds like something you had a hand in!' We joked, and that was all well and good. A week later, he got a question in question time from Janelle Saffin, the former member for Page. The question was: My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts— Simon, amongst other things, had so many portfolios that I would have hated to have seen his business card; it probably would have been an A3 sheet!— Will the minister update the House on the most recent round of grants under the Regional Development Australia Fund and how this is being received in regional Australia? Further, why is this fund important to the future of regional communities? If you can imagine, the Nationals in the room are all going for him. Simon got the answer and, of course, he started off very well, 'I thank the member for Page for her question,' and he talked about how he was in Ballina not that long ago and talked about farmers and all sorts of things in the question. Of course, he's getting what for—he mentioned Barnaby Joyce in the answer—and he was just copping it from the opposition, particularly the regional members. Then he came out with this one: Persistence, though, is also important because 62 per cent of these initiatives were projects that failed the first round. The member for Riverina knows the initiative in Wagga Wagga and he was very proud to come and give me the editorial from the Daily Advertiser, which was ringing our praises for what we did. Of course, Warren Truss, the Leader of the Nationals, looked down the aisle and at me. On his way out, Simon gave me a bit of a wink and put the piece of paper back in his pocket. Warren came up to me and said, 'What was that all about?' But it was hard for me as a backbencher to tell the Leader of the National Party, 'Well, Simon and I had this special relationship, you see, and I thought I'd give him a good plug.' Indeed, I did, and I'm glad that I did because he deserved it. He was, as the member for Gorton just indicated, a very good regional development minister. When Simon unsuccessfully challenged—and it was supposed to be with Kevin Rudd—the leadership of Julia Gillard, in 2013, I can well remember walking past the press conference that Simon did in the Mural Hall and thinking, 'What's this all about?' I got a bit of an inclination that something was afoot. Of course, as we now know, he hadn't read the text that Mr Rudd had sent him to say that this wasn't going to happen today, and, of course, it all went asunder, and Simon lost his ministry. I can well recall that night. I stupidly—cheekily; call it what you like—bought a bottle of wine from the parliamentary gift shop which had 'The Backbencher' on it. I signed it, saying, 'Thank you for your efforts and your work for regional Australia,' and went and gave it to him. He was sitting in his office, and everybody had gone. He and I were there in his office while he was packing up the last remnants of his ministry paperwork et cetera, and here was this bloke from the Riverina giving him a bottle of wine with 'backbencher' on it. I think it was probably one of those 'too soon' moments, but he appreciated it. I well know how harsh politics can be. I found that out later. When you lose a ministry, you're out there, left all on your own, and you probably find out who your true friends are at that point in time. And he was a true friend of mine. When I learned of his death, I was so upset. I was and so was my wife, Catherine, because we knew just how much he meant not only to his wife, Carole, and his family but, indeed, to our nation and to the Labor family. And I will say to the Labor family I well remember when our daughter, Georgina, moved to Melbourne. I was talking to Simon, and he said: 'There's always a door. If I can open any door for Georgina, I'm happy to do so. If she ever needs someone to go shopping with, my wife's there. If ever she needs even a bed to stay, my home is hers.' That is unusual. I know we have this camaraderie across the chamber and we talk about it, but he took it to the next level. He was a wonderful, wonderful human being, a beautiful man, and I will say that I did, in a sense, love him dearly, because he taught me how to be a politician. It's the rare qualities that he had that are needed more than ever in this place. For somebody who was in as high a position as he was, as I said, to reach across and to befriend someone such as me and to show someone such as me the ropes and how it should be done, I am forever in debt to him. May he rest in peace because he was an amazing, remarkable person way beyond what this place usually produces. My sympathies, my condolences, my heartfelt emotions go out to his family, to his friends. Vale, Simon Findlay Crean. 18:27 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It's been a real privilege to hear the last two speakers talk about their very affectionate memories of Simon Crean. He certainly leaves a formidable legacy. I first encountered him as a young journalist here in Canberra, in the press gallery, when he was with the ACTU in the 1980s. We'd doorstop him on the way into meetings and we'd record the results on the way out, usually on the front steps of the old parliament. And these were the comings and goings of negotiating multiple rounds of the Prices and Incomes Accord with the then Hawke government, with Hawke and Paul Keating. When I look back on these times, I didn't have the relationship that the member for Riverina had or the member for Gorton had, but I look back and think of what I was watching happening before me, and that was seeing Simon Crean and Storemen and Packers Union that he'd come from being pioneers in negotiating a superannuation system which really set the scene for what became a cornerstone of our superannuation system that we have today. The accord mark II, which I remember reporting on, really paved the way for that compulsory superannuation system. So I had the privilege of watching him change Australia. I think much has been said about his principled decision to oppose the Howard government's decision to go to war in Iraq and how he articulated so clearly to the troops that his beef was not with them but was with the government. That has been much remarked on since his very sad passing. But I want to talk about his arts legacy that he leaves. As the member for Gorton referred to, that was something that probably hasn't had as much light shone on it over many, many years, but we've made sure that that legacy is being well remembered. It was a real testament to his forward thinking that, 10 years on, the vision that he offered for a cultural policy, Creative Australia, served as the foundation for the new cultural policy that we've released: Revive. In many ways he was the grandfather of that policy, never content for the arts to be left to the margins. In 2013, he said: … governments have to invest in our culture and our creative industries. Why?—because culture defines us. We are home to the oldest living culture on earth, and we have been welcoming to the greatest diversity of cultures on earth. This is what has made us unique, and it is why we have to preserve it, nurture it, invest in it and build upon it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Macquarie will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 104 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Rural and Regional Health Services 105 18:30 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi At one point or another, we've all been patients in the healthcare system. It's a universal experience. But the quality of this experience can be greatly shaped by the interactions that we have with a nurse, a doctor or an allied health professional like a physio or a psychologist. It's the healthcare worker who is critical to our care—a GP who takes the time to call us after hours with test results or a nurse who extends their shift to make sure we have what we need. Our health workforce is vital to our being able to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. But, in rural, remote and regional Australia, we have fewer doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other healthcare workers per capita than our city cousins, and these workforce shortages are leading to poor health outcomes, long waiting lists, less disease prevention, more chronic disease, longer times to diagnose and more avoidable complications. When you live regionally, rurally or remotely, it's expensive to travel to see a specialist in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth or Adelaide. Specialists become out of reach for many who are struggling to pay their rent or, indeed, their electricity bill. When we don't have enough healthcare workers, it's not just the patients that suffer; it's our doctors, our nurses and our allied health professionals who suffer too. Health professionals in rural areas are likely to report longer working hours than their metropolitan counterparts, and the workforce pipeline is not going to get better any time soon to offer them any relief. A 2021 survey of final-year medical students found a strong preference to work in our capital cities, with less than 20 per cent of graduates showing a preference for working in regional or rural towns. We simply can't afford to lose any more health professionals to burnout simply because they're shouldering a load that should be shared but there just aren't enough people out there. That health services in regional areas are falling short is demonstrated when you look at how much money is being spent there compared to metropolitan areas. A recent and important report by the National Rural Health Alliance highlighted this shocking disparity. According to the report, the gap between healthcare spending in urban areas and healthcare spending in rural areas across the whole nation is a staggering $6.5 billion. The report concluded that this type of health inequity is unjust and unfair for regional and rural Australians. It's obviously unjust. The health outcomes in my region—in Albury-Wodonga in particular—demonstrate what happens when this health inequity occurs. Let me paint you the picture. The life expectancy for people living in Albury-Wodonga is one year lower than the national average. We have higher rates of asthma, arthritis, obesity and cancer. The mental ill health statistics are devastating. Our rates of mental ill health are 38 per cent higher than the national average and, tragically, we have a higher prevalence of suicide. Cardiac arrest rates in the Hume healthcare region, which takes in our Albury-Wodonga border region, are the second highest in the state of Victoria. Albury Wodonga Health is the service provider for this area. It's the only cross-border health service in the nation, servicing a large catchment of over 300,000 people. Within 15 years, this catchment is going to grow by one-third. By 2040, we will need a hospital and workforce capable of handling 150,000 emergency presentations, 40,000 surgeries and 1,900 births each year. A strong, capable, skilled workforce is desperately needed in Albury-Wodonga, more than ever. Before becoming an MP I was a clinical nurse and midwife. I've seen how workforce shortages impact patients, workers and communities. I was also an academic researcher at the University of Melbourne's school of rural health for over a decade and I researched the best ways to grow and retain a strong regional health workforce. I know that there are solutions and that we must work together to respond to the terrible shortage we're experiencing in our healthcare professions in rural Australia. Our regional and rural communities not only deserve this but desperately need it. To solve this problem on the border we must bring our major health education institutes—our TAFEs and universities—together with the local hospital, Albury Wodonga Health. Albury Wodonga Health are proposing to do just this. They have an exciting proposal to create a collaborative education and research centre. This proposed centre will not just help to solve our workforce shortages but also make Albury-Wodonga the regional health research and education capital of Australia. This collaborative centre will be co-located at the new hospital in Albury that is currently under development with New South Wales and Victorian government funding. The centre will be a purpose-built facility that brings together clinical practice, research, education and training. It will pool resources for regional health research and will enhance our cross-border data collection and analysis. Really importantly, it will invest in our midcareer health professionals so that they stay in our region and are not lost to the city when they seek further education and training. Let me give you an example. Currently there are no local options for postgraduate study in cardiac care nursing. Albury Wodonga Health say that they have a staff member right now attending a university in Adelaide to complete this specialty course. More cardiac nurses are desperately needed. The cardiac cath lab at Albury Wodonga hospital can be open only a few days a week and requires specialised staff to increase its operational hours. Remember what I said earlier—we have one of the highest rates of cardiac arrest in Victoria. A local training facility for postgraduate nursing, such as cardiac care specialisations, will ensure that we can meet the needs of our community and, really importantly, generate the necessary health workforce pipeline. This centre is key to attracting, training and retaining high-quality staff to meet the needs of this rapidly growing population. This joint proposal has come from Albury Wodonga Health, the University of New South Wales, La Trobe University, Charles Sturt University, Wodonga TAFE and TAFE New South Wales. Imagine getting all these partners to the table. That's not an easy thing, but we have. There's also the potential for the Army School of Health to join as a partner too. This makes it unique. In Albury-Wodonga we actually train our Army and defence medics. They can offer real skills when it comes to not only our Defence Force but also our local health workforce. As a former health researcher I know first-hand what an integrated centre of multidisciplinary education and research can do. Trust me when I say that this proposal can work. It will work if it can get funded. I know this is what our region needs. It's a big vision and, like every journey, it starts with a single step. The first step here is a really small one—a modest funding request of this government of $250,000 to facilitate the discovery phase of this project, to get it all on a page, to get the governance model right. I've written to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health on this proposal, asking them to come together and fund it—to fund the solutions we're putting forward to address the healthcare worker crisis. To be honest, so far the government response to this funding request has skated around the ask, referencing existing training opportunities and restating their commitment to increasing the supply of health professionals around Australia, especially in regional, rural and remote areas of the country. Really? This government says it wants to address the health workforce shortage. Well, this is how. We're not just describing a problem; we're coming with a solution. Providing $250,000 is the first step on a project that could provide the tools to educate, train and retain our own at home on the border in the Albury-Wodonga region. The National Rural Health Alliance report on rural health investment that I referenced earlier recommended that any solution to address the state of healthcare services needs to be place based. No two communities are the same, nor do they have the same challenges. So I really urge the government not to approach this regional and rural healthcare shortage crisis like it would in the cities or across the country more broadly with a one-size-fits-all approach. Help us to build our health workforce by investing in this innovative solution for Albury-Wodonga. If they care about addressing the health workforce shortage, and if they believe that the best way to grow a rural health workforce is to invest in locals, then the only conclusion is to give us the tools we need to educate, train and retain our own at home. Rural Australia makes up 30 per cent of our population, provides 90 per cent of the food we eat and brings in 50 per cent of Australia's tourism income, but the higher burden of disease in rural Australia represents a $27 billion loss in economic contribution. We must invest properly in the health care of regional, rural and remote Australia in order to benefit everyone. Back this in! Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 106 18:40 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I am here in the chamber now to speak about both a grievance and a hope for the future. I speak of a betrayal of many of the most vulnerable in our community through the robodebt scheme and the erosion of trust in government. The establishment of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme on 18 August 2022 was a key election commitment of the Albanese Labor government. The royal commission, led by commissioner Catherine Holmes, has delivered justice and answers for the more than 500,000 victims of the former Liberal government's unlawful, harmful and utterly flawed robodebt scheme. Robodebt unlawfully raised debts of just under $1.8 billion against vulnerable Australians. The royal commission found: Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms. Frontline Services Australia staff were forced to carry out this unlawful scheme, many of whom attempted to ring the alarm bells on what was happening and were flatly ignored. The Prime Minister said on 7 July this year: For more than four years, Liberal Ministers dismissed or ignored the significant concerns that were raised over and over again, including in the Parliament, but also by victims, by public servants, by community organisations and of course, legal experts. It had a devastating impact across Australia. I know that it had a detrimental impact on local families: 2,397 people were issued with an illegal debt notice just in my electorate of Aston. It was a very stressful time for them, and it marked a shameful chapter in the administration of our social security system and a massive failure of public administration. Everyone remembers those words uttered by the former member for Aston and former Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge on an episode of A Current Affair: We will find you, we will track you down, you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison. These were words that the former minister came up with specifically to frighten and intimidate those who we now know did not owe money to the government. The robodebt royal commission report pointed out: Mr Tudge knew that conflation of fraud and inadvertent overpayment occurred, most specifically from his experience with respect to the segment on A Current Affair. He knew that fraud represented a very small proportion of welfare compliance. Despite this, he took no action to issue a media release to clarify and emphasise the distinction between fraud and inadvertent overpayment, and he did nothing to draw attention to the fact that fraud represented a very small part of welfare compliance. The scheme created catastrophic stress and anxiety for many of my constituents, and they knew that in going to the former member they might have had their personal information leaked to the media. Another point made in the commission's report was: As a minister, Mr Tudge was invested with a significant amount of public power. Mr Tudge's use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the Scheme's problems represented an abuse of that power. My heart goes out to the families across the country who were devastated and damaged by this unfair process and who in some cases lost loved ones—over 3,000 early deaths due to an illegal scheme that cannot be allowed to happen again, ever. I would also like to thank the member for Maribyrnong and Minister for Government Services, the Hon. Bill Shorten, for his work in opposition to ensure that this royal commission happened, for his fight across those years from 2015 to November 2019 and for continuing to drive this whilst in government, sticking with a promise to Australians that we took to the last election. As Minister Shorten said on 7 July 2023: The Royal Commission has highlighted a broken system under the previous government. And Commissioner Holmes certainly doesn't mince her words in terms of what she says. She's described Robodebt as an 'ill conceived, embryonic idea rushed to Cabinet'. Evidence from the commission established that senior management and former government ministers ignored warnings that the scheme could be illegal. The commissioner said at the start of the report: It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme's lack of legal foundation coming to light. Not surprisingly, not shockingly, there has been very little remorse expressed by those opposite or those involved. They're just protecting their reputations, thinking nothing of the agony they caused. They should hang their heads in shame. Then we hear yesterday from the member for Cook in the House of Representatives. Again, Scott Morrison took no responsibility. In the classic style of the member for Cook, he shifted the blame. He said the commission didn't listen to his evidence. Mr Morrison may as well have said, 'It's not my job.' It's no wonder the Australian public has so little faith in government nowadays. To quote a victim of the scheme: To this day, I still get anxiety when I think about my robodebt. The government should care about people who are struggling; people who have depression or money troubles. They should not put pressure on them and make their lives worse. Beyond the harm that robodebt has caused to so many vulnerable people, we also need to consider its impact on democratic governance, government integrity and broader trust in our public institutions. Robodebt demonstrated not only a complete failure on public engagement but also a complete disregard for citizens. Citizens felt disempowered and under attack. If we do not restore public trust in our institutions, we risk losing people's cooperation with the public system. Our social contract is compromised and undermined. That's why it was critical that we restore integrity and confidence in our system from the royal commission report, in contrast to the previous government, which refused to take responsibility and still does. As Commissioner Holmes said in closing: … I am confident that the Commission has served the purpose of bringing into the open an extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice. The government thanks Commissioner Holmes and her team for their dedication, professionalism and forensic work throughout the royal commission process. The government will now carefully consider the 57 recommendations presented in the final report. To those who shared their stories with the royal commission, and who campaigned tirelessly to raise the alarm about the gross betrayal that was the robodebt scheme, I thank you. We all thank you. Throughout the royal commission process, we have seen courage, leadership and ethics on display from victims, their advocates and whistleblowers. Australians must have access to an effective social security support system and should be treated with respect and dignity. There must never be another robodebt again. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility 108 18:49 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This is a grievance debate, and I can tell you I am deeply aggrieved. I'm aggrieved by the decision on 18 July by Justice Natalie Charlesworth in the Federal Court, sitting in South Australia, to declare that the nomination of the Napandee site in Kimba for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is invalid because the then minister for resources, Keith Pitt, was biased in his decision-making. I find this an astounding decision which throws a host of issues into turmoil, given that on two previous occasions the Federal Court had ruled that things were in order and that the Barngarla did not have a case. A Senate inquiry, indeed, supported the process. The question is now what this all means. For me, it opens up a whole host of doubts about the value of freehold property rights in Australia. The issue here is that standing was granted to the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on the basis that, if native title had been in place 50, 60 or 70 years ago when these freehold titles were first granted, they would have been advocating native title at that stage. Because we know freehold title has extinguished native title, Justice Charlesworth has found that the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation have an ongoing interest here because they had standing before the declaration of the freehold rights. To me, that is just gobbledygook. We understand that it has extinguished native title rights, so in that case I don't believe they should have been given the opportunity to raise these issues. They should not have been granted standing. Of course, the question now, for anybody with freehold title in Australia, is: does any Indigenous group now have the possibility of saying, 'I have standing because this would have been my land 200 years ago, and now you have to ask me if you want to put up a garden shed'? It's been put to me that a radioactive waste management facility is quite different to a garden shed, but there's nothing in the ruling that would delineate the difference between a garden shed and a radioactive waste management facility. The second issue that I want to raise, which I think is a very important one for the nation, is where on earth this leaves ANSTO and the operation of the Lucas Heights reactor. In Australia we have ARPANSA, which is the independent regulator of all things nuclear, and ANSTO, which operates the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights. It's a wonderful machine, one of the world's best, and you're probably visited it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, ARPANSA have ruled that there will not be a further extension of the storage facilities at Lucas Heights, and I think ANSTO have informed the Senate committee that they expect that the low-level solid waste storage will be full on 1 January 2032—that's just nine years away now—the aluminium retrieval bins and the storage shed will be full on 1 July 2028, and, following a recent extension, the intermediate-level waste facility will be full in June 2036. Prior to this, ARPANSA insisted that ANSTO have a management plan in place by 2020. They accepted the fact that the government was moving in this area and making declarations. The parliament moved. Both houses of parliament supported Napandee as the site. ANSTO no longer have a plan. It was thrown in the bin on 18 July, and I believe that ANSTO are probably now technically in breach of the current regulations that have been set by ARPANSA. So where does this leave our nuclear isotopes industry? Where does it leave 700,000 doses of nuclear medicine that go out each year? Where does it leave the countries that depend on us for their medical isotopes? I don't know. We're not in government, and I don't have the access to ANSTO that I may have had on a previous occasion. But I would imagine there is a lot of head scratching going on at the moment, with ANSTO wondering how on earth they are going to meet their requirements. Both of those issues are why the government should immediately appeal this decision. They have three choices here, of course: they can appeal the decision, they can deem the site, or they can reissue a declaration on the site. I believe that we are out of time to go searching elsewhere in Australia. We've actually found a community that wants to host this facility, and it's taken quite some time, I must say. I first raised this issue in 2015 in my own community. I circulated to the whole district and said, 'I'm going to hold a meeting, and I'm planning to nominate my farm for the national radioactive waste management facility.' Consequently, I was barred from being able to do that. Under the constitutional rulings of a couple of years ago, I would have had to give up my job to go with it. I wasn't aware of that at the time, but that wasn't the reason I bailed. The minister at the time said, 'You would put me in an impossible position.' But anyway, others in the community nominated, and since that time there were 28 nominations. It was whittled down by the department to six. We then had surveys in each of those in communities, and eventually one was chosen: Wallerberdina. It was the only one that had a high enough level of support for the government to push ahead with. My community of Kimba believed we'd made the wrong decision and actually found some new properties to nominate where the neighbours were less hostile than the original nomination. We approached the minister to put in another nomination—it was still open—and two more were accepted. Eventually we had ballots, and then we had another ballot, and in the end Kimba was chosen, with 61.8 per cent of residents voting in favour. They are without doubt the best-informed community in Australia on this issue—and are pretty fed up, I must say, with all of the gratuitous advice that's come from all around Australia from people who know far less than them about their ability to make a decision for their own future. If the minister did exhibit bias in selecting the Napandee property after a five-year process of searching for a landowner who would nominate a paddock in a community that wanted the facility—well, of course it was biased! What would anyone else expect? What was the point of the whole process if it was not to find the right community to hold this? So I reject the justice's decision just purely on that basis. I mean, to accuse bias of the former minister, I think, is absurd given the situation and given the process we had been through to get to that point in time. Now, on another issue, given that around Australia we are discussing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice and in Western Australia they're discussing cultural heritage acts and all these things, I'd like to explain this site to the parliament. This site is a 500-acre paddock. It's not flat, but it's certainly not hilly; it's undulating. We had a rainfall event just a little over 12 months ago where approximately 200 millimetres of rainfall fell on the property in about 48 hours. There are no creeks or rivers on this, so it just runs off evenly all the way around, and it contributed to some waterways further away. There was no pooling of water on it. Every stump had been torn out of the ground and burnt up long ago. There are no rocks over the size of my fist across this thing. It is about as nondescript as you could possibly imagine. There is a small clump of trees up on one boundary. Now, just so people understand, the Kimba district only has 300 millimetres of rainfall. We know that Indigenous groups did not live there on a permanent basis, but they did pass through in the winter months. There are a number of granite outcrops around the district where water would pool, and that would sustain life. We can find the relics around those rocks. No-one disputes that, and they could be significant sites. But none of those sites are anywhere near this particular site. I think the nearest one would be somewhere around 15 to 20 kilometres away. It was tight mallee scrub. So there was no water, there was tight mallee scrub you'd virtually need a machete to smash through to get there, and we find now that this small clump of trees was a Seven Sisters sacred birthing site. Now, people can make up their own mind about the value of that of that claim, but it seems a very unlikely spot for a birthing site. One would think you'd be looking for water. On every case, though, it is very important that the government stand up and be counted on this. This is an issue of national importance, and they need to find a backbone. Northern Australia 109 18:59 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Northern Australia is one of the most economically productive parts of the country, across diversified industries ranging from agriculture and tourism to mining. With 12 million cattle, it is the world's fifth-largest beef exporter. It's also the fifth-largest sugar exporter, with 3,000 farms. Those two sectors alone amount to $3 billion a year. Another industry that's heavily associated with the north, of course, is mining. Iron ore alone—98 per cent of it is mined in Western Australia's Pilbara, and it will generate $100 billion in export earnings this year. The same goes for the gas industry, whose export earnings reached a record $92.8 billion, almost $100 billion, in 2022, and 93 per cent of Australian gas deposits are in Western Australia's North West Shelf, providing feedstock to northern projects. The north is also home to a periodic table's worth of critical minerals and rare earths, with 81 major projects under consideration worth up to $42 billion. That figure is only set to grow in the coming decades. According to Department of Industry, Science and Resources modelling, critical minerals could add $133½ billion to the economy—more than iron ore and gas—and create 262,000 jobs if we captured a larger share of refining in Australia. We must absolutely move into downstream processing, and that's why the Albanese government announced its Critical Minerals Strategy 2023-2030 that was released last month. The Northern Territory also has important deposits, and it boasts rich rare earth deposits, such as those mined in the Arafura Nolans project. It's crucial that all of the NT's elements be in the critical minerals list, which the government committed to updating on a regular basis. The minerals are critical on two grounds. First, their supply chains are highly concentrated in one market, China, and are vulnerable to shocks. Secondly, they are used in sensitive defence technologies on which both we and our partners and allies depend. A recent ASPI report by Ben Halton and Kim Beazley noted that 3,000 items of US military equipment, almost every weapon used in Ukraine and every fighter jet, navy vessel and nuclear weapon on earth relies on rare earths, with few substitutes. The north is also a breadbasket for Australia and the Indo-Pacific region. Take Humpty Doo Barramundi farm, for example. It is the biggest Australian owned fish farm in the country. Dan Richards and his family have been in business for 30 years, and they're employing 150 people. We should celebrate their great work for creating opportunities in the territory for Territorians. Beyond its thriving industries, northern Australia is also the sword and shield of the nation, hosting a sprawling network of defence bases and infrastructure. Our government made clear in the Defence strategic review that the primary strategic significance of northern Australia is for our defence and national security policy. To that end, the government announced $3.8 billion in investment upgrades to develop our northern bases over the next four years. I was privileged to spend some time on RAAF Base Darwin last week, joining Exercise Talisman Sabre 2023 as part of the ADF's parliamentary program. It's always an honour to join the men and women in the uniform of our Australian Defence Force, whether it's out in the field, at a RAAF base, on one of their ships, on a submarine or around their barracks. Of course, it is with a heavy heart that we pay tribute to the four missing aircrew of the MRH-90 that was lost recently: Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. I thank all the ADF personnel, the search-and-rescue and our allies, the US and Canada, for assisting in those search efforts for the MRH-90, and we hope the families have that closure that they so richly deserve. So massive is the sacrifice of those families who lose their loved ones. Just last month, the Albanese government and the Northern Territory government signed an agreement to establish the Defence Accommodation Precinct Darwin at Howard Springs. This deal ensured that over 1,300 military personnel from Australia and partner nations could be hosted during Talisman Sabre, but it's got a lot more capacity than that. It is another step in improving the ADF's ability to operate from Australia's northern bases, one of the six priority areas mentioned in the Defence strategic review. Northern Australia is more than what it produces, and it is more even than the defence edge that it gives our nation through its proximity to the Indo-Pacific region. The north is also a cultural tone-setter for our nation. The Yirrkala bark petitions, land rights, the Wave Hill walk-off—all of these extraordinary events began in the beating red heart of northern Australia, before radiating out to the rest of the country. We see this again with the Statement from the Heart, which our government supports in full. The Voice, which has now reached boardrooms, sports clubs and schools around the nation, was first heard outside Uluru in 2017, some time ago. When northern Australia speaks, it may take time, but the country eventually has the opportunity to listen. What it is now saying is that it's time for a new approach to closing the gap. The latest Productivity Commission report concluded that 11 of our targets were not on track. That means that we are failing as a nation. Whether it be with respect to the birthweight of First Nations babies; educational outcomes; youth employment, which is shockingly low; living conditions; or the suicide rate, we are failing First Nations people, who still lag well behind non-Indigenous Australians on these metrics. No proud country can accept that. These figures are a national shame. Only two targets are on track: reaching 62 per cent employment and achieving a 15 per cent increase in land subject to First Nations people's legal rights so that they're able to develop land in order to get proper, real jobs and enjoy the development that most others in Australia have been able to enjoy. In March the government announced $400 million in additional funding to close the gap, including for reliable water infrastructure, remote housing and food security. But there's still much work to be done by all Australians. First Nations people are still far more likely to be jailed, to die by suicide and to have their children removed than non-Indigenous Australians, and the rates of Indigenous incarceration and deaths in custody are appalling. In the NT, almost 90 per cent of the adult prison population is First Nations people. In juvenile detention, and I've visited Don Dale on a number of occasions, it's about 100 per cent. If that doesn't speak to you, I don't know what will. When it is true that a young Aboriginal male is more likely to go to jail than to university, we're failing. We've got to do things better. With justice reinvestment programs, we have a plan to tackle the root causes of crime and reoffending, including through rehabilitation services. Justice reinvestment in places like Bourke in New South Wales has proven to be effective not only in reducing crime and keeping adults and young people out of custody but in leading to social and economic improvements. First Nations led organisations understand the needs of their communities best, which is why they will be at the forefront of rolling out this program. I'm proud that four NT communities, including Darwin, have been chosen, as part of an $81 million funding package, to deliver new community led and holistic approaches to keep at-risk individuals out of the criminal justice system. This includes investing in early intervention and prevention programs and initiatives for adults and young people. Other activities will focus on substance abuse, engagement with school, family support and the criminal justice system itself. Ninti One is an organisation that the Attorney-General's Department selected to be a justice reinvestment partner. I met with Rod Reeve to discuss their excellent work in offering capacity building to First Nations communities. I look forward to seeing the great work on justice reinvestment that is currently underway being rolled out in Darwin. A north that is stronger economically, militarily and socially will strengthen the fabric of our whole nation. River Torrens Linear Park 111 19:09 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise this evening to talk about the important history and even more important future of the River Torrens and Linear Park. The river runs from Mount Pleasant in the Adelaide Hills down through my electorate of Sturt, right through the CBD—it separates the CBD from North Adelaide—and out to the coast at Gulf St Vincent in Adelaide. It's the iconic river of the city. When Colonel William Light designed modern Adelaide, he embraced the river as the essential geometric proportion calibration of the planned city that is Adelaide. My electorate of Sturt is essentially everything east of the now Adelaide CBD into the hills face and foothills of the Adelaide Hills. So the River Torrens is very important to me and very important to my community. Since European settlement, we haven't really treated it as well as we should have. As was invariably the case in the 19th century, rivers essentially were the sewer system of settlements. Certainly, initially, the river was not something to be embraced in the early time of settlement of Adelaide. It was, as I said, essentially, a sewer system for the city and something to be avoided. Nonetheless, in the 20th century, some of the significant public buildings started to embrace the river. The Adelaide Zoo sits on the river, and thankfully, through most of my electorate, more importantly, a lot of things weren't built anywhere near the river. We have what we call Linear Park, which doesn't quite run the full length of the River Torrens from the ocean into the hills, but it certainly runs the entirety of the Torrens stretch, through my electorate from the east of the city up until the foothills. It is an unbelievable natural asset. It's an unbelievable recreational asset for local families. It's also something that can be a lot more than what it currently is. Certainly, in my first term in the parliament, I was very focused on securing investments to some of the initial opportunities to improve Linear Park and the River Torrens. I'm grateful to the previous government that we succeeded in achieving an important investment in the Second Creek, which flows into the River Torrens. It is a gross pollutant trap, which stops a lot of the European deciduous foliage in particular that flows into our creek system and can cause algae blooms and a lot of pollution in the River Torrens. We also have started the process of investing in footpaths, particularly upgrading footpaths, so that they can be more suited to modern recreation, which of course these days includes sharing. There's a lot more than just walking and running and even bike riding that now goes on, from a recreational-pursuit point of view. But the job is very much in its infancy. To me, there is an enormous opportunity for us to be investing much more significantly in the River Torrens Linear Park, all the way from the beach to the hills, to make it achieve its full potential, not only as a natural asset but also as a recreational asset for the City of Adelaide. In particular, I'm interested in the welfare of my constituents within that catchment. As a key part of that, the Torrens runs through the Adelaide Parklands. The Adelaide Parklands are iconic, but there are certainly concerning elements. Every five or 10 years, we tend to have some kind of proposal to do a little bit of development in the Adelaide Parklands. The development itself has always got individual merit, but of course, a bit like slicing salami, project after project, we are at risk of having the Parklands become jeopardised by good individual ideas that, in the sum, start to erode that asset. So essential to a vision for the Torrens and Linear Park is indeed pursuing a UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Adelaide Parklands. I think there's a lot of merit in that protection. I think it would certainly meet the thresholds required by UNESCO. Obviously, there's a process to be gone through, and I'm very passionate about being a part of initiating that process. It would provide a new and enhanced level of protection for the Adelaide Park Lands in particular. As we know, once there is an international obligation or agreement in place, some Commonwealth protections are triggered that will make it a lot more impossible, frankly—as opposed to a lot more difficult, as it already is—to undertake developments on the Adelaide Park Lands. The Labor government at the moment are demolishing a heritage police barracks on the park lands to build a new women's and children's hospital. I'm all for the hospital. I'm wondering whether the site that they've chosen was absolutely necessary or the one that is saving the most money. But we're going to lose a very significant part of the history of South Australia and of Adelaide, and that's very regrettable. It is an example of other projects that have been proposed, that are occurring or that may be proposed in the future that I would like to not be made possible through that UNESCO listing. I, as a Commonwealth politician, can be a part of providing protection—not seeking to cop out and blame state and local governments when we can't stop these things from going ahead, but getting a Commonwealth protection in place for the park lands. They are not strictly in my electorate. The boundary of my electorate is the Adelaide Park Lands, and the park lands themselves fall within the seat of Adelaide. But I can tell you: the people of my electorate of Sturt are very passionate about them. They use the park lands as part of the Linear Park precinct. So UNESCO World Heritage listing is a key part of that vision. Another is investing in the recreational infrastructure along Linear Park. The vision has to include being able to go continuously all the way from the coast to the source of the Torrens and back again, and, certainly, that would provide an unbelievable opportunity for those seeking recreation and quality time with family in undertaking various outdoor pursuits. We want to reintroduce the platypus into the River Torrens. It was a habitat for the platypus until European settlement. Not surprisingly, but very regrettably, that habitat was destroyed in the early days of European settlement of the South Australian colonies. So reintroducing the platypus into what was its native habitat, the Torrens, is another really important part of that vision. So is ensuring that we're undertaking those environmental upgrades to the Torrens proper and to the catchment, which is, of course, suburban Adelaide, which has its own unique challenge. But there are a lot of things we can do to dramatically improve the creeks that flow into the Torrens with the spread of tree canopy; the planting of more natives; the removal of pests, both flora and fauna; and ensuring that we have a really healthy biodiversity throughout the Torrens and throughout Linear Park. It's an opportunity to work at all levels of government and for the community to come together. I've got some fantastic Landcare groups in my electorate that work on different sections of Linear Park and different sections of the creeks that flow into the Torrens. They all do fantastic work. We all know how vital volunteers are and the sorts of transformations that only they can achieve at the community and local level. But, to me, we also want that Commonwealth leadership. I went to the last election with a focus on Linear Park, and I will again be going to the next election talking about the next things we can do to enhance that natural asset for our community: UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Adelaide Park Lands; reintroducing the platypus into its native habitat; creating the safety of that habitat again in the Torrens; investing in recreational upgrades, to make sure that everyone can get maximum value; and, of course, also ensuring that we're investing in environmental projects so that we're protecting and enhancing that catchment and that river system as an ecosystem. It's something of great pride to everyone in Adelaide. It's a great asset, the Torrens. It can be even better for us. As a local member, these are exactly the sorts of things that are priorities for me: identifying local things to work towards, bringing the community together, investing in it together and achieving something to pass on to future generations. Housing 112 19:19 Ms CLAYD 248181 Newcastle ON (—) (): Access to safe and affordable housing has always been a priority for federal Labor governments, and the Albanese Labor government were elected with an ambitious housing agenda, with a mandate for change and an expectation from the public that we would take action on housing, and indeed we have. One of the first things we did when we came into government was to widen the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, unlocking $575 million to invest immediately in social and affordable rental homes. In our first budget we created the National Housing Accord, with the shared ambition of building one million new, well-located homes by the end of the decade. In our second budget we provided new incentives to support build-to-rent accommodation and significant additional resources for community housing. We've increased the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, helping around 1.1 million Australians with the rising cost of rent, including 6,300 renters in Newcastle. This is the largest increase in rent assistance in 30 years. And we're providing an extra $67.5 million to the states and territories through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement to tackle homelessness. We're working through the National Cabinet and with the housing ministers across this vast nation to improve renters' rights, and this was put front and centre of the agenda at the most recent National Cabinet meeting. In New South Wales, my home state, the Minns Labor government will establish a New South Wales rental commissioner, who will be an advocate and voice for renters, working closely with government, stakeholders and industry. We've announced $2 billion for a social housing accelerator program that will deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. Of that, $610 million will go to the New South Wales government, with a degree of flexibility on how they're able to use that funding to boost social housing stock. But there are some guardrails, as there should be with Commonwealth funding, and we've said that this means that the states can engage in new builds, they can expand existing programs or they can turn to renovating and refurbishing existing stock that is currently uninhabitable. I know that there are homes like that in everybody's electorate—public housing that has been rendered uninhabitable and is in desperate need of renovation and modification work. The funds from that accelerator program can go directly towards making current stock habitable again. All funding from that program has to be committed within two years, ending on 30 June 2025, so we're going to start seeing those results on the ground soon. That's exactly what we want. All of this brings the Albanese Labor government's investment in housing and homelessness to more than $9.5 billion in the first 12 months of office. I think by anyone's measure that is a plan of action. And that's before you even factor in the Housing Australia Future Fund. This week, of course, we will be reintroducing the legislation to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund, and its related housing bills. We'll be introducing that again in the lower house. We're going to give everybody an opportunity to have a little rethink about the opposition that was cast on that bill before the winter recess. We are going to make use of every process available to us to get this important legislation passed so that we can build tens of thousands of much-needed new homes for Australians. Returns from the fund will deliver the government's commitment to 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years of the fund's existence. That includes 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. There are another 1,000 homes there for veterans who are at risk of homelessness. And we know the needs of older women, who are amongst the fastest-growing cohorts of people at risk of homelessness. We have a serious plan on the table, and it's a plan that we took to the Australian people at the last election. It's a plan that has funding. It's been fully costed, and it's ready to go. We just need this bill to get through the parliament. Federal Labor understands that housing is a national challenge, and we understand that every level of government has a role to play. Traditionally, the Commonwealth government doesn't play a role in housing. Indeed, it is only federal Labor governments that have ever shown the national leadership required to invest in social housing, and that was very evident in the last 10 years in this parliament. The former Liberal coalition government wiped their hands of this responsibility entirely. Every time we raised it, they said: 'Nope, housing's not a Commonwealth responsibility. This is a matter for the states and territories.' This is why we now face a situation where demand for social housing has increased almost three times as fast as the growth in population. This is an unsustainable trajectory. Sadly, not all the states have played their part either. In New South Wales, the previous Liberal government left a projected housing construction shortfall of 134,000 dwellings over five years, and processing times have blown out to 69 days on average. To help combat this terrible situation, the newly elected Minns Labor government will incentivise residential housing developers to include at least 15 per cent affordable housing in their plans, and it will introduce a mandatory requirement for 30 per cent of all homes built on surplus government land to be set aside for social, affordable and universal housing. The Minns Labor government will put an end to no-grounds evictions and instead work closely with stakeholders, advocacy groups and industry to develop a list of reasonable grounds for an owner to end a tenancy. It will ban the practice of secret rent bidding, and it is streamlining the rental bond process to allow renters to directly transfer bonds from one property to another, while ensuring owners still have access to the funds they may need. This is great leadership from the New South Wales Labor government, and I want to pay tribute to the New South Wales housing minister, Rose Jackson. Let's make no bones about it: Australia is facing a housing crisis. Affordable housing is critical for the wellbeing of Australians and the productivity of the Australian economy. The crisis requires an injection of investment from the Commonwealth, and our government is committed to making sure that more Australians have a safe, affordable house to call home. Yet the Greens are standing in the way of affordable housing. The idea that you could argue that you are for affordable housing and then turn around to vote against this bill is complete nonsense. It is time to stop the game and the faux protest. Get on board, stop being a party of protest and do something that is truly progressive for the nation. Now is the opportunity for the Australian parliament to rise to the occasion and play an important role in helping solve the housing crisis. The reality is that there is a human cost to delaying the Housing Australia Future Fund, and that cost is borne by people on the front line of our country's housing challenges. They are the people who are sitting on public housing wait lists and the organisations who are working hard to help those people. They are the women and children fleeing domestic violence, the veterans on the brink of homelessness and the workers who are facing barriers to employment because they can no longer afford to live anywhere near their workplace. As National Shelter CEO Emma Greenhalgh has said: Holding up the legislation further just holds up the ability for community housing providers and state governments to really get on with the job of delivering housing As Ivan Simon, the interim CEO of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association, said, some people will have to 'sleep through another three or four months before they'll even know they might get some housing support'. This is a time to stand up and be counted in the Australian parliament—to be involved in being part of the solution to a housing crisis. I implore all members opposite to get on board. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Thank you. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30