MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

2023-08-03 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 3 August 2023

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

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Gender Equality 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 3 09:12 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to World Economic Forum gender gap report rankings be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Domestic and Family Violence 3 Reference to Federation Chamber 5 09:29 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to family and domestic violence leave be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 5

Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 6 09:30 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In November last year I appointed Professor Mary O'Kane AC to lead the biggest and broadest review of Australia's higher education system in 15 years. Professor O'Kane is the former vice chancellor of the University of Adelaide. She was also the first woman to become the dean of engineering at any university in Australia. She is an extraordinary Australian and she leads an extraordinary team in this important task. The other members of the accord team are: Professor Barney Glover AO, Vice-Chancellor of Western Sydney University; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, the first female Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Macquarie Group; the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, former minister for families, community services and Indigenous affairs, and more recently the chair of a review into Victoria's post-secondary education and training system; Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt AO, the first Indigenous Australian to graduate from Harvard Law School, a professor of law and the director of research and academic programs at the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology Sydney. Larissa was also the chair of the 2012 Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People; and the Hon . Fiona Nash, a former senator for New South Wales, a former minister for regional development, regional communications and local government and territories and now Australia's first Regional Education Commissioner. Together, they bring to bear enormous experience in our universities, in business and in public policy, and a mix of experience in STEM and humanities, from our cities and our regions, from across the political divide. Their terms of reference are also broad. I have asked them to look at everything from access to affordability, from teaching quality to research, from governance and employment conditions to how higher education and vocational education and training can and should work more closely together. Two weeks ago I released their interim report. It is an important first step. What it says is that in the decades ahead more jobs will require a university qualification. Thirty-six per cent of the current Australian workforce has a university qualification today. The interim report estimates that that could jump to 55 per cent by the middle of this century. That's a rough estimate but it gives the House an idea of the skills challenge we face in the years and decades ahead. And what the accord team argues in this report is that the only way to so significantly boost the percentage of the workforce with a university qualification is to significantly increase the number of students who are currently underrepresented in our universities: students from our outer suburbs and the regions, students from poor backgrounds, students with a disability and Indigenous students. Today almost one in two Australians in their late 20s and early 30s has a university degree, but not everywhere. In the outer suburbs of our major cities it's only 23 per cent of young adults who have a university degree. In the regions it's 13 per cent. Only 15 per cent of young adults from poor families have a degree. And if you are a young Indigenous Australian, it's even lower again, only seven per cent. If you are a young Indigenous man today you are more likely to go to jail than university. What this report says is that we need to fix this—all of this—not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's what we have to do. If we don't—if we don't significantly boost the number of students from the outer suburbs and the regions and other underrepresented groups at university—we won't have the skills we need, and the workforce we will need, in the years and decades ahead. This report is in two parts. The first part sets priorities for immediate action. It makes five recommendations and says the government should act on these now, ahead of its final report. When I released the report a few weeks ago I confirmed that the government would implement all five recommendations. This legislation is necessary to implement two of those. The five recommendations in the interim report are as follows: 1. that we create more university study hubs—not only in the regions but also in our outer suburbs; 2. that we scrap the '50 per cent pass rule' and require better reporting on how students are progressing; 3. that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; 4. that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and 5. that we work with state and territory governments, through National Cabinet, to improve university governance. As I've said, the government will implement all of these recommendations. In response to recommendation 1, we will double the number of university study hubs. There are currently 34 in regional Australia. We will establish 20 more in the regions and for the first time establish 14 in the outer suburbs of our major cities, where the percentage of people with a university qualification is low. In response to the fourth recommendation, we will extend the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into next year and the year after that. And as part of that we will require universities to use any funding remaining from their grant each year on things like enabling courses and extra academic and learning support for students from poor backgrounds, from the regions and from other underrepresented groups. In response to the fifth recommendation, we will work with the states and the territories on improving university governance. I've written to the ministers responsible for higher education in each state and territory to convene a working group, which will be led by Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Research and International, in my department. Its job will be to provide advice to me and other ministers on the immediate actions we should take to improve university governance. There are three areas this working group will focus on: 1. Ensuring that universities are good employers providing a supportive workplace—and, importantly, a workplace where staff can have confidence that they will not be underpaid for the important work they do. 2. Making sure governing bodies have the right expertise, including in the business of running universities; and, of critical importance, 3. Making sure our universities are safe for our students and staff. In 2021 the National Student Safety Survey found that one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since starting university and that one in six had been sexually harassed. The actions universities have taken to address this to date have not been good enough. We have the research. We have the evidence. We know the scope of the problem. We have to act. Yesterday I met with members of the STOP campaign, a group of remarkable young women led by Camille. They told me that in residential colleges there is no consistency of process to make a complaint, no easily available materials to inform students of how to make a complaint, no formal feedback process once a complaint is made, and no support to produce and distribute the educational materials that they have created. Camille and her colleagues didn't just feel unheard—they felt blocked. As part of establishing this working group on university governance, I've asked my department to nominate an expert on prevention and response to sexual harassment and sexual violence. They will be part of the working group that will provide advice to me and other education ministers on the actions we should take and the measures we should implement to improve student and staff safety on campus, including in the variety of student accommodation settings. I have also asked my department to make sure the working group consults with groups like STOP, End Rape on Campus and Fair Agenda. The government is serious about this. It is in addition to the broader work that is being done by my friend and colleague the Minister for Social Services on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. That's recommendations 1, 4 and 5 of the interim report. This bill implements recommendations 2 and 3. In response to recommendation 2, it amends the Higher Education Support Act to remove the requirement that students pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. The former government introduced this rule as part of its Job-ready Graduates Package, and it has seen a disproportionate number of students from poor backgrounds being forced to leave university. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by this in the past two years, mostly from disadvantaged backgrounds. I'm told by Western Sydney University that this year alone 1,350 students have lost their funding and withdrawn from their courses. We should be helping students to succeed—not forcing them to quit. This bill requires that universities and other providers have in place a dedicated plan—a support-for-students policy—under which they will be required to proactively identify students who are at risk of falling behind and set out what they will do to help them succeed. These policies will cover matters like: processes for identifying students who need help; assessing a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert; connecting students to support—and identifying students who are not engaging with support, before their census date wherever possible; providing sufficient non-academic supports for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports—this is important because many students struggle because of non-academic issues; having appropriate crisis and critical harm response arrangements; providing access to trained academic development advisers who can help a student identify what's holding them back and come up with the right response for that student; ensuring that academic and non-academic supports are age and culture appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students; proactively offering 'special circumstances' arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student; providing access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports; providing provider-driven and evidence-based additional support such as peer support; and providing targeted in-course support from academic staff, such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements. Next week I will release a discussion paper on the proposed content of the support-for-students policies. That proposed content will form part of the mandatory obligations in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines. This will also be backed by financial penalties for those institutions that do not meet these obligations. This bill provides for a civil penalty of 60 penalty units for noncompliance. Universities and other providers will also be required to regularly report to the Department of Education on the effectiveness of their policies. In addition to these measures, I have also this week written to the Higher Education Standards Panel, asking that the panel consider the effectiveness of the current Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 in supporting students, and that they provide me with advice on matters such as: (1) whether current thresholds are sufficiently detailed to cover issues like student retention, completion and success; (2) ensuring universities are appropriately implementing the threshold standards; and (3) ensuring students know what protections and supports are already available to them—protections like the ability to obtain refunds where the university has failed to properly assess their ability to undertake a course or has let them take on too heavy a workload, or where a student has had to discontinue a course for reasons beyond their control. I have also asked the panel to advise what can be done to improve the standards currently in place. This is all part of ensuring students are set up to succeed when they attend one of our universities. Removing the '50 per cent pass rule' has been called for by universities right across the country—universities like the University of Adelaide, Monash University, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of the Sunshine Coast, University of New England, the Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. By way of example, Universities Australia has described it as a: … punitive measure … widely regarded as being unnecessarily harsh. And noted that: … the students most likely to fall afoul of the 50 per cent pass rule are first-year students from low socio-economic status backgrounds. They have welcomed this recommendation and the government's plan to implement it. Innovative Research Universities also called the rule 'punitive' and congratulated the government in moving to abolish it. The other accord priority action addressed in this bill is recommendation 3, to ensure all Indigenous students are eligible for a funded place at a public university if they meet the entry requirements for the course. This means that where a student meets the entry requirements for a course, they are able to access support in the form of a Commonwealth supported place and a HELP loan. It's a proven mechanism to increase access to university for underrepresented groups. Under the current legislation, only Indigenous students from regional and remote Australia can access demand driven places. In other words, it applies to students who live in Townsville, but not Logan; if you live in Armidale, but not Mount Druitt; if you live in Port Headland, but not Perth. This bill means that demand driven places for bachelor level courses (excluding medicine) will now be available to all Indigenous students, wherever they live. The Department of Education estimates that this could double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. This is another reform strongly supported by universities—universities like the Australian National University, University of Queensland, Western Sydney University Macquarie University, James Cook University, University of Southern Queensland, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the University of Technology Sydney. Universities Australia said: Universities have long called for uncapped places for all Indigenous students and the removal of barriers to a university education for students from underrepresented backgrounds, which the creation of more study hubs will help facilitate. I said there were two parts to the Universities Accord interim report. That's the first part. The second part proposes more than 70 different ideas to reform our higher education system. Between now and the end of the year when their final report is due, Professor O'Kane and the accord team are seeking feedback on these ideas, including from members of this place. Here are just some of those ideas: a universal learning entitlement, that helps as many Australians as possible get the qualifications and skills they need and ensures that all students from poor backgrounds and from the regions and from under-represented groups are eligible for a funded place at university. a new needs based funding model for Commonwealth supported places—that builds in extra support for students from underrepresented groups, to provide an incentive to universities to offer them a place and help them graduate, a national skills passport that includes all of your qualifications, microcredentials, prior learning, workplace experience and general capabilities, and the expansion of quality, stackable microcredentials and short courses to rapidly upskill and re-skill the workforce, improving the integration of higher education and vocational education—and that includes creating new types of qualifications that combine both, more work integrated learning in more courses, including degree apprenticeships, and financial support for students doing compulsory placements, ajobs broker program to help students find part-time work in the area where they are studying, a national student charter, similar to the one recently introduced in New Zealand, to ensure there is a consistent approach to student safety and wellbeing, and a stronger role for the Ombudsman in addressing student complaints. a change to the way research is funded to put it on a more predictable footing, a wider range of institutions, with different missions, including, potentially, a second national university that's focused on regional Australia, based on the University of California model, a levy on international student fee income to create a fund, a bit like a sovereign wealth fund, that could do multiple things like protect the sector from future economic shocks and help fund things like infrastructure, research or student housing, and a new tertiary education commission that would oversee the implementation of these reforms, provide long-term advice to government, including where new institutions may be needed, and determine the mission based funding that each university would get. As I said, they're just some of the ideas in this report. Now is a chance for everyone, here in this place, and right around the country, to read the report and have your say. Be part of this reform work. Pull the ideas in this report apart. Challenge them and improve on them or reject them and suggest others. Big reform is hard, and not every good idea can be funded by government. As Professor O'Kane has said, there will be far less than 75 recommendations in the accord panel's final report. The final report will look at what the top priorities should be and what reforms should be rolled out over time. So this debate, in here and around the country, in the months ahead is important. Can I thank Professor O'Kane and the whole accord team for their work to date, for their immediate recommendations that we are acting on here, for the ideas that they are asking us to debate and for the common thread which runs through all of this. And that's about ensuring that more Australians, wherever they live, get a crack at going to university and that—as the Prime Minister puts it—we open the door of opportunity a bit wider. That's what this is all about. I commend the bill to the House. And I present the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report to assist members in their consideration of the bill. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Rearrangement 10 09:52 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move: That notice No. 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 11 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee 11 Report 11 09:52 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle () (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's Report 210: Timor-Leste cooperation in the field of defence and the status of visiting forces; Serbia social security agreement. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 by leave—I'm glad to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 210 into the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on Cooperation in the Field of Defence and the Status of Visiting Forces and, separately, the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Serbia on Social Security. The Timor-Leste agreement establishes a legally binding framework to effectively structure enhanced defence cooperation between Australia and Timor-Leste. It serves to facilitate a range of cooperative activities, including the conduct of maritime military and other operations, exchanges and exercises, international and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and educational training and logistics support. The agreement represents the maturing of the longstanding bilateral relationship between the two countries and will contribute to the future enhancement of military cooperation and training. The committee believes that having the forces of another country in one's own sovereign territory, as a matter of common sense, represents a significant degree of trust, closeness and cooperation. Submissions to the inquiry came from various parts of the community—from academia, non-government organisations and government. The committee held a public hearing into the agreement and heard evidence from the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The second agreement—the Serbia social security agreement—is broadly in keeping with the more than 30 such bilateral agreements that already exist. The purpose of these agreements is to allow each of the participant countries to pay a benefit that reflects a person's entitlements under that country's social security system. For Australian the agreement covers the age pension while for Serbia it covers both the pension and disability insurance. The agreement would allow for a claim to a relevant benefit to be lodged in either country and assessed under the applicable social security rules. Ratification of the agreement would improve Australia's ability to provide greater access to social security benefits, particularly for people who migrate between countries, and Australia will also likely receive economic and social benefits from this agreement. Those who would potentially benefit under the agreement include: Australian residents who wish to move to Serbia in retirement; Australian residents who have previously worked in Serbia; former Australian residents living in Serbia; or Australian employees who second workers to Serbia. The committee held a public hearing into the Serbia social security agreement and heard evidence from DFAT, the Department of Social Services and Treasury. Some of the key issues raised included the sharing of information, the value of social security agreements, consultation, waiting periods and indexation. On the topic of consultation, the committee did note the agreement featured a period of stakeholder feedback only after the agreement was signed, and the period of time was less than a fortnight. The committee does consider that, as a general principle, undertaking consultation after signing an agreement is not best practice for informing agreements where the input of relevant stakeholders should be sought. The report also contains the committee 's consideration of several minor treaty actions. It's worth the community understanding that the role of the JSCOT is to scrutinise these minor treaty actions following referral from a minister, and the committee is able to make a recommendation without undertaking a formal inquiry or report because of the relatively minor nature of those treaty actions. That's because the actions are generally procedural or administrative amendments that could be updates to existing agreements and, looked at in their essence, they have a negligible effect in Australia and are regarded as not substantially or significantly impacting the national interest. The committee retains the right to undertake an inquiry into minor treaty actions if it sees fit to do so, and of course we'll always consider whether there are good reasons for that to occur. In the majority of cases, for the reasons I have described, the committee decides that an inquiry is not necessary, and that is properly the case for the minor treaty actions reported here. The committee supports both treaties and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken on behalf of the committee. I commend this report to the House. 09:57 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert by leave—I thank the House for the opportunity to make a brief statement on this report. Timor-Leste is a key strategic defence partner and we currently have a comprehensive defence cooperation program with the country's defence force. Under the coalition government, we initiated the gifting of two Austal-built Guardian-class patrol boats, due to be delivered next year, and support their ongoing operations and maintenance. It's important that the nation has the ability to patrol and secure its own maritime borders, and that has flow-on effects for our own national security. I have also been involved in peacekeeping operations in East Timor back in 2007, so I know firsthand the importance of an Australian-East Timor relationship. As the Department of Defence told the committee, we have warm people-to-people links, and we are committed to building the Timor-Leste Defence Force's capability and capacity. By our reckoning, over 1,000 members of the Timor-Leste Defence Force have received training from Australia. That's why we support this agreement and recommend that binding treaty action be taken. It's a legally binding framework to government defence cooperation activities between our two nations—that is, all about maritime operations, exchanges and exercises; international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; education and training; and logistical support. The agreement, on the whole, is very similar to Australia's other Status of Forces Agreements, of which there are already eight. It will be mutual beneficial and support both nations' forces, helping us to build our resilience to potential threats in the Indo-Pacific. The report also notes the committee's support for the agreement between Australia and Serbia on social security. This will provide greater access to benefits for people who migrate between the two countries and is similar to agreements with 31 other nations. It will also improve the bilateral relationship between Australia and Serbia. I'd like to thank the chair, the committee, all those who appeared before us and the secretariat, who do a fantastic support in supporting this committee. I commend this report to the House. BILLS 12 BILLS Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 12

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:00 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I move: This bill makes some technical amendments to chapter 2D of the Social Security Act which commenced in April 2022. Chapter 2D provides legislative authority for spending on grants and arrangements to help people obtain and maintain work, to address labour shortages, and for related purposes. The explanatory memorandum for Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2022 stated, in relation to chapter 2D: … all Chapter 2D does is provide statutory authority for expenditure … All of the usual processes and requirements for the establishment and oversight of such programs will remain unchanged. The technical amendments in this bill will ensure that this original intent is properly achieved and that chapter 2D operates effectively. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 12

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

Second Reading 12 10:02 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank all of the members who have spoken on this bill during this debate. There's been very strong interest in the bill, particularly from the crossbench. I do want to make specific mention of their genuine concern for our environment. There have been a lot of comments made during the debate on this bill, including on specific projects. I can't comment on specific projects, as a potential decision-maker, but I will say that this bill is not about those projects; this bill is about strictly only implementing agreements that Australia has already signed up to under the London protocol. I want to really focus the House on the whole title that we're talking about here. This is about environmental protection and using new technologies to fight climate change. It's in response to the London protocol, which is the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This bill is about setting a regulatory framework to prevent marine pollution. It's about setting the regulatory framework that would prevent marine pollution. Should this bill not be passed, there would be no serious regulatory framework, meaning that operators, researchers and others could look for loopholes and create their own initiatives without any government oversight. This is particularly relevant for marine geoengineering activities which are already occurring and for which greater oversight is needed as they increase in scale. It's the status quo that actually prevents the environmental risk, not the passing of this bill. It's the status quo that risks allowing our oceans to be like a wild west. Without this legislation there would be no processes in place for environmental assessment and approval or, after that, for monitoring and enforcement. The London protocol is, globally, a very respected piece of international law. It's considered the gold standard—best practice—with rigorous environmental impact assessments that have much broader scope than our current environmental legislation does. So, this bill strengthens legislated protections for our oceans. Despite that, I do acknowledge that the member for Wentworth and others have raised very specific concerns about the timing of these projects in relation to our strengthened environmental laws. I want to reassure the member that our government is working tirelessly to see our new environmental protection and biodiversity conservation laws passed next year and that we look forward to continued engagement on that. Just to be very clear about the issues the member for Wentworth raised, the reason we're taking our time with the changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is that this is a huge piece of legislative drafting that requires extensive engagement and consultation. I have spent dozens of hours, one on one and in groups, and my department has spent thousands of hours, working through all the recommendations made by Professor Graeme Samuel to improve our environment laws, and we've gone beyond his recommendations in a number of instances. Those draft laws will be available for people as an exposure draft towards the end of the year. You'll have plenty of time—months—to have a look at those draft laws and to give feedback. So, I want to reassure the member for Wentworth on the issues she raised. I also want to say that following the passage of this legislation to prevent unregulated sea dumping there'll be many years of regulatory drafting and assessment processes before any project could ever be considered. This bill isn't about specific projects. In fact, any carbon capture and storage project of the type that this bill would regulate would not arrive for many years. Our government knows that we need to tackle climate change. We've shown that. We are absolutely committed to our obligations under the Paris Agreement. We know that our resources sector and heavy industry need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That's why we've legislated our path to net zero and committed to 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That's why I have doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals. It's why we've established the safeguard mechanism and, through that mechanism, established a policy framework to deal with emissions, which ensures that every large project fits within our trajectory to net zero. The amendments in this bill are 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. It is vital that we get this regulation right. But we're not anticipating that any international projects would take effect for many years. It's good public policy to put in place a regulatory system before industries emerge so that we're not playing catch-up after industries have begun to do their work. What we won't do is what those opposite did. Last October the Minister for Climate and Energy, Minister Bowen, cut a $250 million wasteful public subsidy that had been proposed for commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage. These projects have to stack up on their own accord if they are to proceed. Just yesterday—sorry; it was Monday at midnight or Tuesday—UNESCO acknowledged the immense progress that our government has made on climate change and the environment. The difference between the previous government and this government was described as 'a bit like night and day'. I'll finalise my comments by mentioning our Nature Positive Plan. This is something that we remain absolutely committed to. Our response to the Samuel review provides the framework that the new laws I mentioned earlier will be drafted in accordance with. Nothing is higher on my list of priorities for the environment portfolio than getting our legislative framework right, because that will set the direction of our country for years to come and I want that direction to be nature positive. Before we move to consideration of the bill in detail, I do want to make the general point that we've only just received proposed amendments. We received them yesterday. I haven't had the opportunity to give those amendments proper consideration, so I won't be supporting them. I have asked my department to look at them in detail. I have asked for advice ahead of the bill moving to the other place. Because I've had a day to consider them, I won't be supporting them, but I do want to thank members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. Thank you. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [10:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

57 AYES Aly, A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. 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) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 12 NOES Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail 15 10:24 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9), as circulated in my name, together. (1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon". (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: applicable risk framework and guidelines means the following: (a) the Risk assessment and management framework for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures, in Annex 3 to Resolution LC/SG-CO2 1/7 adopted on 3 November 2006 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; (b) the Specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations, in Annex 8 to Resolution LC 34/15 adopted on 2 November 2012 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol. Note: These documents could in 2023 be viewed on the International Maritime Organization's website (https:// www.imo.org/en/). Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets has the same meaning as in the Climate Change Act 2022. fossil fuel facility means a facility that conducts one or more activities for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal or petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006). Kumming -Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework means the annex to the decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Montreal on 19 December 2022. Note: This Framework could in 2023 be viewed on the Convention on Biological Diversity's website (https://www.cbd.int/gbf/). Paris agreement has the same meaning as in the Climate Change Act 2022. 1B After section 9 Insert: 10 Public money must not be used on carbon dioxide capture and storage projects The Commonwealth must ensure that relevant money (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013) is not committed or expended on projects for: (a) carbon dioxide capture; or (b) the sequestration or storage of carbon dioxide streams; where the carbon dioxide is, or is to be, captured from fossil fuel facilities. (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 4 to16), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 10D Repeal the section, substitute: 10D Export or import for the purpose of dumping or incineration (1) A person commits an offence against this section if: (a) the person: (i) exports controlled material from Australia to another country; or (ii) imports controlled material from another country to Australia; and (b) the person does so: (i) knowing that the controlled material will be dumped into the sea or incinerated at sea; or (ii) reckless as to whether the controlled material will be dumped into the sea or incinerated at sea; and (c) in the case where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation—the export or import of the material is not in accordance with a permit. Note: A permit can only be granted if the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from fossil fuel facilities (see subsection 19(7B)). (2) An offence against this section is punishable on conviction as follows: (a) if it is proved that any of the offending material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 363,637 penalty units, or both; (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply but it is proved that any of the offending material is seriously harmful material—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 2,000 penalty units, or both; (c) if neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies but it is proved that any of the offending material is not within Annex 1 to the Protocol—imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine up to 500 penalty units, or both; (d) in any other case—imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine up to 250 penalty units, or both. Note: In 2023, 363,637 penalty units was approximately $100 million. (4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 19 to 27), omit subsection 15(2A), substitute: (2A) Section 10C does not apply in relation to the loading of controlled material on a vessel, aircraft or platform in Australia or Australian waters if: (a) the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation; and (b) the loading is for the purpose of: (i) the export of the carbon dioxide streams from Australia to another country; or (ii) the import of the carbon dioxide streams from another country to Australia; and (c) there is a permit in force for that export or import. Note: A permit can only be granted if the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from fossil fuel facilities (see subsection 19(7B)). (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute: (7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for the export or import of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation, if: (a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from fossil fuel facilities; and (b) the other country to which the export or import relates is a Contracting Party to the Protocol; and (c) there is an agreement or arrangement in force: (i) between Australia and that other country; and (ii) that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and (d) there is an agreement or arrangement in force: (i) between the Commonwealth and each entity that is proposing to export or import the controlled material; and (ii) under which each of those entities agrees to comply with the applicable risk framework and guidelines; and (e) the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and (f) the Minister is satisfied: (i) of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and (ii) that the other country to which the export or import relates has standards of environmental management, regulation and management at least as good as Australia's; and (iii) that the grant of the permit would be consistent with Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement, and consistent with the Kumming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; and (iv) that the grant of the permit would be consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and (v) of any other matters the Minister considers relevant. (6) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 16), after item 3, insert: 3A After section 21 Insert: 22 Conditions imposed by this section in respect of permits for the export or import of certain carbon dioxide streams (1) This section applies for each permit for the export or import of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation. (2) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit must: (a) monitor whether the export or import, or any act or omission relating to the sequestration, is likely to cause or result in any condition or damage of the kind set out in paragraph 16(1)(a), (b) or (c); and (b) ensure the sequestration is maintained so that such a condition or such damage does not arise; and (c) repair or remedy any such condition, or mitigate any such damage, as does arise. (3) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit must, at all times while the permit is in force, maintain financial assurance sufficient to give the holder the capacity to meet costs, expenses and liabilities arising in connection with, or as a result of complying (or failing to comply) with: (a) the condition imposed by subsection (2); or (b) any other requirement under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act, in relation to the export or the import or the sequestration. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), the forms of financial assurance that may be maintained include one or more of the following: (a) insurance; (b) a bond; (c) the deposit of an amount as security with a financial institution; (d) an indemnity or other surety; (e) a letter of credit from a financial institution; (f) a mortgage. (5) This section does not limit the conditions that may be imposed on the permit by the Minister under section 21. However, sections 21, 23 and 25 do not apply to a condition imposed by this section. Note: Failure to comply with a condition imposed by this section, or by the Minister under section 21, is an offence (see section 36). 3B Subsection 36(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) An offence against this section is punishable on conviction as follows: (a) if the condition is imposed by section 22—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 363,637 penalty units, or both; (b) otherwise—imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine up to 250 penalty units, or both. Note: In 2023, 363,637 penalty units was approximately $100 million. (7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 20), omit "export of controlled material from Australia", substitute "export or import of controlled material from or to Australia". (8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (lines 26 and 27), omit "export of controlled material from Australia", substitute "export or import of controlled material from or to Australia". (9) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 28), at the end of the item, add: (4) Section 22 of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to the export or import of controlled material from or to Australia on or after the commencement of this item For reasons I have already outlined in this place, I do not support the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill. What is most alarming is that, without extensive amendments, this bill would create a pathway, whether intended or not, for new Australian gas mines to continue to open and old ones to be extended and expanded. This green light is based upon unproven and faulty technology: carbon, capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage has failed to meet expectations time and time again, including in Australia's enormous Gorgon gas field CCS project. The bill in its current form would enable fossil fuel facilities, like the colossal and highly polluting Barossa gas project, to proceed. In an attempt to improve and strengthen this bill and to ensure it's not misused, as I have described, I'm proposing three categories of amendments. The first category is an attempt to prohibit the import to or export from Australia of any carbon that was captured from a fossil fuel facility. This includes existing new or expanded facilities. This bill must not be used to enable new gas mines to be opened or existing ones to be expanded. The basic reasoning is that CCS only deals with scope 1 emissions and does nothing to deal with the vast majority of emissions produced when gas is burnt—over 85 per cent of the emissions. I'm also proposing a prohibition on the use of public money for any carbon capture and storage project that is in any way connected to fossil fuels. Public money must not be used to prolong the life of fossil fuel projects. The second category of amendments I am proposing should be easy for the government to agree to. The government says that this bill is necessary to implement its international obligations under the 2009 amendment to the London protocol. However, the bill omits two very important aspects of the protocol: the risk assessment and management framework for carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures and the specific guidelines on the assessment of CO2 streams for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations. These risk assessment and management measures do not form part of the permanent requirements in this bill in its current form. Instead, the environment minister can grant a permit to import and export carbon dioxide by reference to high-level considerations that fail to grapple with the seriousness of the activity. If the government is bringing this bill to comply with its international obligations, why would it only legislate the harmful aspects of those obligations and not the risk mitigation measures that accompany them? The final set of amendments I have proposed cover what should happen if—or, should I say, when—things go terribly wrong. I believe it must be the companies who want to dump the carbon under the seabed and not the Australian taxpayers who are made liable for monitoring, maintenance and remediation of carbon capture and storage facilities. These companies should also be required to put up a bond to cover those liabilities as a condition of any permit. If they go ahead and import or export CO2 without a permit, they should also suffer serious penalties, as outlined in my amendments. I urge the government to adopt these amendments to ensure that this bill is used in the manner that it is intended. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the chair is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for McKellar be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 53 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Khalil, P. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. 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) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon". (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute: (7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for controlled material that is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation if: (a) the carbon dioxide capture processes removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by human activity, resulting in less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred; and (b) the removed greenhouse gases have not been, and are not to be, used to offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases by any facility under any legal, regulatory or voluntary agreement or target; and (c) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and (d) in the case of a permit for exporting the controlled material to another country—the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force between Australia and the other country that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and (e) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and (f) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant. Note: The facility mentioned in paragraph (b) need not be the facility that removed the greenhouse gases. The only justification for this legislation is if it is genuinely to combat climate change and protect our oceans, and it needs more than just a creative title to do that. As currently drafted, this bill opens the door for gas companies to expand fracking and extraction with the increased emissions offset by the false promise of carbon capture and storage. It is incredibly disappointing to see, given that so many members of the Labor Party have vowed to be fighters for climate change. I question how much debate has been had in the party room in relation to this bill and in relation to these amendments. I should say to the minister that, whilst I appreciate the discussions to date, if time is the issue in relation to consideration of the amendments, then this bill should be delayed for voting until next week so that these amendments and a sound bill can be considered by the House. These amendments put in the guardrails. If the government is genuine about saying that this is legislation about fighting climate change, then they cannot consider the passing of this legislation without these amendments. The amendment I propose adds two conditions to the minister's consideration when granting a permit to dump carbon dioxide in the ocean or under the ocean floor. The first condition added states that any greenhouse gases removed must result in fewer greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred, net negative emissions. The second condition states that they must not offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases. It cannot be a carbon capture and storage project to compensate for the expansion of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, we are going to have to draw down carbon from the atmosphere. The truth is that atmospheric carbon dioxide already far exceeds safe levels for human civilisation. The Australian Academy of Science says that the world will need to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere in order to avoid the worse case scenarios of global warming, but current greenhouse gas removal solutions are insufficient to achieve the scale of removal needed to reach net zero emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, so removal efforts need to be scaled up. We know that rainforests have long been the lungs of the earth, but deforestation and climate change are depleting their ability to absorb the carbon. Australia is listed as one of 24 global deforestation fronts, alongside the Amazon, the Congo Basin and Borneo. In the time it takes to read this sentence, 20 Australian native trees have been cut down or damaged. That's two lost every second. Similarly, oceans have been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on climate. They generate 50 per cent of the oxygen we need, absorb 25 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions and capture 90 per cent of the excess heat generated by emissions. Through natural mechanisms in oceans and trees, the world currently removes around two gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we continue to destroy the lungs of the earth, so we are going to need to look towards technology for new ways to rapidly decarbonise the atmosphere. But, at the moment, only 0.002 gigatonnes of CO2 per year of carbon removal results from novel methods. Scientists and entrepreneurs are continuing to work on solutions to directly capture carbon from the atmosphere, including direct air capture, electrochemical approaches and enhanced biological approaches. The storage of carbon drawdown of existing emissions—and I say 'existing'—needs to be considered. I believe that is where the treaty and this legislation, if amended, has a role to play. We need to look beyond net zero and consider climate-positive outcomes. Minister, you speak much of nature-positive Australia. We also need to look towards climate-positive Australia. Net negative emissions occur when more greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere than emitted. New technologies may be necessary and part of that return to a sustainable planet. To support this bill, we must ensure it contributes to climate-positive outcomes. The world needs to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to limit global warming. We need to protect our oceans, but this bill should only be leveraged to draw down pre-existing excess carbon from the atmosphere. It should not give fossil fuel companies another carbon dumping ground that enables new or expanded fossil fuel projects to go ahead. There is no place for greenwashing. We must take actions that will actually reduce emissions, not just give the fossil fuel industry a new way to dump their pollution. I urge the minister to delay the third reading of this bill, to consider these amendments properly and bring the bill back for consideration next week. 10:45 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak in support of these amendments. I do so because I think at the heart of them lie what are some of the largest concerns for myself and others on the crossbench—and that is: the actual purpose of this bill. I take it on good faith that the minister gives us her personal assurances that this is about enacting positive climate reform. But as the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is currently presented in the House, the one thing it clearly does is enable new fossil fuel projects to take advantage of the opportunity to sequester carbon emissions under the seabed. There is no protection in this bill, currently, to make it so that it is about a nature-positive outcome. I want to double-down on that point. I and the people of North Sydney do not stand against the engagement of new tech, but any new tech being undertaken in our communities and our societies should be about delivering a net negative climate positive outcome. Drawing down pre-existing carbon dioxide makes sense, in this case, but leaving it open to enable people like Santos to walk straight through that door, open up a new gas project and say that that gas project meets everything we've now brought into place under the safety net—because they can pump their carbon dioxide offshore into a carbon capture and storage facility—is completely contrary to what I believe we are trying to work towards as a parliament. 10:46 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I don't want to talk about every amendment as it comes up, because I know that we've got a lot of business before us in the House. I know that there's a lot of complexity because this legislation is about enacting the London protocol—so members have to have a good understanding of what's in the London protocol—and it adds to existing protections that we already have. I want to reiterate my offer to the crossbench that we are very happy to keep working on the detail of this with you, to give you more detailed briefings about the purpose of the bill and what it gives effect to. This bill is simply about giving effect to the commitments, the obligations, that we have under the London protocol that we signed up to in 2009 and under the amendments to the London protocol that we signed up to in 2013. The member for Warringah was talking about how important action on climate change is and how important it is for us to be nature positive. We agree. That's not what this bill about though. We have our commitment to 30 per cent of our lands and 30 per cent of our waters being protected by 2030. Just last week I announced the 10 new Indigenous protected areas that will make up part of that—tens of millions of additional hectares of land that will be protected and preserved because of that. We've doubled our funding to national parks. You mentioned blue carbon. That's why we're investing in blue carbon. We know that blue carbon is one of the most effective ways that we can suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We're doing all of these things, but that's not what this bill is about. That's not what this policy is about. A number of the member for Mackellar's suggestions are not covered in this legislation because they're covered in other legislation and other bills. The current sea dumping act already requires consideration of treaties or conventions that Australia is party to for all permit types. So you don't have to have specific listing of particular agreements, like the Paris Agreement. It's already covered. The granting of the sea dumping permit doesn't relieve the permit holder of any obligation to comply with any other law of the Commonwealth, state or territory that's applicable to that activity. So, the Climate Change Act 2022 and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 are standalone pieces of legislation with individual regulatory requirements that have to be met whether or not this permit is granted. It doesn't relieve you of the obligations under other pieces of legislation. Regarding no public money being spent on CCS—well, we've just cancelled a $250 million spend that those opposite previously had in the budget on this, for the very reason that we don't think public funding should be spent on it. It would be interesting I think for members to be aware of the fact, if they're not already, that Minister Madeleine King has committed $12 million to review the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage to make sure it is working as intended to decarbonise the economy, and of course I'll be working very closely with Minister King on that review. Finally, while I have the opportunity: there are substantial penalties within the existing act that are replicated in this bill to apply to the new permit categories. Specifically, there are criminal penalties, including potential imprisonment, that apply. I know people are very keen to see proper accountability for people who don't do the right thing. We agree: there isn't a conflict here with our existing laws, and certainly those existing responsibilities continue, and we'll continue to make sure that we enforce them. 10:51 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I'd like to say thank you to the minister for that response. It has been a difficult process, because it seems like the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 has been rushed through without adequate consultation, and it's been difficult to find time to speak to the advisers and ministers about our concerns. I would say as well that it's one thing to say you'd prefer not to give public money for remediation, for monitoring, for carbon capture and storage, but it's another thing to have that set in law. I just wanted to make that point. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 55 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Katter, R. C. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. 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) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:04 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items, substitute: (2) Clause 2, page 3 (line 1), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". (3) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of subclause 2(1), add: Note 2: The Nature Positive Plan (see table items 2 and 3) could in 2023 be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.dcceew.gov.au). Let me start with where there is agreement, and there is significant agreement, I think, across this House on many issues, and certainly with the minister in charge of this portfolio. I think the minister and I agree strongly that the environmental laws in this country are inadequate for the protection of our climate and for the protection of nature. They need urgent and wholesale reform. I think the minister and I also agree that these reforms are absolutely critical and that to do them well we need to get business, the environmental movement and so many different groups on board to make sure that we come up with the right environmental protection laws, because our nature and our climate are too precious for us to ride roughshod over, and we need that vital protection. I congratulate the minister on the efforts that she has made in bringing people together and trying to bring this together, and I appreciate that from the outside it can look easier than it is from the inside in terms of how those efforts are progressing. My fundamental concern with the bill that we have now is that without those rigorous protections—without the protections that the minister and I agree are absolutely critical for the protection of environment and nature in this country—putting through this legislation that could enable fossil fuel projects and other projects to go ahead and be approved with inadequate environmental protections, with inadequate consideration for nature and climate, is not appropriate. My amendment is pretty simple. It is that for this bill to come into place we need to have the reforms that the minister is working so hard on—the EPBC Act reforms—in place before this bill comes into effect. It is absolutely critical that those laws are passed, that we get those appropriate protections for nature and for climate in place before we pass any bills that may enable technologies to go ahead that would otherwise jeopardise our environment. I don't have an objection to CCS in principle. The truth is that it just hasn't worked yet. So I have deep concern about the potential for projects to be approved and to be enabled by technology that has no actual strong proof that it's actually going to work. I urge the minister to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the minister has said that they won't consider it in this House. I say: at least consider it in the Senate or come back and extend the debate, because I think it is a simple, reasonable request which is very consistent with the minister's own commitment to environmental law reform and simply seeks to bring those two things in harmony. 11:08 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to clarify for the benefit of the House that there seems to be a developing notion that this legislation has somehow proceeded through the parliament quickly. That is just not the case. The House inquiry that examined this legislation, which the member for Warringah was on, reported in December and recommended that the legislation be supported. In June the legislation was introduced. There were briefings offered at the time and accepted at the time. In July there was a Senate inquiry into the legislation, which also recommended passing the legislation. Another set of briefings was offered at that time. In August—now—we're introducing the legislation and we're getting amendments with 24 hours notice. The legislation was first examined, can I reiterate, in December by the House inquiry. I really respect member for Wentworth's focus on the updated environment protection and biodiversity conservation laws. That is vital work for this government. We are engaging with it at pace, but that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about one thing: enlivening Australia's domestic obligations under the London protocol and the amendments to the London protocol, which we have signed up to. A number of these amendments to the bill are about environmental laws, taxation, public spending and, indeed, the debate about whether or not we have a carbon capture and storage industry in Australia. That's not what this bill is about. It's about implementing the rules under the London protocol, ensuring that we have best-practice regulation in line with international agreements, when we don't have that at the moment. Question negatived. 11:11 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3 — Accountability and transparency Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 52 Section 25 (at the end of the heading) Add "and tabled in Parliament". 53 Section 25 Omit "The Minister shall cause to be published in the Gazette particulars of the following:", substitute "(1) The Minister must cause to be published in the Gazette, and tabled in each House of the Parliament, particulars of each of the following things:". 54 Paragraph 25(a) After "applications for permits", insert "received by the Minister". 55 At the end of section 25 Add: (2) The Minister must do so within 15 sitting days of the House of Representatives after the day the Minister receives or does one of those things. 56 Application provision The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to things received or done by the Minister on or after the commencement of this item. I rise today to move amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 for the purpose of holding the government to account for the real climate action they have promised by ensuring any legislation in this area is enabled in a way which ensures complete transparency and accountability. This is a piece of legislation that professes to enable environmental protection, yet I fear the truth is that in its current form it will actually provide an opportunity to mask ongoing pollution by hiding it under our seabed. Just on a year ago, the North Sydney federal electorate sent me to Canberra with a very clear priority: to argue incessantly for faster, tangible and more ambitious action on climate. We're no longer facing a climate emergency; the climate emergency is here. The long-awaited environmental reforms are not. We talk about reaching our 2030 and 2050 climate targets and we talk about a road towards net zero, meeting our international obligations and embarking on major environmental law reform. But talk is cheap. As the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said, leaders must lead. As leaders, then, and on behalf of the communities that have sent us here, we need to prioritise real action. In this context I rise today to move these consideration in detail amendments to bring transparency and accountability to this bill, to ensure that the purpose it serves and in whose interests it is working on a daily basis are always clear for Australians to see. The London protocol is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities—as it should—with the objective of promoting the effective control of all sources of marine pollution. If implementing Australia's international obligations under the protocol is the core purpose of this bill, I must highlight the irony of it being used to enable sea dumping of existing carbon emissions. How can a piece of good environmental legislation possibly allow for solutions which bring with them the very real risk of environmental damage and enable continued carbon pollution, all with the absence of minimum checks and balances. The link between this bill and the protocol therefore is tenuous. If this bill is seriously about using these technologies for climate action, it must at the very least provide a guarantee of greater transparency around permit applications and public consultation. Numerous submissions to the inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee expressed concern that the bill does not contain a requirement for environmental impact assessments of proposed activities. As it stands, the bill also has no requirement for public consultation in relation to permit applications, no notification to interest holders nor any associated requirement for the minister to have regard to comments received from the public or other interest holders. In addition to this, the original act does not stipulate time frames for the publication of certain information on permits, including application for permits; permits granted or any associated conditions; refusals to grant permits; and any revocation, variation, suspension or cancellation of the suspension of a permit, and I'd like to see these gaps closed in this legislation. I'd also like to extend this requirement for publication to include tabling documents in the parliament here for all to see. It is deeply concerning that so much power is being given to the minister—not just minister; it's any minister—without these checks and balances in place. The successful adoption of carbon capture and storage in Denmark for genuinely hard to abate sectors has been accompanied by transparent processes. There was a robust stakeholder consultation platform with representation of EU institutions, EU and third countries, NGOs, business leaders and academia. It facilitated the deployment of the technologies. My amendment ensures the necessary checks and balances are in place to prove that this bill is serving the purpose which it seeks to achieve. Without amendment, it is far from convincing that the bill presents a solution that is in the best interests of our climate and environment at this point in time. In this context, I ask our environment minister to please lead by example and embrace these additional measures for transparency and accountability. I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

13 AYES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 56 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Ley, S. P. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wallace, A. B. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:25 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 4AA. 1B After section 4 Insert: 4AA Meaning of new fossil fuel facility (1) A facility is a new fossil fuel facility for a financial year (the current financial year) if: (a) during the current financial year, the facility conducts an activity, or a series of activities, for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal, oil or natural gas; and (b) either: (i) as at 1 July 2023, a determination referred to in subsection 22XQ(1) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules (within the meaning of that Act); or (ii) on 1 July 2023 the facility is an existing facility and during all, or part, of the current financial year the facility undertakes new operations of a kind specified in subsection (2). (2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified: (a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility; (b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility; (c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute: (7B) In a financial year, the Minister may only grant a permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation, if: (a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from facilities that are new fossil fuel facilities for the financial year; and (b) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and (c) the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force: (i) between Australia and the other country to which the export relates; and (ii) that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and (d) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and (e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant. This amendment would prevent carbon dioxide export permits being granted to future fossil fuel facilities. It would ensure that exporting carbon dioxide for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, cannot be used as justification for new fossil fuel projects. I acknowledge the minister's responses today to this consideration in detail debate. I note the member for Mackellar's amendment, which would prevent the import or export of carbon dioxide captured from any fossil fuel projects. I acknowledge the member for Warringah's amendment which would only allow a permit to be granted if the CCS process would result in negative emissions. These are all science based, good-faith amendments and I support them. But, if the government does not support those sensible amendments, those sensible restrictions, those sensible guardrails on this bill, I offer this simple amendment as an alternative to give comfort to our collective concerns, the concerns of our constituents and, particularly, the concerns in relation to the new technology aspect of this bill. I have deep concerns about CCS as a technology to effectively fight climate change. According to research that I commissioned from the Parliamentary Library, since 2008 the Australia government has committed over $790 million to support the research and development of CCS, but despite this significant time and money spent on CCS, it has so far been found an to be an ineffective method to reduce carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that CCS is expensive and there are still risks of leaks from undersea storage of carbon. Chevron's Gorgon CCS project on Barrow Island in Western Australia has failed to come even close to meeting sequestration targets for carbon dioxide generated by their project. I've met with the minister's office, and I thank them for their time in explaining the rationale of this bill and the details of the London protocol as pointed to by the minister and for responding to questions. I understand that there is a role for CCS to reach net zero emissions and stay below two degrees of warming, but CCS should only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and it must not be used as justification to allow new fossil fuel projects. It simply cannot. I absolutely urge the government to consider the amendments to improve this bill. I accept that the minister says these will be considered in the Senate, but I say to you we have to consider bills in the House, and I cannot in good faith vote for a bill that has not considered these amendments and given carriage to them. I really do urge the government to look at these issues and put these guardrails in to give comfort to these very serious and science backed concerns. The government cannot pass legislation that clearly does not reflect the real urgency of acting on climate change, and I urge the government to support these particular amendments. 11:29 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I just have to reiterate that this bill is not about everything to do with climate change and everything to do with the environment. It's very specifically about legislating to show that we will abide by the obligations that we have entered into as a nation under the London protocol, and the amendments to the London protocol. I understand that members wish to move amendments, and we will of course consider those amendments as the bill goes to the other place. But we had an inquiry into the bill in December; it's now August, and we're getting amendments 24 hours before the bill is set to be decided. It is very difficult to change the whole legislative program because you want to delay something that has been on our books and under discussion for well over half a year. We all need to respect that there is a lot of business to get through in this place. We will continue to listen to you, to work with you, to brief you and to consider where we can adopt any of these measures, but we certainly can't agree to further delays to concluding the business on this legislation as has been suggested. 11:31 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I want to rise and speak in favour of these amendments again, and I want to take the minister up on the observation she just made. The idea of Australia stepping into our obligations under the protocol is something that has been under discussion in this House and in various committees since December last year. I thank the government for that level of consultation. I wasn't privy to any of those committee discussions. I have read the reports since, though, and I've seen that, during that process, there was a large amount of feedback from key stakeholders across our country, voicing really significant concerns about Australia enacting any sort of legislation around carbon capture and storage. Those concerns were based on the 'why' of doing it at this point in time. They were based on the soundness of the research to support carbon capture and storage, particularly on the basis that it is yet to be successful in Australia. The concerns were also based on the international citizenship of Australia and our behaviour in looking to offshore our own carbon dioxide emissions. I would reflect back to the minister that there was a lot of feedback, during those processes, through those committees, from people raising concerns. I would also feed back to the House that, at the moment, there is the largest crossbench in history in this place, and we are here because our community said they want politics done differently. But, like every other member in this House, we have very limited resources—I have one policy person. I do apologise for not having engaged in this process earlier, but, in trying to keep my electoral office running and get across every piece of legislation that this government brings to this House in any sitting week, sometimes, even with my best efforts, I can only get to it in the week that I know it's coming into the chamber. What I would ask is that, in consideration of that, we work together—crossbench and government—to ensure that, when those briefing opportunities are put in place, we push each other more adequately at that point in time. My recollection of the briefing on this is that, in the last sitting weeks, we were given a very short briefing by two people from the minister's team, and there was no robust debate around it at that point in time. Again, I would ask that any piece of legislation be open for a consideration in detail at this point, as is appropriate in this place. It's why we have a consideration-in-detail debate. I would encourage everybody in this place, even those who are members of the major parties, to get involved in the debate. If it's only the crossbench standing up and debating legislation in this place, Australians are not seeing democracy in action. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 54 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wallace, A. B. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:48 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

68 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Birrell, S. J. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marino, N. B. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 12 NOES Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Third Reading 30 11:54 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 30

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 30 11:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I give this address on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This package of legislation—the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023—delivers on a recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, established by the former coalition government in 2019, to create a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry in response to the growing incidence of silicosis amongst Australian workers. Silicosis is an irreversible fibrotic lung condition caused by inhaling very fine silica dust. While it is preventable, there is currently no cure. The coalition will support this package of legislation, because it builds on important work that the coalition commenced in government to address the worrying issue of occupational dust diseases in Australia and respond to the growing incidence of silicosis. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 will create a legislative framework to establish and manage the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, which will collect data on the incidence of respiratory diseases that are thought to be occupationally caused or exacerbated. The national registry will capture key details, including the industry, occupation, main job task and place of business where the exposures are believed to have occurred. The registry will collate respiratory health data to assist in the detection of new and emerging threats to workers' respiratory health and inform incidence trends. The registry will also disclose information on occupational respiratory diseases in Australia to state and territory authorities, reflecting their ongoing role and responsibilities in understanding and responding to occupational respiratory diseases in their jurisdictions. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 makes consequential amendments to existing federal legislation in order to support the effective implementation of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt protected information included in the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry from disclosure under the act and protect individuals' privacy or commercial interests. As I said, these bills deliver on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a national registry on this very important issue. All Australians, regardless of their occupation or how they are engaged, have the right to healthy, safe and well-designed work. However, it is estimated that one in four people who work with silica products will develop silicosis. The rapid emergence of new cases of accelerated silicosis, particularly amongst those working with engineered stone, is of deep concern. That is why the former coalition government established the National Dust Disease Taskforce on 26 July 2019 as part of our $5 million election commitment. We committed to investigate the growing number of silicosis cases among individuals working in the engineered stone industry and to develop a national approach for the prevention, early identification, control and management of occupational dust diseases in Australia. In establishing the task force, the former coalition government committed $5.1 million to support its critical work, including funding for new research to better understand, prevent and treat preventable occupational lung diseases. This funding included $1.6 million for the development of a national dust disease registry. We recognise the government's decision to progress our commitment through the package of bills before us today. The task force's final report was published on 12 July 2021 following extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. The former coalition government worked with the states and territories to develop a nationally coordinated, all-of-government response to the task force's final report, which was endorsed on 4 April 2022. We also invested $11 million over four years, as part of our 2022-23 budget, to address key recommendations from the task force's final report. This funding package supported an enhanced focus on prevention activities, improved support for affected workers and their families, and a strengthened evidence base and research capability. We also supported upskilling and improving the expertise of medical professionals in relation to dust diseases to ensure the right knowledge was available to provide adequate care and support for affected patients. This package of bills complements all of this work that we undertook in government to respond to this important issue, particularly to protect workers across Australia at risk from dust diseases. This includes—and it's important that we recognise it—the work of former ministers Greg Hunt and Senator Michaelia Cash. The coalition remain strongly committed to reducing the incidence of silicosis and other dust diseases amongst workers and increasing the quality of life for affected workers and their families. Given our longstanding commitment to this issue and our extensive work undertaken while in government, we recognise the importance of this legislation. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Register will play a critical role in addressing the growing incidence of silicosis and other occupational respiratory dust diseases in Australia. Once again, the coalition will support this package of bills, which builds on our work to address the increased incidence of silicosis and other occupational respiratory dust diseases in Australia. 12:02 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Australians remember with sadness when multiple news stories surfaced of the devastating effects of silicosis—so many workers exposed to silica in their workplace handed a death sentence just for doing their job. All those labourers cutting, grinding, sanding and polishing engineered stone benchtops for so many kitchens—one household's bright and shiny pride and joy becoming another household's pain and misery. I was standing in my kitchen near my engineered stone benchtop when I heard about these otherwise fit and healthy workers struggling to breathe, facing the heavy, crushing burden of knowing there was no cure or treatment that would reverse the damage done to young lungs by simply breathing in silica dust. I know that in Queensland the industrial relations minister, Grace Grace, acted swiftly. Back in 2018, the day after some of those stories were aired, she issued a safety alert and then quickly put in place industry-wide safety measures, because this was a relatively unknown risk and it was in an industry that was not particularly well regulated or unionised, so there really was no health and safety watchdog there. We know that today the rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases are unacceptably high in Australia. I stress that these are entirely preventable illnesses that, sadly, all too often lead to entirely preventable deaths. The Albanese Labor government is committed to tackling occupational respiratory diseases and is undertaking a suite of reforms to ensure that Australia's prevention and treatment measures are world-class. The Labor Party is always committed to protecting workers from unacceptable health risks. That's why the Labor Party was formed out of the labour movement. We're developing a national silicosis prevention strategy and national action plan in collaboration with health professionals, unions and industry. We'll be investing in educational campaigns for employers, workers and health professionals to improve prevention, detection and treatment; we will explore measures to limit the use of engineered stone, including an import ban; and we will be working with states and territories to ensure that we have a coordinated approach to keeping our workers safe. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 delivers on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a national occupational respiratory disease registry—and I do acknowledge the work of the coalition in that process. This follows an increase in silicosis in stonemasons working on engineered stone benchtops. The national registry will capture information relating to respiratory diseases believed to have been occupationally caused or exacerbated. We support the use of this information to understand the true scale of these diseases in Australia and to take action to reduce further exposure in the workplace. Under this bill medical specialists in the fields of respiratory and sleep medicine and occupational and environmental medicine who diagnose certain occupational respiratory diseases will be required to notify the diagnosis, patient and exposure details to the national registry via an online portal. These physicians may also notify of other occupational respiratory diseases where that individual provides consent. This is consistent with the recommendation of the task force. Initially only silicosis will be a prescribed occupational respiratory disease; however, the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be able to prescribe other diseases following consultation with the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer and each state or territory. We understand the potential burden that this new notification system will have on physicians. We recognise this fact, and the bill limits the mandatory elements that must be notified to a minimum notification. That will include sufficient information to identify an individual with a diagnosed occupational respiratory disease. Once diagnosed, the details on the likely exposure that resulted in the disease, including the last and main exposure, will be included. Further, additional information can also be supplied where the individual provides consent. This may include relevant medical tests, demographic and lifestyle information—for example, including their smoking history and their employment status—as well as details of each job where the individual believes that they had an exposure to a respiratory-disease-causing agent. In addition to ensuring notified information is available to the physicians treating the individual, the bill will enable the disclosure of notifications about an individual to that national registry. This will include to the prescribed Commonwealth state or territory authorities and health agencies and workplace health and safety agencies. This disclosure to all these agencies will increase the awareness of the prevalence of occupational respiratory diseases throughout Australia and will enable actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure to these diseases—like a canary in the coalmine, so to speak. This bill recognises several jurisdictions that already have these registry functions currently in operation. This bill does not exclude or limit the operation of those processes. Where notification is mandatory in a state already, the bill provides for notification to occur through the national registry, should the state allow it. This will remove duplication, so a physician won't have to notify twice, and you won't have the case of having to notify the national register and the state register. Obviously, sensible Commonwealth governments don't pick fights with states and territories. It's better that we work together for the health and safety of employees. The establishment of this national registry will complement actions across all Australian governments to reduce exposure in the workplace, and it demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to keeping workers safe. The national registry will provide information to support workplace health and safety compliance actions and aid in understanding the disease within each area. The introduction of this bill is intended to provide adequate time for states with existing registries, such as in Queensland, to consider potential amendments to their own legislation. The unions are very supportive of the introduction of a national registry and have already indicated a desire for it to be expanded. As I mentioned before, the minister will be looking at including other diseases to the register after consultation with experts and stakeholders. This bill creates mechanisms that can support the expansion of the registry. Peak medical bodies also support it. Understandably, they remain concerned about the potential burden of reporting on physicians. Personally, I still have some concerns about the privacy elements, but the minister has addressed many of those. The bill outlines a minimum notification information approach limited to that necessary to meet the objectives of the national registry, while providing opportunity for physicians to notify further information with the patient's consent. I repeat: the patient would give that extra consent. We can't simply sit and do nothing as people keep suffering. Worse, there still may be workers out there being exposed to the dangers of silica dust, which could develop into severe respiratory problems and even an early death. This change is overdue, and the Albanese government is stepping up and doing something to protect Australian workers in their workplaces. I commend the legislation to the House. 12:10 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash It's an honour for me to speak on this bill. It gives me an opportunity that we don't often get—to speak about the parliament's background in a number of areas regarding respiratory illnesses. In this case, it's silicosis. The major one for me has probably been asbestosis, which we've been considering for a long time. Why are these bills important? New innovation, new technology, silicosis. For a long time, we've known about the effects of prolonged exposure to dust. In every carpenter's room or where there was indoor carpentry work going on, there were always dust filters pulling out the sawdust all the time. It wasn't in the early days, but, as we got into the sixties and seventies, we realised there was a problem with the dust, because the dust of the wood would literally sit on the chests of those that were working in that industry and kill them. These are not inflammatory diseases, to my knowledge. These are diseases actually causing a cancerous reaction to prolonged exposure to silica, asbestos or other forms of invasive breathing in the lungs. The government has rightly—and I commend them for that—introduced a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry. This bill makes that work right across the country. It's good to be early on this, not waiting for each state to put together their particular legislation and then have to try and mould together all that they've already done. As we heard from the member for Moreton, in Queensland they already have this registration. I enjoy that it's with the agreement of each state; there's no demand. To report, you must have the consent of the employee or worker because consent is important in all areas. I won't go into the other areas where consent needs to be sought and given. These respiratory diseases were noticed quite quickly. It's mostly kitchen or bathroom renovations or new bathrooms or kitchens that have the silica stone, which is so popular in all new homes right across Australia. No-one thought that we might have an asbestosis problem or silicosis problem. I had a friend who had retired, and he was using his lathe in the shed all the time, and had dust from the lathe in the shed. They realised that he was quite ill, and it was a fact that he was breathing in the sawdust himself. Once he had a big rest from his lathe and the woodworking in the shed, his body was able to repair itself quite quickly, and he's quite well. But, with silicosis and asbestosis, it's just not that easy. It embeds and it can spark a cancerous growth within the lungs. This is being addressed across the nation by the health industry. It is important to us as a parliament to protect those people who are exposed to such detrimental air in workplaces. In just about every workplace that I know of now, all of those bases are now covered. We are no longer cowboys without a mask. We're having to clean air in these factories. It's very important how they go about their work. The occupational health and safety standards have gone through the roof in the silica area. Why is the bill important? It's a good guide to how we should go about health care right across Australia. Importantly for the nation, while the state agencies are responsible for the delivery of the health service, the direction given by government and the opportunity to work together as a nation on a particular problem, such as silicosis, is given to us here. Here we are in the parliament actually doing something exactly about that situation. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to its passing. 12:15 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I never thought I would see silicosis in my lifetime. It was a disease I read about in textbooks, but it has made a resurgence thanks to our addiction to engineered stone. Gleaming stone benchtops in kitchens and bathrooms harbour a dark secret. They are killing young Australians, thanks to primitive work health and safety conditions. The first reported case of silicosis associated with engineered stone was in 2015. In 2022, just last year, 579 cases had been identified, but these are the tip of the iceberg. The true numbers may be closer to 83,000 to 103,000 people with silicosis, based on research commissioned by the ACTU. New South Wales and Queensland have dust diseases registers for a range of occupational diseases. Last year, Queensland reported 40 cases of silicosis, including four cases of black lung disease associated with coal, from a total of 269 cases. Silica is ubiquitous in the environment, but it becomes deadly when made airborne through the cutting of engineered stone, which is 90 per cent silica. Unlike natural stone, engineered stone contains a far higher content of crystalline silica compared to granite, which is 30 per cent, and marble, which is just 13 per cent. A ministerial task force estimated that one in four people exposed to silica from engineered stone before 2018 has silicosis. That is a shockingly high statistic and underlies the deep anxiety and uncertainty experienced by exposed workers. There is evidence suggesting that silicosis from exposure to engineered stone may have a more accelerated course and a higher mortality than silicosis associated with natural stone. In any event, the prospect of lung transplantation is hardly comforting. As a scarce intervention which is rationed, there is no guarantee that it will be an option to patients with advanced silicosis, aside from the fact that it is a gruelling intervention that confers life but not necessarily a normal life expectancy. I know this because I cared for lung transplant patients, dealing with their infections and their infection risk, as part of a team at the Alfred Hospital. Given the hidden scale of the problem, its deadly effects and the absence of a definitive treatment, the Albanese government is determined to act. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 delivers on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a national registry. The registry will capture and share data, because you can't manage what you can't measure. Data variables captured in the registry will include the agents causing the disease; the number of cases; the last and main exposures, such as business, industry, occupation and specific task; and other types of health data. Additional information requiring patient consent includes relevant medical tests; clinical details, like smoking history; employment status; and details of the actual job which may have contributed to the exposure. I strongly urge patients and practitioners to disclose this information, as it will aid national efforts to prevent, diagnose and treat patients, along with national efforts to identify poor practices early on. The bill will enable the sharing of information with state and territory health agencies and work, health and safety agencies to increase awareness and enable further action to be taken. In New South Wales and Queensland, where existing state-based registers operate, double notification will not be required, because the national register will take precedence. Medical specialists from sleep, respiratory and occupational medicine will be compelled to notify patients via an online portal, making these notifiable diseases under the law. Initially, silicosis will require mandatory reporting, but the registry will be open to other respiratory threats as and if they evolve. There is complementary work under way, including: a National Silicosis Prevention Strategy to take a whole-of-government approach; grants for training materials to support the identification and classification of silicosis for radiologists—and I reckon artificial intelligence will have a role to play here; targeting education for doctors on the diagnosis and management of workers affected by silicosis, because awareness is poor; investment in an education campaign for employers, workers and health professionals; support for research; establishment of a national rapid response guideline; and work with the states to ensure we have a coordinated approach. Questions, however, must be asked as to how this catastrophe occurred. Where was the watchdog? We have Safe Work Australia, which begs the question as to what they were doing when reports started to emerge of this issue both domestically and internationally. No one is above scrutiny, which is why I would like to ensure that our national safety watchdog and its legislative remit are fit for purpose. It has relevance not only to silicosis but also to other airborne threats, whether they be future pandemics or non-infectious threats like pollution or smoke. I can't overemphasise the importance of prevention. The hierarchy of controls for work health and safety should be standard operating procedure in at-risk work places. Unions and advocates are calling for a ban on engineered stone. I agree. It is a vanity item that has good alternatives. There really is little justification for its use given the prognosis of silicosis, its irreversibility and its very limited therapeutic options. The minister has tasked Safe Work Australia with developing further advice on the ban of engineered stone products—we await their guidance. I thank unions, work health and safety experts, and families, carers and friends of affected people past and still here for their years of advocacy. We have heard your concerns. Finally, consumers have a role to play. Turn your backs on this deadly product and explore alternatives. When we strengthen work health and safety protections for one high-risk group, other groups like nurses and fire service personnel will also benefit. I commend this bill to the House. 12:22 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak to the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. This bill will create a legislative framework for the establishment and ongoing management of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry. It is planned that this registry will capture and share data on the incidence of respiratory diseases thought to be occupationally caused or exacerbated, their causative agents, and exposures to those causative agents. The national registry will also capture respiratory health data to aid in the detection of new and emerging threats to workers' respiratory health, to inform incidence trends, and to help with targeting and monitoring of the effectiveness of interventions and prevention strategies. Specifically, this registry will require respiratory and occupational physicians to notify diagnoses of occupationally caused silicosis. It will also allow for the voluntary notification of other occupational respiratory diseases. It is anticipated that the voluntary notification of those other diseases, which are thought to be occupationally caused or exacerbated, will help with the identification of new and emerging occupational risks to workers' respiratory health. While silicosis will initially be the only disease for which notification will be mandatory, the bill does provide for other occupationally caused or exacerbated respiratory diseases to be prescribed, subsequent to further development by the minister and the chief health officers of the states and territories. This registry has been established to support the National Dust Disease Taskforce in developing a national approach to the prevention, early identification, control and management of occupational dust diseases in Australia. It will help us identify disorders, occupations, job tasks and workplaces in which there may be risk of exposure to respiratory disease-causing agents. It will provide the first ever national overview of the prevalence and types of occupational respiratory diseases in Australia. That's great data to have. The register will enable preventative action to be taken to reduce further worker exposure and to assist with the identification of suitable individuals for participation in clinical trials and observational studies. It will facilitate research on the causes, incidence, prevalence, nature, extent and trends specifically of occupational respiratory diseases. This bill comes in response to the significant number of stonemasons who have been exposed to the tiny particles of crystalline silica dust, which is released every time they cut, grip and shape engineered stone, like Caesarstone, into kitchen benchtops and bathroom vanities for the homes of Australia. One study into silicosis by Curtin University, commissioned by the ACTU, estimated that as many as 275,000 Australian workers had been exposed to high levels of crystalline silica. Disturbingly, that union estimates that as many as one in four stonemasons working with engineered stone have developed silicosis. Mr Speaker, this bill adds to the web of disease registries that aim to identify the incidence and prevalence of medical conditions in Australia, and which track the epidemiological traits, follow their management, assess responses to treatment and identify patients for clinical trials. By improving the quality of our healthcare data, the existence of patient registries like this one should improve the government's ability to allocate our finite and precious healthcare dollars to the best effect. There is a bigger issue, though, with this piece of legislation. It deals with a single respiratory disorder. There is no doubt that this condition, silicosis, is a tragic one. It is entirely worthy of scrutiny. And we should, as a country, do everything we can to protect workers in their workplaces, limit the risk and improve the treatment of all occupational diseases. This registry is really important, given the significant prevalence of this severe industrial disease and its devastating impact on those people affected by it. But there are many life-threatening medical conditions. Just this morning, I met with Breast Cancer Network Australia to hear their call for improvements to the collection and reporting of metastatic breast cancer in this country. It's a worthy cause and one which is worthy of support. I have just come from a meeting with representatives of the diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma community. They're in the House as we speak. DIPG is a relatively rare disorder of early childhood, but 25 Australian children die every year from the complications of DIPG. We don't have a national registry for DIPG. Australian children are enrolled in the American registry, and our oncologists, our cancer specialists in this country, keep track of patients themselves. But DIPG has not been subjected to or received the same amount of attention or support as silicosis. It's not a lottery, nor is it fair. Next week I will meet in this House with representatives of the Children's Tumour Foundation of Australia, who represent patients and families affected by another rare disease, neurofibromatosis. One in 3,000 people are affected. It's rare but often severe and also worthy of research and support. Separately, next week in this House, my colleague the member for Macarthur and I will meet with representatives from Spinal Muscular Atrophy Australia. This is another severe, devastating disease associated with high mortality, and, again, it is worthy of support. We will also meet with community representatives affected by Duchenne muscular dystrophy, another rare disease. One in 5,000 boys is affected. It's devastating and severe. All of those representatives from these various communities are advocating for better quality data collection to facilitate improved care and research into these diseases. In my previous professional life, when I was director of the neurology department of the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne and head of the Australasian Neuromuscular Network, I established the Australian Neuromuscular Disease Registry. Neuromuscular diseases affect one in 1,000 people in Australia. They are relatively common cumulatively. They are severe and often life-threatening. My colleagues and I established that registry to better understand the history of those disorders and how to monitor and treat them, improve our service provision, identify subjects for clinical trials and bring those clinical trials to Australia. That registry, which is now up and running—it's been going for three years now—represents a platform for patients, clinicians, researchers and industry to work together to develop new therapies and to advance scientific knowledge of those rare diseases. Was it funded by the government? No. It was funded by pharma and by donations from patient groups and support groups. It had no government funding at inception and it has had no government funding since. Australia has a comparative advantage in our potential for data collection, which puts us in an exceptional position to set up registries like that which is under discussion today and like the registry that I established in 2020. They can be established as an extension to our world-class universal healthcare system, Medicare. We should be able to collect the data that we'll collect as a result of the bill we are debating today much more efficiently, effectively and cheaply. It is wasteful and inefficient to be reinventing the wheel for every one of the thousands of serious diseases that our medical professionals see and manage. Healthcare data collection in this country has been problematic for a long time. It's piecemeal and it's patchy. The government must look to improving the quality of our data collection on this and other rare diseases. It should look to making the best of the Medicare system and the data that it collects. We're not doing that in a way which is intelligent, which is forward thinking and which is going to optimise healthcare provision in this country. So although I'm very happy to support this bill, and I support the government's efforts in increasing and improving support for patients affected by occupational respiratory diseases, I also ask this government to show the vision that it needs to show to approach data collection within the Medicare system in a more holistic fashion, to look at better collating and assessing the manifold data that our medical professionals collect, to put together the many hundreds of individual disease registries that medical professionals in this country have already established, and to give us a vision for how health care and medical research—and the nexus between the two of those—can be improved in the future. I commend this bill to the House. 12:32 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Kooyong for her comments about data. In the age of the 21st century, data is gold in health. When I was first elected to parliament, in 2016, I was very upset that the Australian government had sold off the rights to the Australian cancer registry to a private organisation, Telstra Health. I thought that was a very bad decision then, and I think it was a very bad decision now. I hope that further disease registries will be kept in public hands. That's really important for how we approach health care in the 21st century. I thank the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care for moving this legislation, and I thank the assistant minister, the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and their teams, for putting it together. Ensuring workplaces in Australia are safe is a crucial role of any government, and I'm proud to be part of one that identifies the unacceptably high rates of occupational respiratory diseases and the urgent need to tackle this crippling health issue. I am very worried about it. My cousin, Dr Julian Lee, was a longstanding medical member of the Dust Diseases Board in New South Wales, and I had many discussions with him—unfortunately, he's passed away—about asbestosis, mesothelioma and dust disease illnesses in New South Wales and in Australia. Julian had long felt that Australia had been very tardy in taking action to reduce the incidence of dust diseases. Some of the concerns of this government, and some of my concerns, relate to the slow pace of change in this area. Of particular concern, of course, is the increase in the incidence of silicosis in workers in the manufactured stone and stone-carving industry for benchtops and housing embellishments. As outlined by the assistant minister, silicosis is a lung disease that is irreversible and scars the lungs of workers exposed to silica dust. It's important to note that silica is the most common material in the Earth's crust. It's the most common type of solid material that workers in many, many industries encounter. Silicosis is a lung disease caused by the breathing in of small particles of silica, which is found in minerals such as sand, quartz, granite and sandstone, and many workers are exposed not just in the bench top industry but in tunnelling, in other forms of manufacturing such as ceramics and in other forms of the building industry. It is a hazard that people can be unaware of. In mining and construction the bigger firms and companies—the tier 1 construction firms—are well aware of it. They screen their workers and have dust reduction strategies. But in the smaller industries, such as the manufactured stone industry for bench tops and things like that, the quarrying industry and some of the smaller subcontractors in the tunnelling industry, people can be exposed without their knowledge and without the knowledge of preventive strategies. Unfortunately, silicosis is irreversible. Silica dust causes an irreversible inflammatory process that not only causes scarring in the lungs but can be associated with other lung diseases. It increases the risk of tuberculosis, for example, and tuberculosis in people who have silicosis is often worse. There's an increased risk of lung cancer. There's an increased risk of renal failure because of silicosis and an increased risk of heart issues, as well. Silicosis is exacerbated by smoking, so it's very important that people who are diagnosed with it are stopped from smoking, and I suspect that vaping is the same. It's an insidious disease, so people may until quite late have very mild to no symptoms, even though they have significant silicosis. People may not present until they have the shortness of breath and the persistent cough that people present with. I've seen a number of workers who've come to see me with silicosis who are relatively young and otherwise fit and healthy men. They present breathing quickly, with chronic coughing, unable to sit still because their oxygen levels are low and are very agitated. Unfortunately, there is no really effective treatment. The only effective treatment that we have, apart from symptomatic treatment, is heart- lung transplant. These can be relatively young men. We know that there are literally thousands of people in our industries who are exposed to silica dust. We've spoken a lot about the building industry and manufactured stone for bench tops, but for people involved with tunnelling, particularly in Sydney, tunnelling through sandstone, which is mostly silica, can have a major effect. Building the foundations of Sydney through Sydney sandstone is often a very dusty environment, and these people can be exposed without really knowing what they're being exposed to and the risks. I've seen construction workers with their masks around their necks, not over their face and mouth, because they don't like wearing the mask. They are being exposed to this very dusty environment, and they are a tragedy waiting to happen. It's a painful disease. The average loss of life for people diagnosed with silicosis is after 11 to 12 years, so people are often dying far too young. Health screening conducted by some of the major companies in recent years says that almost 25 per cent of those working with stone, particularly in the manufactured benchtops, or stone carvers et cetera are suffering from silicosis. That is a dreadful statistic. This bill is an important one as it builds upon the findings and recommendations of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, including the need to establish a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry. That is so important. We need to know the data. We need to know what we're dealing with. These are quite large numbers of workers that are exposed—thousands every day—and it is very important that this is a first step. There is much more to be done. I have been encouraged by the actions of the Albanese government but there's much more to be done, and we need to hurry up and do it. I'd like to see all construction workers screened for silicosis. I'd like to see inspections of all major building and tunnelling sites, to make sure that appropriate precautions are being undertaken. I believe we need to educate our health workforce, to make sure that they're aware of the dangers and incidence of silicosis. I think we need to make sure that those workers affected are appropriately compensated for the severe injuries to their health and the loss of their longevity because of silicosis. In the asbestos field, years ago, my very well-respected relative Julian Lee stressed the importance of making sure that people with asbestosis and mesothelioma, the type of cancer caused by asbestos disease, were adequately compensated. They weren't until very recently. It was a huge fight by a number of people, including the most well known, who has now passed away, Bernie Banton, who, you will all remember, fought for adequate compensation for people with occupational lung disease. Whilst this bill and the registry is the first part of dealing with silicosis in our communities, we should not be tardy in introducing other measures to deal with this. My belief is that we should not have an industry that deals with materials that put people so much at risk. I'd like to see, in particular, engineered stone—with extraordinarily high levels of silica—banned from use in Australia. Whilst we can introduce some precautions, we know that it's difficult for workers to always use those precautions, and we know that the damage can occur before symptoms occur. I think that there are measures we need to continue to take to keep Australian workers safe. The minimum notification information sets the base for this registry. It puts the onus on health workers, particularly respiratory physicians, to notify the registry that they've diagnosed a person with silicosis. I think that's important. I also think it's important that we educate our primary care workforce, our GPs, our health nurses, our occupational health and safety medical workforce, about the importance of thinking about the diagnosis of silicosis in people who have been exposed. The additional notification information includes providing material, where the individual involved gives consent, so that better health data about asbestosis can be found. This may include the relative medical tests, including heart and lung testing, smoking history or employment status. It's important that employers are made aware of people who have worked for them and have developed silicosis, so they can take precautions, and that additional notification materials are disclosed to a whole range of people, including state and territory authorities and health agencies, work health and safety agencies. Under this bill, the minister for health will be provided with the power to create rules ordering which occupational respiratory diseases require notification, and I think there are more to come—as are other occupational illnesses. As such, with the various means of notifying authorities of these developments and recording them on official registries, more research can be done into the causes and modifying effects that can be put in place. We know that, tragically, there are many workers who are suffering from silicosis and dying from silicosis and other respiratory illnesses that may be work related. We should have learnt our lessons from the past with dust diseases. It is incredible to me that we are still arguing with the industry about what should be done. Really, if we look at our construction workers, who are in every community, we should be protecting them from occupationally caused diseases such as silicosis. And there needs to be much more public awareness of this. My eldest son is a tunnelling engineer, and I'm constantly reminding him of the importance of maintaining proper precautions. Luckily, he's worked for companies that do take adequate precautions and do screen their workers on a regular basis for lung disease such as silicosis—but not every company does; particularly, as I've said, in the lower-tier companies. I think that we, as a government, need to make sure that all workers, no matter who they work for, have protections and screening made available to them. I think there's much more to be done in the occupational health and safety space and I am very proud to be part of a government that believes in protecting all workers. I think this this legislation is way overdue. I hope it's the first part of what will be a more comprehensive program of protecting workers—particularly workers who are at risk of dust diseases—so that we can make sure, even if they work in these industries, that they are able to live long and productive lives. I thank the minister and the assistance minister and I commend the bill to the House. 12:47 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Did you know Australia's first case of engineered stone related silicosis was identified in 2016, just seven years ago. This is truly surprising, because silicosis can be deadly. It's silent, it's hidden, it's insidious and it has harmful long-term health impacts that can shorten life expectancy. It is painful and it can seriously affect quality of life, with no remedy apart from a lung transplant. What we do know is silica has been a common component of man-made stone for more than two decades. But the data to quantify the true extent of silicosis is fragmented, at best. That's why today, I stand in support of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. The bill proposes the establishment of a registry of all those who have suffered, or will suffer, from silicosis and other respiratory diseases. This registry is vital because, while we know rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases have reached unacceptably high levels, we do not currently have a clear picture of just how widespread this condition is throughout our workforce. A clearer picture means we can make workplaces safer. It means young people considering a trade can feel assured that their career won't shorten their life. That's what this bill is all about. It's about making sure workers now and into the future are protected from an entirely preventable condition—a condition that, tragically, kills. Right now, we don't know the exact figure, nor do we fully understand the impact of the condition. What's at stake is clear. We must act now. Silicosis is typically but not exclusively caused by high exposure to respirable crystalline silica found in workplaces that crush, cut, grind, polish and demolish silica-containing products. These processes are particularly common in our quarries. In introducing this bill, the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care told the tragic story of a 34-year-old woman named Joanna who worked at a quarry. After she returned from maternity leave, Joanna was asked to undergo a fit-for-work test. It was through this testing that Joanna was diagnosed with silicosis. Joanna largely worked in a reception role at the front office of the quarry, yet through her work she was exposed to dangerous silica dust. Joanna said it would be all over her clothes, all over her skin. She added: 'What I've since learnt about silicosis is that there is no cure, and you just don't know how it will progress. At the moment I'm feeling healthy, but I don't know if that will be the case in one year, let alone five or 10 years. As a mum of two young daughters, that terrifies me. I fear this will affect my life and my family's life, and I am angry. I should never have been exposed to this disease.' Stories like these are not easy to hear, and I wholeheartedly agree with the assistant minister, the member for Cooper, that Joanna should never have been exposed to this disease. For Joanna and so many other workers across our nation, continuous exposure to respirable crystalline silica, no matter their job, can lead to silicosis. But it should be noted that this issue is not one just facing our nation; it's a global phenomenon that must be addressed. I certainly would encourage our government and our parliament to consider what more we can do to look at silicosis, whether it is banning the product or anything else can we do, because it is a silent and deadly disease, and we must do more. The rise has been driven largely by the introduction of high levels of silica in man-made stone benchtops. These benchtops have become increasingly popular due to their cost effectiveness, but it comes at the price of workers' health. But, as previously stated, we do not have an accurate picture of just how many workers develop silicosis until later in life. The latency of the disease, or the time lag between the first exposure to the hazard and the clinical diagnosis, makes it incredibly challenging to determine the exact number of affected individuals, even in cases of accelerated silicosis. Gathering accurate data across various disconnected sources such as businesses, work health safety regulators and medical professionals has been identified as a major challenge. That's why this bill aims to establish the comprehensive National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, which will contain specific information on individuals diagnosed with occupational respiratory diseases such as silicosis. Additionally, the registry may also contain information on individuals receiving treatment for occupational respiratory diseases. This valuable resource will facilitate the collection, analysis and publication of statistics relating to respiratory diseases, identifying the incidence of such disease in Australia and informing the design and evaluation of preventative actions. To achieve its purpose, the bill is structured into four parts, with the key components focusing on the establishment of the registry and its notification requirements, as well as provisions for accessing and using the information within the registry. It's essential to emphasise that the bill will not be limited to capturing data on dust related diseases alone. Instead, it enables the collection of information on various causative agents, industries, tasks and occupations posing high risks of exposure to respiratory-disease-causing agents. For instance, information available from the Department of Health and Aged Care suggest the registry would encompass contributing agents, like passive smoking, welding fumes and acrylates. Occupational lung diseases pose a significant health burden in Australia, and it's estimated that around 38 per cent of the burden of the disease in 2018 could be preventable through reducing exposure to risk factors. The leading risk factor contributing to death was tobacco use, while occupational exposures to silica, for example, ranked ninth for males. It is crucial to note that some occupational lung conditions, including silicosis, show concerning signs of resurgence, particularly among workers who are inhaling dust from engineered stone. Occupational lung disease encompasses various conditions, including asbestosis, silicosis, the breathing in of coal dust by coal workers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Currently the number of people living with occupational lung disease in Australia remains unknown due to various factors impacting their identification, such as delayed diagnosis and similarities between work-related and non-work-related exposures. To address this lack of data, the proposed National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry will play a crucial role in enhancing preventative measures and identifying high-risk industries, occupations, workplaces and tasks that cause silicosis. This bill acknowledges the need for data protection and privacy. While medical practitioners who are diagnosing a person with a prescribed occupational respiratory disease will not require their consent to notify the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, the bill safeguards sensitive information from unauthorised access and disclosure. Protected information, including workplace identifying information and commercially sensitive details, will be handled with care, and access will be allowed only under specified circumstances, such as for the purpose of the registry, health care, enforcement activities or as required by law. Furthermore, the bill recognises the importance of ongoing research and surveillance in understanding and addressing occupational respiratory diseases. The registry's data will provide valuable insights into emerging threats, incident trends and the effectiveness of preventative interventions. This information will empower policymakers, health professionals and employers to develop evidence based strategies to, importantly, protect workers and to reduce exposure to disease-causing agents. The bill will provide clear guidelines and provisions for the reporting of respiratory diseases by medical specialists. It requires specialists in the field of respiratory and sleep medicine and occupational and environmental medicine who diagnose certain occupational respiratory diseases to notify the national registry, via an online portal, of the patient and the exposure details. Additionally, the bill empowers the minister for health to make rules prescribing which occupational respiratory diseases require notification. Initially, only for silicosis will notification be prescribed as mandatory, but the bill acknowledges that future threats to workers' respiratory health may necessitate further consultation and the inclusion of other diseases. To ensure the comprehensive collection of data, the bill allows respiratory and occupational physicians to notify the national registry of information about an individual who is being diagnosed with a non-prescribed occupational respiratory disease where the individual provides their consent. This consent-based approach respects individual privacy while enabling the registry to gather valuable information on a broader range of respiratory diseases. In closing, the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 represents a significant step forward in safeguarding the health and safety of our workers. This is a priority of our Albanese government. I'd like to commend the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care for her work on this bill, along with the Minister for Health and Aged Care. By establishing a robust registry and integrating comprehensive data collection, we have an unwavering commitment to addressing and preventing occupational respiratory disease. I believe that we need to do more than just the registry. This is an issue that we must tackle, but the registry is certainly a significant step in the right direction to support our workers and ensure their safety. The Albanese government stands with workers in our commitment to protect their health and wellbeing. 12:59 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Today I proudly rise in support of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. It is a big step in providing support for those affected by the terrible scourge of silicosis and related diseases. The bill is about protecting our workers around the nation. I've had the privilege of meeting with workers impacted by this dreadful disease and have seen the effects firsthand. So I know, and the House should know, just how important this is. The rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases are unacceptably high. Some of us will have seen the ABC report this year showing that, despite the increased awareness, there are still many Australian workers missing out on diagnosis in Australia. The bill is a step in consolidating resources and making sure that the disease will be harder to miss, allowing more Australians to get the care they need. We should all also know that dust-borne diseases are entirely preventable illnesses. Bad workplace practices and lack of oversight within the industry mean that workers are often put in danger. Too many young Australians are diagnosed with this preventable illness and all too often suffer an entirely preventable death. Dust-borne diseases impact workers from a wide range of industries, including construction, manufacturing, tunnelling, mining and quarrying. Sadly, we know the numbers will rise, given workers' exposure to very high levels of crystalline silica in the engineered stone industry since the early 2000s. Medical experts have warned that the time it takes from exposure to the time of diagnosis means the number of cases will more likely increase over the next few years. The rapid re-emergence of accelerated silicosis has raised concerns about the adequacy of, and compliance with, existing workplace safety arrangements in Australia. Substantial work has already been undertaken to address silicosis by Safe Work Australia. Jurisdictions have also taken immediate steps to address the increases in silicosis cases, including through legislative changes, the development of codes of practice, education, awareness campaigns and compliance audits and the establishment of collaborative mechanisms such as the heads of workplace safety authorities working group on silicosis. This is all good work, but there is a need to maintain this momentum and ensure the safety of workers. The working group has presented a comprehensive set of recommendations, and the implementation will require further cohesive sets of actions by all stakeholders, including governments. With all that said, let's go back to basics on what we're talking about. Silicosis is a lung disease mainly caused by inhaling silica, a mineral commonly found in certain types of rock and soil. Silica dust is created when cutting, drilling, grinding or polishing certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Over time inhaling silica dust causes inflammation which leads to scarring of the lung tissue, which causes a stiffening of the lungs, making it difficult to breathe. Silica dust particles are a hundred times smaller than a grain of sand—so small that you can't see them with the naked eye. When inhaled these particles become trapped and will cause irritation throughout the lungs—causing an irritation that your immune system will try to attack. The attack will be unsuccessful and cause the immune system cells to die, which then causes inflammation and scar tissue on the lungs. The development of scar tissue inhibits a person's ability to breathe and they show signs of silicosis and, in very severe cases, autoimmune disease as well. It's pretty clear why we need to be proactive in responding to this disease: because of the devastating and debilitating effects this has on workers. A study from Curtin University shows that between 80,000 and 100,000 people may be affected by silicosis. The Cancer Council estimates roughly 600,000 workers have the potential for exposure each year across a wide range of industries, whether it be cutting marble for those fancy benchtops or from the dust of cut rocks in the mines. Silicosis is not often diagnosed until it's in its advanced stages. Approximately 350 Australians contract silicosis a year. Of that, around 230 people are diagnosed with the advanced prognosis. That ABC report I mentioned earlier noted that a surveillance program in New South Wales missed some 200 workers. One of the reasons I stand to speak on this bill today is the advocacy of the ACTU and the conversations we have had with those affected by silicosis. In November last year, I met with an ACTU delegation and heard directly from workers impacted by and living with silicosis on how it affects their lives. One story in particular stood out to me. After returning from maternity leave, Joanna was asked to undergo a fit-for-work test. That test changed her life, and not in a good way. This is a 34-year-old mother of two girls, and she was diagnosed with silicosis. When Joanna sat with me in our office, she explained that the unknown was the terrifying part. There is no cure. There are no clear steps that show how the illness will progress. She could be fine for the rest of her life and then have a rapid decline at any given point. She said: 'At the moment, I'm feeling healthy, but I do not know if that'll be the case in one year, let alone five years or 10 years. As a mum of two daughters, that terrifies me.' She contracted silicosis while working at a quarry in Montrose in Victoria. It's a quarry I've been to myself. She predominantly worked in the administration of that quarry. I think what she said was poignant: 'No matter where you were in the plant, you would be exposed to dust. It'd be all over your clothes and all over your skin.' There's no escaping it—there was no protection for the workers, who were there doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. She talked about how there was no information about the danger from her employer. Despite it being a multinational company, there was no education and no warning about the risk. Understandably, she talked about her anger when she said: 'I fear this will affect my life and my family's life. I'm angry, and I should never have been exposed to this disease.' After this meeting, I wrote to the minister for workplace relations, imploring him that more needs to be done. I'm very proud that the Albanese Labor government has been responsive and made great strides on this important issue. We've always been the party that fights for and protects workers, and this government, the Albanese government, is no different. Whether it's in our commitment to education on occupational respiratory diseases or providing better resources for essential record keeping, this is what this very bill will do. Importantly, we are putting our money where our mouth is. The government has committed an extra almost $10 million to tackle silicosis in the recent budget. This additional investment, on top of the $3.9 million already invested at the beginning of the year, will go a long way to combatting this deadly dust. Together with the education campaigns and working with states and territories on more decisive bans, we are fixing the legislative and educational holes that have left workers to fall through cracks. Standing up for workplace rights is what brought me here, and I'll always stand up for the rights of workers for as long as I'm lucky enough to serve in this place. Let's have a look at some of the details of this. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill delivers on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry. This national registry will provide for better record keeping on a national scale, and it gives experts and policymakers an opportunity to see the trends of occupations that have caused or exacerbated this disease. It will also give us a firm understanding of the true scale of the disease in Australia and help pave the way for us to equip our healthcare system to provide the support that is needed. Based on the recommendations from the task force, at the start, silicosis will be the only prescribed occupational disease for the purpose of the register. But this bill keeps a door open to allow the minister, in consultation with chief health officers, to be able to prescribe more diseases as they raise their ugly heads. In addition to ensuring information is available to doctors treating the people affected, the bill will also enable the disclosure of notifications about an individual made to the national registry, including to prescribed Commonwealth, state or territory authorities, their health agencies and their work and health safety agencies as well. So the measures will allow state and territory health and work safety agencies to have more awareness of the occupations with the most risk for occupational disease and the prevalence of these diseases in our communities. The result of this will be reducing the risk to workers and ensuring workers and workplaces are adequately supported in all future policymaking decisions. I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to the safety of workers right across this nation. We will always stand up for working Australians and be proactive in bringing forward legislation that creates the best outcomes for workers. I have here the Deadly Dust magazine, which is a very interesting read. It goes through a whole range of stuff, including a joint statement that was done with unions and businesses, talking about how we go forward, how we move to the next stage, what the things are that we need to do. I think we need to continue working on this and ensure that we do everything within our power to limit the opportunities for people to be impacted, having a more regulatory approach that removes all doubt and provides duty holders with clarity about the risk control measures necessary for high-risk silica processes. These are the sorts of things, with these national registers, that are important. They're important for making sure that people like the group that came and sat with me in my office and talked about the issues they're facing, because of silicosis, get the support and help they need. It's also important that we learn from this and make sure that we don't have it happen again. No-one deserves to be 34, 54, 64 or 24—whatever age—and put in a workplace that's unsafe and that brings a situation where you go home one day and are never the same person again. We must stop that. We must make sure that we do everything in our power. What we've seen is the government working with businesses and the unions, to get together and say, 'This is a problem we have and it's about us getting together, in a tripartite response, to address this problem and help people like Joanna.' She deserves our full support. She deserves us working together, as hard as we can, to make sure that we deliver for her future and for everyone else's. I thank the ACTU, particularly Liam O'Brien who raised this with me. I've had many conversations with Liam about it. He knows how keen I am to see this done. It's an important thing we need to do, and we need to work together. We need to look at other diseases, such as mesothelioma, and how we can fast-track drugs like Keytruda that has benefits for this. I've seen that through one of my constituents, Lou Williams, who sadly passed away. She got access to this medication and it made her life so much better for another year. She was healthier, fitter and able to move around. That's something we should always remember when we come in here: our job is to make this country better than what it was when we first got here. By doing that, working with unions, working with businesses and working together, we can keep building on this great nation and make workplaces safer for all Australians. I commend this bill to the House. 13:13 Dr REID 300126 Robertson What we are talking about today is the rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases being too high. With regard to this National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, I will focus on silicosis and silica related lung disease, which comes under the umbrella of pneumoconiosis, a broad term used to describe occupational lung disease. The issue for patients with occupational lung disease—silicosis, in particular—is that it's quite the spectrum of disease profile. We sometimes have patients early in their disease course who are detected in routine screening or on routine chest imaging, whether that be through chest X-ray or high-resolution CT or whatever the case may be. Alternatively, we have patients that have gradual-onset dyspnoea, which is quite significant breathlessness—initially on exertion, all the way to people being breathless almost as if they've run a marathon and they're only lying in bed. So it is quite the spectrum of disease and is quite the burden of disease on patients, particularly with regard to silicosis and silica disease. Patients can also have quite a significant chronic cough or productive cough and also wheezing. Those patients are more predisposed to conditions like pneumonia, where a patient can become quite septic and can deteriorate and require intensive care. So those occupational lung diseases like silicosis are extremely debilitating and lethal to patients. Not only that but those diseases and those illnesses require significant amounts of staffing support not only in those acute care settings but also in the chronic care settings and in the home environment. So it's quite a significant cost to our health service and also the economy more broadly. Looking to those occupational lung diseases like silicosis, we've seen that patients have an increased risk of other diseases as well. So this isn't just a single medical issue that we're looking at. This is a multi-comorbid issue. This is complex chronic disease. It's something that's really costing our patients both in morbidity and mortality. If we look at the fact there's an increased risk of connective tissue disease and vascularity problems with the veins and the arteries in the body, we know there's an increased risk of lung malignancy—lung cancer—COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and also chronic renal failure. It's not a commonly discussed topic in these settings when we talk about these diseases, but patients can have pulmonary renal syndrome, where the kidneys start to shut down, and patients will require quite significant renal replacement therapy, in the form of dialysis and other medications as well. From there, we look at the management of that disease and we look at things like oxygen and the ongoing need for pulmonary rehabilitation, multiple different medications and ongoing support from their respiratory physician, which, again, is not only debilitating for the patient but is also costing the patient as well. They're going to the GP more frequently; they're going to their specialist more frequently. That's costing the patient, and that's costing our health economy more broadly. So that's just a bit of background about silicosis and silica disease and occupational respiratory-related lung diseases—something that I see quite frequently in the emergency department on the New South Wales Central Coast. It wasn't an exaggeration about that patient who I was talking about in the acute bed. It looks like they have run a marathon and they are simply lying in bed. They're attached to all degrees of monitoring and apparatus to ensure that we're monitoring input and output—in particular, those oxygen levels. There are staff everywhere, making sure that that patient is safe and protected against further injury and disease. That needs to stop. That cannot be the case. The rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases are unacceptably high in Australia. That is true. Everyone in this chamber knows that. Business knows that. The unions know that. Our healthcare professionals know that. That is why the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 is so important. That's why it is so vital. We are talking about the morbidity and mortality of people. We are talking about our constituents. We are talking about lives, at the end of the day. These respiratory illnesses caused by occupational exposure are preventable. We have an inciting factor. We have the issue there. That's what's causing the problem. All too often, the deaths that result from these respiratory conditions and the complications that ensue are entirely preventable. That's where this bill starts that journey in addressing these respiratory diseases. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, in consultation with community, with business and with the unions is committed to tackling these respiratory diseases and those occupational diseases that we see—in particular, silica-related lung disease and silicosis. We're undertaking a suite of reform to ensure that Australia's prevention and treatment measures are world class and that our workers—the workers that make sure our economy ticks and hums—are protected from these unacceptable health risks. So, what we're doing, firstly, is developing a national silicosis prevention strategy and a national action plan, in collaboration with health professionals, with unions and with industry and business, and we're investing in quite significant education campaigns for employers, workers and health professionals to improve prevention, detection and treatment. From the health professional perspective, for a patient who is breathless, or dyspneic, with some other issues, such as chronic fatigue, the list of differential diagnoses is quite significant. Because the rates of those occupational related respiratory diseases are so high in this country, we need to ensure that our frontline healthcare providers, whether in the primary care setting or the acute care setting, consider occupational respiratory diseases at the top of that differential diagnosis. That's so important. We're also going to be exploring measures to limit the use of engineered stone, including an import ban. And we're going to be working with states and territories to ensure that we have a coordinated approach to keep our workers safe. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 delivers on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry. This follows an increase in silicosis, particularly amongst stonemasons working on engineered benchtops and the like. There are some other incidences of silicosis and silica related lung disease, particularly when silica is heated—molten metal found in foundries or from naturally occurring geological processes. There's exposure to silica in multiple different forms, whether in quarrying and foundries, as I was just saying, or toilet bowls, sinks, ceramic manufacturing, counter tops and benchtops, with abrasive blasting, and cement cutting in construction. So, it is really quite prolific throughout that industry base. That's why it's so important that we protect our workers there and also make sure that our employers are armed with the tools they need to keep their workers safe. Furthermore, the national registry will capture information relating to respiratory diseases that are believed to have been occupationally caused or exacerbated and will support the use of information to understand the true scale of these diseases in Australia and take action to reduce further exposures in the workplace—so, really making sure that we are gathering that patient data and looking at the true problem within our country of occupational respiratory disease, particularly silicosis. It's going to require medical specialists in the field of respiratory and sleep medicine and occupational environmental medicine who diagnose certain occupational respiratory diseases to notify to the national registry, via an online portal, the diagnosis, the patient and exposure details, to let people know. This is particularly important for our medical staff who are seeing high volumes of patients, particularly in our respiratory and sleep clinics, both in the community and in hospitals. An online portal is important to make sure there is manoeuvrability in that regard. These physicians may also notify of other occupational respiratory diseases, where the individual provides consent. I spoke about pneumoconiosis earlier. That is a broad umbrella term for various other conditions relating to occupational exposure. So we look at things like asbestos, chronic beryllium exposure, making sure that the individual's consent is provided, and then they can notify about those additional diseases as well. This is consistent with the recommendation of the task force. Initially only silicosis will be a prescribed occupational respiratory disease, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be able to prescribe other diseases, following consultation with the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer and each individual state and territory across the country. In particular, this bill recognises the potential burden that notification will have on physicians and limits mandatory elements that must be notified in a minimum notification. A minimum notification will include sufficient information to identify the individual with the diagnosed occupational respiratory disease—whatever that exposure might be; in this case, silica—and the respiratory disease diagnosed as a result, and details on the likely exposure that resulted in that disease, including the last main exposure. We need to know when that last exposure happened. That's really important. Additional information can also be supplied where the patient is able to provide consent, which may include relevant medical tests. I was talking previously about pulmonary renal syndrome, where there's an issue in the lungs due to silica, and the kidneys could also be playing up. A patient can supply those medical test results, whether lab biochemistry or further medical imaging through CT or X-ray. They can supply demographic and lifestyle information to look at those comorbid factors and whether the patient smokes or the like. There's their employment status, socioeconomic status and details of each job where the individual believes they've had exposure to that individual agent causing that respiratory issue. In addition to ensuring notified information is available to physicians treating the individual, the bill will enable the disclosure of notifications about an individual made to the national registry, including to a prescribed Commonwealth, state or territory authority and state and territory health agencies and work, health and safety agencies. The disclosure to those health agencies across the states and territories in Australia is going to increase the awareness of the prevalence of occupational respiratory diseases in the states and territories. It will enable actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure to those diseases. It will make sure that the workers are protected while also arming the employers to ensure they're protecting their workforce. Establishing the national registry will complement actions across all Australian governments to reduce exposure in the workplace and demonstrate the government's commitment to keeping workers safe. That's what this bill is about, fundamentally—it's about making sure that we are protecting our workers and, once they've had a diagnosis, protecting our patients and ceasing those occupational exposures. In this case, it's silica. We know it has a profound effect on the human body. It's not only limited to the lungs. It has a wide-ranging systemic effect that not only affects the health of the patient but also affects the health of the family and, ultimately, the community. 13:28 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's my pleasure to follow the member for Robertson. I don't for a moment suggest having the medical knowledge he does, but that's what good government is about. Good government is about listening to our medical experts, listening to our workers' representatives in the form of unions and ensuring that we are ahead of the game rather than playing catch-up. So I rise today to commend this bill to the House. This bill is about establishing a registry that will act across the country on work sites as an awareness campaign. It raises the issue. It gives it a national profile. We're legislating this because we want to stop the practices that are seeing silicosis increase in numbers. We know that, for instance, engineered stone is a cause. So this registry will help assist GPs and the medical industry. Bringing in the register will also mean that we can measure what we care about, and that is workers' health, so that we can put further preventative measures in place through legislation if required. I join my colleagues today in commending this bill to the House. I commend the government for taking action on something that is impacting workers across Australia and, I know, Victoria. At what cost is an engineered kitchen benchtop? The answer will be in this register. My response is: it's too expensive. People's lives are much more important than a fancy kitchen benchtop. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later time. If the member's speech was interrupted, they will granted leave when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Aged Care 44 13:30 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Last month, I was informed the much-loved Carinity Summit Cottages, the residential aged-care service at Mount Morgan, will close in December 2023. They advised the ongoing nationwide shortage of aged-care staff, combined with Mount Morgan's regional location, has made staffing the facility very difficult. Finding four full-time registered nurses and 6.5 full-time personal-care workers is impossible given the national workforce shortage, and this is forcing the imminent closure of this facility. A 95-year-old Mount Morgan lady's best friend of over 80 years is currently in the aged-care home at Mount Morgan. She says they're as close as sisters and they've always been there for each other. She cannot drive and she's very upset at the prospect of her friend being transferred to either Rockhampton or Gracemere, and she may never see her again. This is one of the many stories that we hear. The Department of Health and Aged Care has revealed that over the next three months the aged-care sector is 8,100 nurses short of being able to meet the federal government's 24/7 staffing requirement. We know that some facilities already had to close, and many more are considering this option. The Labor government must understand that the one-size-fits-all model does not suit regional and rural Australia. Cybersecurity 44 13:31 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney In the last 12 months, Australians have been more exposed to scams than ever before. Two of the highest-profile data breaches in 2022 have over nine million victims each, and billions of dollars in losses due to scams were reported. Our government is hard at work to protect Australians. The newly appointed National Cyber Security Coordinator will help reduce the amount of information that falls in the wrong hands. Among our people, older constituents and people from diverse backgrounds are the most affected by this crime. In Tangney, over 18 per cent of our population is aged over 65, and 45 per cent of our population was not born in Australia. That is why we have been engaging with our community to raise awareness. In the last two months, we have held three scam-protection forums for the people of Tangney. We also had afternoon teas with our senior citizens and we shared tips on how to be alert for possible scams. Scams are a real threat to our people. But, rest assured, in the Albanese Labor government we are working to keep Australians safe. Vaccination 45 13:33 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I invite anybody to please tell me I'm wrong. Look around our nation in the aftermath of the pandemic response and it's like looking at a trainwreck of devastation for many everyday Australians—everyday Australians who still have not been allowed back to work due to vaccine mandates; everyday Australians who had life-changing adverse effects from the COVID injections; everyday Australians silenced or censored for calling out the truth; everyday Australians we are elected to represent. As at 20 July, the TGA database shows 997 deaths and nearly 140,000 cases of adverse events. This is more than the total number of adverse events for all other vaccinations in the past 50 years combined. The ABS reports alarming excess deaths—around 10-15 per cent nationwide. A four per cent excess death rate is considered highly significant. A 15 per cent rate is a black swan event. Something is critically wrong in our country. Even worse, those of us who have been sounding the alarm have been surveilled and censored. Tell me I'm wrong—I want to be wrong. Of course, the litmus test for the truth of these words will be if Facebook and YouTube deem my speech to be misinformation and remove it from their platforms, like they did last year when I asked the government why it wasn't questioning the large number of excess deaths in Australia. Midson Road Childcare Centre 45 13:34 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Now for something completely different. I would like to introduce a very special guest today. This is Maisie, the travelling koala, from Midson Road Childcare Centre at Epping. She is named after Maisie Ward Nungurrayi, who designed the beautiful material that Maisie is made of. One of the highlights of Maisie's time in parliament this week was meeting the Prime Minister. Maisie, being the passionate and politically engaged koala that she is, thanked the Prime Minister and the government for making childhood education more affordable and for all the work government is now doing to protect her natural habitat. She also sat in on some very important meetings. She observed everything very quietly and attentively, and everyone has been impressed by her listening skills. She thinks some people in politics could learn a thing or two from her. Maisie was a bit disappointed when I forgot to take her to see the FIFA Women's World Cup Trophy in parliament, but I told her not to worry, because I'm sure it'll be staying here in Australia for the next four years. I'm grateful for Maisie's attendance this week. Being a koala, she served as a constant reminder of how important it is to look after Australia's precious wildlife and our ecosystems. I'd like to thank Maisie and all the wonderful kids, parents and childcare workers at Midson Road for letting me bring her down this week. I'm sure she'll have a great time sharing her stories with friends and family back home. Australian Securities and Investment Commission 45 13:36 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy () (): Aussie Frozen Fruit's non-payment to creditors was referred to the relevant minister. Non-payment to Blenners Transport and to others was submitted on 12 June this year. Despite following up this correspondence, we have had little information on the progress of ASIC investigations. As such, it was determined that when parliament resumed on 31 July, we submit a question on notice to the minister responsible for ASIC. Today we submit the following question on notice to Minister Jones: Is there any purpose in having ASIC? The Innisfail mill, worth $200 million, was sold out from under the shareholders—the farmers—for $2 million. ASIC repeatedly did nothing, under enormous pressure from Treasurer Joe Hockey. I was in his room when he got very, very angry with them. I was in Wayne Swan's room when he got very, very angry over the same thing. They had the issue. They knew that it should be investigated, and their public servants did absolutely nothing. I'm calling today for legal action against the public servants. Because these people lost $23 million in the case of— (Time expired) Calare Electorate: Disaster Recovery Funding Programs 45 13:37 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Many months after being hit by storm, flood and fire disasters, residents of our region are being held back from moving on because they're locked out of key disaster recovery funding programs. Successive state governments have failed to activate this joint state and federal support. I call on the New South Wales and Australian governments to answer these questions: Why does the Northern Rivers area have access to the Home Buyback and Home Retrofit schemes, but not the storm- and flood-hit areas of the Central West? Why is it that other local government areas have access to the Community Assets Program to help rebuild their towns and villages, but councils in our region do not? Why hasn't a grant program, similar to the Northern Rivers Commercial Property Return to Business Support Grant program, been announced for our storm- and flood-hit areas? Why is travelling on our bridges and roads still like a war zone? The Nyrang Creek Bridge and the road between Wellington and Dunedoo are still closed. How can it be that, in 2023, we are closing roads rather than fixing them? Why are residents of the Hill End region still excluded from the $75,000 special disaster grants to help the area bounce back from the recent devastating bushfires? It is deeply shocking that these grants have not been made available to our farmers. There is a fundamental injustice and inequality going on here with respect to disaster assistance. The people of Central Western New South Wales have been through more than their fair share of hardship in recent times. Our residents pay their taxes like everyone else, yet they're being treated like second-class citizens. This is as appalling as it is inexcusable. Robertson Electorate: Brackets and Jam 46 13:39 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The wonderful Brackets and Jam will be celebrating 25 years of rocking out, on top of Kincumba Mountain this Saturday 5 August. Brackets and Jam first took place on 14 August 1997 with the goal of bringing arts and music back to the Central Coast. Since then, local artists, bands and performers have gathered on top of the beautiful Kincumba Mountain to perform in a supportive and fun environment. With at least 10 events a year, Brackets and Jam have provided thousands of hours of live music and drum jams for Central Coast locals and music lovers. It's not uncommon to find new and emerging artists performing alongside veteran musicians, providing an encouraging environment for all artists of all levels and abilities. The monthly concert also attracts a multi-aged audience, from young children and families to those who are young at heart, creating an atmosphere of acceptance and tolerance. For young local musicians, especially, Brackets and Jam has provided the opportunity to perform, network, try new ideas and expose their talents to a very supportive and appreciative audience under the starry skies, amidst the bushland, atop of the beautiful Kincumba Mountain in the electorate of Robertson. I say congratulations to Brackets and Jam on this significant milestone, and bring on the next 25 years of great local music, drumming and rocking. Swan Electorate: State Football Centre 46 13:40 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Exciting, modern, professional, world class, magnificent—these are some of the words that have been used to describe the new State Football Centre. It's so professional that, when you walk through the facilities, you would think that you're at the MCG. But it's not the home of cricket, and it's not the home of Australian Rules football. It is the new home of soccer in Western Australia. Jamie Harnwell, the CEO of Football West, and Sherif Andrawes, the chair of Football West, proudly showed me their new home. This has two full-sized FIFA-standard football pitches, amazing sports science facilities and change rooms that have astroturf and little pictures on them so you can strategise as you're getting changed. It's really impressive. It will house 40 full-time staff and 150 part-time coaches and trainers. These are world-class facilities that are on my doorstep in Queens Park. Queens Park is an amazing neighbourhood and a lovely multicultural neighbourhood. It's 10 kilometres from the CBD of Perth. The thing that's fascinating is that this multicultural electorate loves the multicultural sport of soccer. Soccer is the sport that translates cultures and connects so many people. Young teenage girls were excited to christen the new turf with the new Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook. I look forward to cheering on Sam Kerr at the centre and joining my community to celebrate this facility. Labor Government 46 13:42 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright On nearly a hundred occasions, Labor said to the Australian public that they would deliver a $275 reduction off their power bill. Today, they blame the war on Ukraine. However, the war in Ukraine had already commenced when they made their repeated promises. You just can't trust Labor. In fact, as of today, Australian families are paying some of the highest power prices in the world, and they'll only get higher as this government stumbles over its mismanagement and its energy price policy. The families I represent in Wright will always pay more under Labor. Remember when Labor promised that Australian families would be better off under a Labor government? Yet we've seen on their watch 12 interest rate rises that are crippling Australian families—a monumental failure of economic leadership. Mortgage holders are paying, on average, $1,200 extra per month—that's $14,400 per year—and there are many more families about to fall off the Labor interest rate cliff as they come off fixed interest rates. It's further evidence that you can't trust Labor and you'll always pay more under Labor. Remember the embarrassment and the monumental policy failure of Labor's mining tax that never raised a cent? Labor went on a spending spree, spending funds that never came in. That debt still sits on our books today. Under this government, you'll pay more for your electricity and you'll pay more for your mortgages. You'll always pay more under a Labor government. Berwick District Woodworkers Club Expo 47 13:42 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Last month, I had the honour of attending the opening of the Berwick District Woodworkers Club Annual Woodworking Expo. The expo, which went over a whole weekend in July, was truly a display of local master craftsmanship. Some of my favourite items were the handcrafted wood pens by club member Chris Drysdale. There were other amazing pieces too, such as an expertly crafted, wooden train replica of the Jupiter, which was a steam locomotive train that transported passengers and goods in California and Utah in the 19th century. There were too many amazing pieces to mention in this speech, suffice to say it was all quite breathtaking. After also visiting the Cranbourne-Casey Men's Shed recently, I think I'm becoming a second-hand expert on woodworking! I encourage everyone and anyone interested in woodworking to head down to their shop at 34 Homestead Road, Berwick. I thank the club again for their invite, particularly the club president, Brian, and the whole executive team. Once again, please do visit the woodworkers club in Berwick. Macquarie Home Stay 47 13:45 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Affordable accommodation for people travelling away from home for medical treatment is so important. In its short life, Macquarie Home Stay has provided that service in Dubbo for people right across western New South Wales that need to go into Dubbo for childbirth, cancer treatment—all sorts of things. It was originally kicked off by fundraising through the Tour De Oroc, organised by Dubbo Mayor Mathew Dickerson, and it is much loved by the people of the west. About 28 per cent of its visitors are Indigenous people from the west. It does a great job. How delighted they were a couple of weeks ago when the Duck Creek Picnic Race Club gave them a cheque for $40,000! The Duck Creek races have been running for about 15 years. It was the brainchild of the Bogan Bulls rugby club to have a social function in Nyngan. They had about 4,700 people at their race meeting. They got behind the fundraising, raising $40,000 in one day for Macquarie Home Stay. Macquarie Home Stay now have plans for another 28 rooms to meet the demand, with many people coming through, and this cheque from the Duck Creek races is going to be very important for their future plans. Boothby Electorate: Infrastructure 47 13:46 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Last weekend, I had the honour of opening the Majors Road Pump Track at O'Halloran Hill. The pump track has courses and jumps for BMX bikes, skateboards, scooters and skates, for people of all ages and abilities. Even while Mayor Kris Hanna and I were launching the track, we had toddlers through to national BMX competitors using various parts of it. This fantastic facility is a partnership between the City of Marion and the federal government, and it's great to see it being so welcomed by the local community. A few weeks earlier, I attended two reserve upgrades. The Ballara Park Reserve in Warradale now has a new playground, with an accessible in-ground trampoline, a climbing net, a slide featuring a red-tailed black-cockatoo, native to the local area, and resurfaced courts. This upgrade was a partnership of all three levels of government, and it was great to have the member for Gibson, Sarah Andrews, along for the opening. Later the same day, we launched the upgrade of Weaver Street Reserve in Edwardstown. This previously tired triangle of grass now features a multi-use court, a climbing tower, nature play and playgrounds for older and younger children. The City of Marion is a great partner to work with, and thanks must go to Mayor Kris Hanna, the elected members, the management and, of course, the staff for the three great outcomes for our community. Colgrave, Mr Robert James 47 13:48 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I'm privileged to stand here today and honour the life of a true gentleman I was fortunate to know for many years, Robert James Colgrave. Rob passed away a few weeks ago, in his 86th year. He leaves behind his devoted wife of 60 years, Val; his children, Lynda, Deirdre and Penni; and his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who adored him. Rob was, quite simply, a giant in the George Town community, spending countless hours giving back to his community, alongside his beloved wife, Val. Between them, they have volunteered with Inner Wheel, SecondBite, Wattle, Tamar FM, Uniting Church, Cornerstone Family Church, Soroptimist International, Children of Prisoners and many other wonderful causes. Rob was also a long-time volunteer for the Rotary Club of George Town, and his service was recognised with an honorary membership by the club. In 2016 I was delighted to present Rob and Val with the George Town Volunteers of the Year award during my tenure as mayor. In typical Colgrave fashion, they were surprised and humbled to be recognised for their efforts. At the time, Rob said: If it needs to be done, you step up and do it—that's the way we were brought up, my wife and I. He went on to say: We both grew up in the country and everybody helped everybody else. It's no big deal, if we can make a difference in the community, we're happy to do that. I have wonderful memories of Robert and Val dancing together on the lawn of their house, holding hands with each other, always inseparable. Vale, Robert. You live on in our hearts. Public Libraries 48 13:49 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Public libraries are the hearts of communities. This week is Library and Information Week, with the theme of 'What's the source?' That's a great question to be asking when there are contentious issues and you're seeking information. Libraries are islands of trustworthy information in a sea of misinformation. In 2020-21, 146 million items were accessed and borrowed from Australia's libraries, from toddlers borrowing their favourite picture book for probably the 10th time to truck drivers downloading the latest audio books to get them through a long drive. Now, of course, the authors of those audio books get lending rights every time that book is borrowed. Our public libraries are treasuries of culture. For some, they're refuges from the cold and the heat. They're social spaces where Australians of every generation and all backgrounds can learn, gather, explore, create and have fun. There must be safe places for everyone in our libraries. It's been profoundly disappointing to see our libraries face repeated threats in recent months because of the inclusive environments that they provide and their presentation of programs like Rainbow Storytelling. These threats take a toll on hardworking staff who are just trying to do their job and serve their communities. I want to thank library staff across Australia for their resilience, professionalism and commitment to ensuring free access to knowledge. I encourage everyone to visit your local library, borrow a book and say thank you to the librarians. Timber Industry 48 13:51 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland There are members of the crossbench and the Labor Party itself who live in the most privileged parts of our suburbs and are actually campaigning today to sack workers with some of the lowest incomes in the nation in regional Australia. People and wildlife die in poorly managed forests. The plan to shut down the native hardwood timber industry is a plan to kill country towns, wildlife and Australian jobs. Last year the Prime Minister, after speaking at the Australian Forest Products Association dinner in Canberra, tweeted: We want a thriving and a sustainable timber industry. One that provides jobs and drives down our emissions for years to come. But, Prime Minister, it's not good enough to just tweet. Families in my community are losing their jobs today, and you've done absolutely nothing to help them. Not one Labor member opposite has done anything to help Victorian timber workers who are facing the sack under Dan Andrews's mad plan for the timber industry. When did the Labor Party become so gutless? Why won't any of you stand up to Dan Andrews? Mr CHESTER IPZ You've found your voice now—say one thing back in your community! You're too gutless to talk in the community. There's no environmental science whatsoever. It's all about political science. The old Labor Party would stand up and fight for blue-collar workers. The new Labor Party sits there meekly and sells out blue-collar jobs for Greens preferences—their mates in the city. Reid Electorate: Infrastructure 49 13:52 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid 'Infrastructure' may not be a word that inspires, but it should. Good infrastructure—trains, metros, schools, mobile towers and broadband—is what builds communities. But we haven't always gotten it right. I represent some of the fastest growing suburbs in Australia—Sydney Olympic Park, Rhodes and Wentworth Point. When it comes to increasing housing supply, suburbs in my electorate are doing the heavy lifting, but for too long they've been neglected when it comes to infrastructure. Residents in Newington and Wentworth Point have been waiting years for a long-promised high school. I'm happy the Minns Labor government has finally started construction on delivering that school. Wentworth Point residents told me about the challenges they faced with patchy mobile coverage. I'm proud to have worked closely with the community and telcos to fix this. Residents told me about how dangerous the intersection of Hill Road and Bennelong Parkway was, and I'm proud the Albanese Labor government committed funds to fix it. Good public infrastructure means communities can thrive. That's why it's so important the Sydney Metro West project gets built. The metro is vital to my electorate. It will ease traffic congestion, allow for faster connections to the CBD and Parramatta, and bring substantial economic benefits. It's right that a project of this size is reviewed to ensure that community benefits can be maximised. I look forward to seeing this project delivered. Child Abuse 49 13:54 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Sadly, this week we've heard about the unspeakable atrocities inflicted by a monster upon our most vulnerable—our children. Evil acts were done to them during times when they should have been at their safest. Our thoughts and our support go to those victims and to those families. I would like to thank and offer the same support and thoughts to the investigators from the various sex crime agencies and child protection agencies. Thank you for what you do. Not only is your work hard; it is horrendous. No-one, absolutely no-one, can understand the impossibility of what you face when you walk out the door every single day. What is seen cannot be unseen. What is heard cannot be unheard. This applies to police all across the country who are investigating these types of crimes. It is incumbent upon us and incumbent upon our communities to wrap our arms around those investigators and support them and thank them for the work that they do. Thank you. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 49 13:55 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta It's great to see the many Australian businesses jumping on board to support the Voice to Parliament. BHP, the 'big Australian', supports the voice. They know that this will make Australia even bigger. I'm happy to report that CommBank supports the Voice. CommBank is saying 'Yes, we can' to recognition and consultation. Woolies support the Voice because they can pick a fresh policy idea when they see one. And Optus—I'm not sure whether or not they support the Voice but I'm pretty sure they always say yes. Not everybody thinks that business has a role or a right to express their views on the Voice. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to silence business on the Voice. He tells them they're virtue signalling. He tells them to stick to their knitting. The Leader of the Opposition criticises business leaders in the 'yes' campaign, like Michael Cheney, and lectures them about focusing on shareholder returns. Michael Cheney has created more value for Australian shareholders than all of his critics combined. It is remarkable that once again the so-called party of business on that side of House has been left behind by corporate Australia. The opposition leader has no business trying to silence business on the Voice. Infrastructure 49 13:57 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Everyone knows that infrastructure underpins the Australian economy. The previous government understood that and invested billions of dollars in highway upgrades and railway projects such as the Inland Rail. But the words of Paul Keating are starting to come through. Australia is going to be a banana republic under this government. Why do I say that? Because 'banana' means 'builds absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone'. That's what the government are doing—they are reviewing, they are hand-braking and they are stopping. They express their virtue for Aboriginal people while they rip the jobs away from them in Moree. The dozens of Gamilaraay people who were building that railway line, who were expecting more work, have now gone back on the dole queue. This government is a disgrace when it comes to infrastructure. If the minister spent more time trying to get things built, rather than stopping local members from looking at the Inland Rail and using Senate estimates for small party politics, we would be better off. This government needs to get Australia moving. We now have councils that have projects in the pipeline and don't know whether the funding is there. They're waiting for the results of this review. Get on with it! Give them the money so Australia can be productive and continue in the very positive way it was under the previous government. Spence Electorate: Multiculturalism 50 13:58 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Hopefully, I can bring a bit of common sense back to the debate here. I rise to inform the House of a recent visit to my electorate of Spence by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs during the winter break. It was a fantastic opportunity to have the minister in Spence to hold as many events involving his three portfolios as we could. My electorate of Spence is home to a vast number of proud, vibrant and active multicultural diaspora communities who hail from all parts of the globe. The sheer number of diaspora communities in Spence truly vindicates the claim that Australia is one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world. Over a number of hours I had the pleasure of showing the minister around Salisbury, along with the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, Gillian Aldridge, and the Hon. Zoe Bettison MP, who is both the state member for Salisbury and the Minister for Tourism and Multicultural Affairs in the South Australian government. We visited the Australian Refugee Association to see firsthand some of the great work they do. We then took a walk through John Street in Salisbury and visited a number of businesses, such as Afghan Flavour and Bahar Supermarket. Lastly, we arrived at the Salisbury Community Hub for an event with HOST International. We had a roundtable with the team and a number of community leaders until it was finally time for the HOST International community celebration awards for Refugee Week. I'd like to thank all involved throughout the day for making the event so successful. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Vietnam Delegation, Ah Kit, Hon. Ngaree 50 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is His Excellency Mr Nguyen Tat Thanh, the Ambassador of Vietnam, accompanied by a delegation of Vietnamese officials. I'm also pleased to inform the House that in the gallery today is the Hon. Ngaree Ah Kit, a minister in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory—a warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Makarrata Commission 50 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. At Garma this weekend, will the Prime Minister tell participants that, despite last year giving them 'a solemn promise to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full' through Makarrata treaty-making and truth-telling, his position is now, as he told ABC radio yesterday— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will pause. Minister for the Environment and Water, I've been crystal clear about hearing questions in silence. There will be no interjections, out of respect. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again. Mr DUTTON 00AKI At Garma this weekend, will the Prime Minister tell participants that, despite last year giving them 'a solemn promise to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full' through Makarrata treaty-making and truth-telling, his position is now, as he told ABC radio yesterday, that he has no plans and sees no need for a national treaty? Is the Prime Minister's problem one of competency, or does he just say whatever he thinks people want to hear? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I once again invite him to go to Garma, to actually talk with Indigenous Australians and to move away from his dirt unit and sit in the red dirt there in Arnhem Land. There he can explain his position on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Let's be very clear: both sides of parliament are saying they support constitutional recognition, and both sides of parliament are saying they support a legislated voice. The only difference between the two positions is that we are putting forward the position of constitutional recognition in the form that has been requested by Indigenous Australians themselves over a period of two decades. That will be what will be before the Australian people in the last quarter of this year. Those opposite's commitment to legislate a voice completely undermines every argument that they make against it. They clearly acknowledge it is needed. Otherwise, why would they legislate it? Clearly, they recognise it will make a positive difference. Otherwise, why do they say, 'Legislate it'? Clearly, they don't see it as divisive or radical. Otherwise, why would they legislate it? This confected outrage by those opposite with regard to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is just that—confected—and they are seeking political advantage by undermining the most disadvantaged group in Australia, who happen to be First Nations people. They are prepared to advance their political interests by undermining the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. When it comes to treaty, David Crisafulli said this in the Queensland parliament—the leader of the LNP: I rise to support the Path to Treaty Bill 2023 … Path to Treaty is a genuine opportunity for our state to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. I support the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the first part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a Voice, as requested, constitutionally enshrined so that it can't be gotten rid of with the stroke of a pen. Housing Affordability 51 14:05 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government working in partnership with the states, territories and housing providers to help Australians find a safe and affordable place to call home? And what is blocking further progress? The 53517 The member for Deakin! 14:05 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I know she understands the full scale of the challenges in housing that we inherited from the former government. The former government, over there, allowed the housing challenges to grow under their watch. They didn't do enough. And the Albanese Labor government is trying to turn it around. We were elected with an ambitious housing agenda, and we've added to it at every opportunity. While those opposite blamed the states and territories for the housing concerns, we have been working with them. While they ignored the growing number of renters, we've acted. We've boosted Commonwealth rent assistance, we've incentivised Build to Rent and we're working with the states and territories on renters rights. But whilst they turn their back on social housing in the states and territories, we're funding it, and we've recently done that with our $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. The New South Wales minister said at the time that it: … will help to immediately accelerate the delivery of more homes for the people of NSW. In the next 2 weeks we will receive this vital funding to help us rebuild our social housing system and support some of our most vulnerable. Those opposite just can't seem to shake off the habits that they had when they did robodebt. Their indifference is allowing Australians in need to stay on public housing waiting lists. But we are acting, and they should be listening. They should be listening to the thousands of Australians who are waiting for homes right across the country today. If they did, they would not be standing in the way of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. If they had a heart, they would be listening to those who are struggling with housing. They would be listening carefully. They would not be voting against the thousands of new social and affordable rental homes. They're blocking homes for people who need them most when we want to build them. If they listened to the housing experts, to the sector, to those working on the frontline, who all say we need the homes that this fund would build, they would not be blocking it. They need to listen to people like the ACT Shelter CEO, who today called for the fund to pass, saying, 'There are projects right now in the ACT and in the other states that money could be financing or assisting to finance that are now on hold.' And the Housing Industry Association said, 'The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill does place important mechanisms to invest more in social housing.' Right across the board, whether it be the states and territories, whether it be the building sector—the construction sector—whether it be the community housing sector or whether it be organisations supporting homeless people on the ground, they all want this bill to pass the House. They all want the funds to flow to get these homes on the ground. So, I say to those opposite and to the Greens: get onboard; let's build more homes. Indigenous Australians 52 14:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Yesterday when the Prime Minister was asked whether he supported treaty he said, 'That's like asking if you support the sun coming up.' Does the Minister for Indigenous Australians support a treaty with financial compensation paid by the Commonwealth? Government members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. 14:09 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for Farrer for her question. I have been asked again by the member for Farrer about the elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Australian government supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart. You're aware of that. The Uluru statement has three elements. The first request is for a Voice to parliament, which is what the referendum will be about later this year. Then it refers to makarrata, for truth-telling and agreement-making. As I have said, progress on makarrata will not occur until after the referendum. Our priority is Constitutional recognition through a Voice. Our priority is recognition, listening, and getting better results. The Prime Minister has issued an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to come to Garma this weekend, and I now issue an invitation to you, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to come to Garma this weekend. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The minister in continuation. Ms BURNEY 8GH Not only am I inviting the deputy leader to come to Garma but I'll even make sure there's some bug spray available for you. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order—members on my left and right. When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Adelaide. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 52

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023

14:11 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Social Services: how will the passage of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill help to deliver the Albanese Labor government's $14.6 billion cost-of-living package? What has been the response to the government's support for those Australians who need it the most? 14:11 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Adelaide for that question. Yesterday, the government plan to strengthen the safety net passed the parliament. Our plan will deliver cost-of-living support for around 800,000 people on JobSeeker, 230,000 people on Youth Allowance and 1.1 million households who receive Rent Assistance, with more support for 57,000 single parents. These were well-calibrated, responsible changes that provided support without adding to inflation. With the passage of our safety net bill yesterday, additional support and help to those doing it toughest will flow from 20 September. This was widely welcomed across the spectrum, with the Australian Council of Social Service calling this bill 'a step in the right direction' after years of decline and neglect. Of course, you don't need to think too far about where these years of decline and neglect happened—it was under those opposite. This was further demonstrated by the mean-spirited amendment to the bill yesterday that scrapped the $40 increase for JobSeeker. If that amendment had been successful, it would have denied much-needed relief to around one million Australians. Yesterday, Senator Ruston sang from the same old Liberal song sheet during the debate, saying that this increase to working payments would only incentivise welfare. We don't have to think too far back to her also-infamous comments in 2019, where she said increases to unemployment benefits would end up giving drug dealers and pubs more money. That is the attitude of those opposite. It's hardly surprising that those opposite are also the party of robodebt. Commissioner Holmes, when talking about the robodebt scheme, said it was remarkable how little thought was given to how it would impact welfare recipients. The Liberal Party robodebt scheme caused suffering to more than 430,000 people. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance—the question was about the passage of the safety net bill and it finished with 'What has been the response?' In any view, the territory the minister is now canvassing is not relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the minister to make her answer relevant to the question. She's straying into another territory that wasn't part of the question. I'm asking her to bring it back to the question. Ms RISHW HWA What I am highlighting is the connection between the cruel approach of those opposite when it came to robodebt and their cruel approach to trying to oppose a $40 increase. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition claimed our safety net bill would just make it more attractive to stay in unemployment. Those opposite just don't get it. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of delivering more support to those Australians who rely on our social safety net. Labor built a strong social safety net, and I'm proud that this bill will further strengthen it. Chalumbin Wind Farm 53 14:15 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Environment minister, the latest Spectator cover page 'Chalumbin, the new Franklin' details Queensland's in principle approval of 86 wind turbines, each 308 feet high. Minister, won't it destroy 3,000 acres of periphery jungle, kill birdlife, cost taxpayers a fortune and generate minuscule electricity, and its working life is only 19 years? Whilst applauding your break on Chalumbin, wouldn't you agree with environment professor Nevard that Chalumbin transforms 200 kilometres of nature wonderland into an industrial wasteland? 14:16 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Kennedy for his question today. He has spoken to me on many occasions about the Chalumbin wind farm. I know that his interest in the local environment there is absolutely sincere. He has referred to an article in the Spectator. He did me the courtesy of sending it around just before question time. It's an article that criticises investment in the wind farm in favour of nuclear power. We're not a party that believes that nuclear power is great for the environment. Going to the individual instance of the Chalumbin wind farm that he has raised: as I've said to him before, given that this is currently before me as a decision-maker, I'm not able to comment— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax and the minister— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sorry. The SPEAKER 53517 Have you completed your answer? Ms PLIBERSEK 83M No, I thought you were drawing the attention of the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I was saying the minister and the member for Fairfax can cease their interjections. My apologies. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I'm sorry. I thought you were asking me to take a seat while you quietened them down! I want to say to the member for Kennedy, as I have said to him before, I can't comment on individual projects. I make these two general sets of comments. Queensland can absolutely be a— Ms Ley 00AMN When are you rolling Albo? The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that is inappropriate and will cease interjecting or will be warned. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M How's your preselection going? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will return to the question. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M There are two general things that I can say to the member for Kennedy. The first is that Queensland can be a renewable energy superpower. We know that Queensland is perfectly placed for investment in solar, wind, hydro—indeed, it's great for renewable energy and the jobs that come with renewable energy that the Treasurer is so concerned about. However, we know that this investment has to meet our environmental objectives as well. Climate change is a huge threat to the environment, but we know that individual projects also need to meet the environmental standards that we expect from these large developments, because we know that, of course, these sorts of large developments can have significant impacts. Can I reassure the member for Kennedy about one issue he has also raised with me in the past. When it comes to renewable energy, he has talked to me about the impact of solar panels and other household renewable energy products. We have just held consultation on recycling for solar panels and small electric goods, because we know that our renewable energy future comes with it a responsibility to environmental issues today. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure and the member for New England will cease their conversation across the chamber. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 54 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Shebbear College 54 14:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a group of 6th form exchange students from Shebbear College in Devonshire, England, as guests of the Manager of Opposition Business. A warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 54 14:19 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to get wages moving after a decade of wage stagnation? 14:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Boothby for the question. She is someone with a real commitment to getting wages moving in this country. For 10 years, low wages were a deliberate design feature of the previous government in their management of the economy and it was one of the few commitments they managed to deliver on. The pace of wage growth under the previous government, at 2.1 per cent, wasn't just slower than the decade before, or slower than the decade before that, it was the slowest pace of wage growth since the Second World War. And it was delivered quite deliberately by those opposite. What do we have now? Instead of the 2.1 per cent that averaged over their decade, wages are now at 3.7 per cent. If you're on an award, the latest increase was 5.75 per cent. If you're on the minimum wage, the latest increase was 8.6 per cent. If you work in the aged-care sector, on top of those increases, there was a further 15 per cent improvement in your wages. The party of robodebt didn't just go after people on welfare. They went after people on wages as well, and they succeeded. All those workers that I described are now getting more in their bank accounts for one simple reason—the government has changed. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey is now warned. Mr BURKE DYW Those opposite refused to turn up at the Fair Work Commission and argue for an improvement in the minimum wage. They refused to turn up at the Fair Work Commission and argue for an improvement in award wages. They refused to turn up at the Fair Work Commission and argue for an improvement in the wages of aged-care workers. All of this was part of the wage stagnation story of that decade. In opposition, they've continued. Part of getting wages moving is to close the gender pay gap. And yet, when we introduced stronger gender equity laws, they opposed them. When we introduced access to flexible work, they opposed it. When we had legislation to ban pay secrecy clauses, they opposed it. We put to the parliament a law to ban job ads from being below the legal minimum. Think about that. That one might not have been so controversial— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW a job ad should be banned if it's advertising a wage rate that is illegal. But even that was a step too far for them. Even that was too much, and they had to oppose that as well. Sunsetting the zombie agreements, where people are on pay and conditions from the Howard WorkChoices era: they had to oppose that and having workable bargaining rules as well. There will be more tests to come on your commitment to caring about whether people are getting more pay when we look, later this year, at closing the loopholes that undercut wages. Makarrata Commission 55 14:23 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Treasurer. In October, the Treasurer provided $5.8 million for an independent makarrata commission for national treaty making. Nine hundred thousand dollars has already been spent. Can the Treasurer inform the House what this has delivered? 14:23 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Unlike the shadow Treasurer, I believe there's an important role for the federal government and the federal budget in seeking and delivering better outcomes for First Nations people. I stand by the funding that we've provided, over two budgets now, towards that objective. As I said earlier in the week, one of the reasons the shadow Treasurer and his colleagues don't want to ask us what this referendum is about is that they know. They don't want to ask us what it's about; they want to ask us what it's not about. This referendum is not about makarrata. This referendum is not about the other issues that they're asking about. This referendum is about a Voice to Parliament. A Voice to Parliament is about recognition, listening and better outcomes, and I'm surprised that he doesn't want to see those better outcomes. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Moreton—not two days in a row. The member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 This is a very specific and very polite question. What has the $900,000 allocated for making treaties delivered? The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about a makarrata commission for the treaty-making and money allocations. I'm just going to bring the Treasurer back to that part of the question. Dr 37998 The money in the budget in October, the money in the budget in May and the money in future budgets towards getting better outcomes for First Nations people is all about trying to close the gap in outcomes. Once again, one of the reasons that they want to ask us these sorts of questions is that they can't argue against the fundamental reason for a voice to parliament, and that's better outcomes for people. Mr Taylor 231027 What's the money doing? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It's about recognition and listening and better outcomes. I think it's disappointing but not especially surprising to hear that the guy who wants to be the Treasurer of this country is not interested in better outcomes for our First Nations brothers and sisters. That's what the referendum is about. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 And that's what the funding in the budget is about. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom does not need to continue to interject after a minister has taken their seat. Cost of Living 56 14:26 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government providing cost-of-living relief for Australians in need? What are the obstacles to this being delivered? 14:26 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's an honour to serve with the member for Hunter, and I thank him for his question. Inflation is easing in our economy in welcome ways, but we know that Australians are still under substantial pressure. More jobs were created in our first year than under any other new government, but we know that there's a lot of global economic uncertainty, and that combined with higher interest rates is slowing our economy here at home. We saw that in the retail figures out today, which were very soft. In this environment, the government's No. 1 priority is rolling out billions of dollars of help with the cost of living. That assistance is being delivered in ways that address the most pressing parts of our inflation challenge and in targeted ways that make the job of the independent Reserve Bank easier, not harder. We're doing that at the same time that we're delivering the first budget surplus in 15 years and investing in supply side issues which were ignored for a wasted decade. You would think that those people in this place who come in here and ask questions about people doing it tough would actually put their hands up to help people who were doing it tough, but, sadly, that hasn't been the case. I want to give the House a few examples. When five million Australians needed them to vote for some help with their electricity bills, they voted for even higher electricity bills instead. When Australians needed them to vote for price caps on gas and coal, they voted for even higher energy prices instead. When vulnerable and homeless people needed them to vote for more social and affordable housing, they voted for fewer homes instead. When six million Australians with chronic conditions need cheaper medicines, those opposite say that they'll vote for medicines to be more expensive instead. The 53517 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 As the minister said a moment ago, when the workers of middle Australia needed us to get wages moving again, those opposite voted for even more wage stagnation in our economy. The other day, the shadow minister even said that they would block an increase to working-age income support payments until the opposition leader humiliated him a few hours later. My point is this: at every turn, they vote to make things worse. They've got a lot of nerve. If they cared about the cost of living, they would vote to help people with their cost of living. This opposition leader wants the Voice to go down and prices to go up, and for the same cynical political negative reasons. He's more interested in driving a wedge between Australians than driving down inflation in our economy. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause and take a seat for a moment so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance: the question was about how the government is delivering cost-of-living relief and what the obstacles to this being delivered are. The Treasurer has been straying to areas that are well outside the terms of that. He is a serial offender. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The Treasurer is outlining obstacles. I'll just make sure the obstacles are related to the question. He has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Those opposite would rather fight Labor than fight inflation. Inflation is moderating but the Liberals and nationals aren't. The party of robodebt has learnt nothing from a decade of failure, and that stench will remain even after the member for Cook leaves us. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Lyne, a general warning is now issued. I'm looking particularly at the members for Deakin and Barker. That means no more interjections, or you will leave the chamber. I hope that's clear. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 57 14:30 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Will the minister commit to publicly releasing details of the proposed federal cultural heritage reforms prior to the referendum on the Voice to Parliament? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for immigration will cease interjecting. I give the call to the Minister for the Environment and Water. 14:31 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for his question. He's asking a question about two completely unrelated things. He's asking a question about the referendum, and the referendum, of course, is very clear. It's about the constitutional amendment to recognise 65,000 years of history and culture in this country, and it's about listening. It's about recognition, and it's about listening. The cultural heritage reforms that were begun under the previous environment minister—the work that was commissioned under her; the funding contracts that were entered into under her—that work is ongoing. It is complex work, and, in fact, I've been delighted that, until now, this work has been supported in a bipartisan way, not just by the former environment minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, not just by the member for Leichhardt, as I have repeatedly said, in the excellent work that he did with Senator Dodson on the Juukan Gorge inquiries, but also by your shadow minister for the environment, who, in the other place on 28 November last year, said that those events were so disastrous that they made it very clear that 'comprehensive' work needed to begin as a matter of urgency on modernising Indigenous heritage protection laws in Australia—comprehensive work. We are doing that comprehensive work in the way that was begun by the previous minister for the environment. Indeed, the member for Cowper has said, when responding to the Juukan Gorge reports, and I quote: … we are very pleased that the minister has now made clear that she will be continuing the work that had already begun in this area during the years of the coalition government. And I further quote: … we always considered that I was vital that this process be centred on the views and the experience of the traditional owners. That's why we are engaging in this detailed way, this thoughtful way, with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance, the organisation contracted by the previous minister for the environment.' Can I also say that Senator Dean Smith said— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause, and I'll hear from the member for Lyne. Dr Gillespie 72184 I'm just asking for the answer to the be relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 So far, the minister has covered the issue of cultural heritage reforms and linking it to the referendum on the Voice. I'm listening carefully to what she's saying. I'll make sure she remains relevant. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't make it irrelevant. Senator Dean Smith, in relation to the Juukan inquiry in October last year, said: Eighteen months after the destruction of the Juukan Gorge, which we know to be of such tremendous heritage value to Indigenous people in my home state of Western Australia, people should ask themselves, 'What has changed?' Supporting this work that we need to do on heritage— (Time expired) Commonwealth Procurement 57 14:34 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the member for Bruce as Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, with reference to the committee's inquiry into Synergy 360 linked procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA. How and when was the inquiry initiated? What has been the process to date? What hearings have been scheduled, and with whom? What are the next steps? Can people still make submissions? What are the process impediments to completing the inquiry? When will a report be tabled? 14:35 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I thank the member for Jagajaga. I will address her questions about the inquiry's process and procedure. With regard to the inquiry's initiation, evidence was received at public hearings on 14 April for the inquiry into Commonwealth procurement from Dr Ian Watt AC, the former secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and finance departments, the chief executives of Services Australia and the NDIA; and Synergy 360 principals, including Stuart Robert's associates, Mr David Milo and Mr John Margerison. Procedurally, as Dr Watt was not able to examine the actions of ministers, lobbyists and vendors, the committee utilised its powers to initiate this inquiry focused on Synergy 360 related procurements, given the seriousness of the evidence regarding irregularities. The committee has held both public and in camera hearings, including with Mr Groff, Infosys vice-president; and an unnamed witness at an in camera hearing last Friday, 28 July, Witness A. The committee's progress has been seriously impeded due to the key witness, Mr Margerison, failing to answer questions. Therefore, on 27 June, the committee took a very rare step, resolving to order Mr Margerison to produce all documents that were requested, to fully respond to all questions and to appear at a hearing last Friday, 28 July. Unfortunately, Friday's hearing did not proceed, as Mr Margerison's lawyer informed us that Mr Margerison is now resident overseas, having severed all ties with the country of Australia many weeks ago. The committee's work is delayed as Mr Margerison's whereabouts are unknown, and he considers himself outside the jurisdiction of this parliament. At its private meeting this morning, the committee considered this turn of events and resolved to write to his lawyer, seeking advice as to Mr Margerison's whereabouts. Now, of course, it remains within the JCPAA's power to recommend referrals to other investigative bodies with additional resources and powers which we may not possess. The committee will also shortly publish new information from Infosys following evidence that Infosys paid Synergy 360 in the order of $16 million, including success fees, and held 11 meetings with former minister Stuart Robert, sometimes without public servants present. The committee has reached no conclusions at this stage, and anyone with information is encouraged to contact the committee and is welcome to make a submission. Further hearings may be held in August and September, but I cannot advise the House when a report will be tabled. Finally, in the interest of transparency, the committee has also issued a public reminder that witnesses before committees are protected with respect to evidence by the law of parliamentary privilege, and that interfering with or harassing witnesses in any way may be regarded as a contempt of the parliament. MOTIONS 58 MOTIONS Prime Minister 58 14:38 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes the Prime Minister is dividing the nation with his divisive voice proposal by deliberately refusing to provide detail to the Australian people; (2) further notes the Prime Minister promised on 34 occasions to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, which includes the Makarrata Commission's national treaty-making process, but has since continually denied there will be a treaty; (3) notes the Minister for Indigenous Australians said work on a treaty was to start within weeks but the Prime Minister is now walking that back and in two train wreck media interviews, the Prime Minister is telling different audiences different things on the treaty; (4) further notes that despite the Prime Minister being shifty on whether a treaty is being worked on, he has already allocated $5.8 million for the Makarrata Commission national treaty-making process but refuses to explain how $900,000 of this money has already been spent; (5) notes that the Government's Minister for Indigenous Australians has treated this House with contempt by repeatedly and consistently failing to answer direct questions in Question Time; and (6) condemns the Prime Minister for his complete inability to be upfront and honest with the Australian people and calls on the Prime Minister to explain today in plain language what: (a) The Voice will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate; (b) the Makarrata Commission will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate; (c) the money for the Makarrata Commission is being spent on; and (d) the treaty making process will be, how long it will take, and what the financial implications for the Commonwealth and for taxpayers will be. Leave not granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion— That the House: (1) notes the Prime Minister is dividing the nation with his divisive voice proposal by deliberately refusing to provide detail to the Australian people; (2) further notes the Prime Minister promised on 34 occasions to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, which includes the Makarrata Commission's national treaty-making process, but has since continually denied there will be a treaty; (3) notes the Minister for Indigenous Australians said work on a treaty was to start within weeks but the Prime Minister is now walking that back and in two train wreck media interviews, the Prime Minister is telling different audiences different things on the treaty; (4) further notes that despite the Prime Minister being shifty on whether a treaty is being worked on, he has already allocated $5.8 million for the Makarrata Commission national treaty-making process but refuses to explain how $900,000 of this money has already been spent; (5) notes that the Government's Minister for Indigenous Australians has treated this House with contempt by repeatedly and consistently failing to answer direct questions in Question Time; and (6) condemns the Prime Minister for his complete inability to be upfront and honest with the Australian people and calls on the Prime Minister to explain today in plain language what: (a) The Voice will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate; (b) the Makarrata Commission will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate; (c) the money for the Makarrata Commission is being spent on; and (d) the treaty making process will be, how long it will take, and what the financial implications for the Commonwealth and for taxpayers will be. The reality is that this Prime Minister stood up at Garma and said to the Australian people, with great passion and with much emotion, that he proposed words that hadn't been consulted on, that hadn't been properly researched and that were, ultimately, against advice by the Government Solicitor, who had advised against the breadth of words that now are being proposed by way of referendum to the Australian people. Every Australian wants a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. Every Australian wants to see a better outcome in Alice Springs. Every Australian wants to see better outcomes for children on school attendance, health outcomes and life expectancy. We want to see better housing options. But the Voice is not going to deliver that practical support on the ground, because it is a Canberra voice and a voice for the elite of this country. Mr Speaker, ask yourself this. Why, on the current information available to us, do we have a situation where 29 per cent of Labor voters in this country are not supporting the Voice? If the Prime Minister had any coherent explanation for the Australian public as to how the Voice will work, what outcomes it will deliver, its breadth, what the interpretation will be in the High Court and how it will change our system of government then perhaps there would be some chance of convincing those 29 per cent of Labor voters. But the Prime Minister is deliberately and willingly withholding that information from Labor voters and from the Australian public. That is why this situation goes from bad to worse—because the Australian Prime Minister is seeking to divide his nation. That's what's happening here. The best-case scenario on this incompetent Prime Minister's approach to the Voice is that you might get a 51-49 'yes' outcome, bearing in mind that you need a double majority. That splits our country straight down the middle. No Prime Minister in good conscience would decide on such a process unless he was seeking political advantage or unless he was out of his depth. Australian families at the moment are paying more for their electricity bills, more at the grocery checkout, more for their insurance and more for their mortgages because of this incompetent government. The incompetence is not just demonstrated in terms of the Prime Minister's management around the Voice but in every aspect of government delivery at the moment. That's what the Australian public is experiencing. Mr Speaker, when you walk the streets, when you talk to people across the country, that is why they are saying they are not better off today than when Labor was elected. The Australian public know that this Prime Minister is taking us down a cul-de-sac. This Prime Minister is dividing the country unnecessarily, because there is a bipartisan position in this country at the moment that would see a question on recognition in the Constitution for our first occupants of this country. It would receive 80 per cent support across the nation. It can be put to the people in October this year. It would not divide but unite the country. Yet our Prime Minister knowingly rejects that proposition. Why? Why would he reject a proposition to unite our country? Why would he cast that aside and instead go down the path of pitching one Australian against another? Why would it be that one in three Labor voters has called this Prime Minister out as a fake and a phony? We know this Prime Minister. We know more and more about him every day. His great idol Kevin Rudd: we see more of Kevin Rudd in this Prime Minister as every day goes by. We knew of Kevin Rudd that he turned out to be somebody very different to what the public believed him to be. This Prime Minister will say one thing to one audience and tell the next audience what they want to hear. The problem is that people match up what he's saying. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Social Services is warned. Mr DUTTON 00AKI When you turn up to a Midnight Oil concert and you're wearing a T-shirt that says that you're in favour of 'yes' and you're in favour of treaty and you're in favour of truth-telling, do know what that says, Mr Speaker? It doesn't say, as the Prime Minister wants us to believe, that he turned up not adequately attired for a Midnight Oil concert and that somehow, in a snap moment of choice, he found himself clothed in a Midnight Oil T-shirt. It's sort of like a Deirdre Chambers moment. It does have a ring of that to it: 'How did this T-shirt find itself on my body?' That's what he's arguing, and it shows you how insincere this man is. Prime Minister, you have the opportunity to unite the Australian people. You have the opportunity to cut through the waste that is taking place in the money that's administered to help Indigenous Australians. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Macarthur will cease interjecting. Mr DUTTON 00AKI You have the opportunity to work with us to make sure that we listen to Indigenous Australians and get the outcomes that they deserve. But you are not going to do it through a treaty process that you have embarrassingly walked away from, and when you've talked in a duplicitous way to the Australian public on this topic. There's a makarrata commission that's being funded but is operating in secrecy, which you will not speak anything about. The Prime Minister has the opportunity to step up and unite the Australian public. He is not doing that. When a Prime Minister makes a deliberate decision to harm our national interest, I'll tell you who is watching—the entire Australian public, because they are disappointed in this Prime Minister. He has the chance to do good and he's choosing not to do so. When he goes up to Garma, he can be sincere this time. At the last Garma conference, he provided detail of the words but has provided no detail every day since that point. That's the problem here. The problem is not with the Australian public, as those opposite want us to believe. The Australian public are not hard-hearted. People aren't saying they're voting no because they don't want to support Indigenous Australians. They will vote no because they know this Prime Minister is wilfully withholding detail from them. That is unconscionable, and it's something the Prime Minister should apologise for. It's something that he should be upfront about with the Australian public so they can be properly informed when they cast their vote. But every day—bearing in mind we're less than three months from this referendum vote—the Prime Minister makes a decision not to look Australians in the eye and answer the questions that they appropriately are putting to him. And when an Australian Prime Minister breaks that trust with the Australian people, who voted for him only 15 months ago, they work out that this bloke is a phony and a fraud and is running an incompetent government. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 14:50 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I second the motion because this Prime Minister and government have taken our nation to a pivotal moment in its history. While that's their prerogative, the onus of their responsibility is to lead our country and build trust, with honesty and transparency, about their proposition to the Australian people. It's an important decision about their Constitution. They should be brought along on that journey every step of the way. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is one about voice, truth and treaty. That journey should be explained in entirety, not in part. This is an important moment for our nation's history, for our nation to make a determination. The proper procedures and processes should be taken from the outset. Because the Prime Minister has failed to trust the Australian people, to bring the Australian people on this journey with him, we have seen the erosion of support for this first element, the Voice, from over 60 per cent in December last year to now less than 50 per cent today. That's a direct result of the government failing to create an environment for the Australian people to have faith and trust in their government in the proposition they put before them. They failed to create an environment where they went through due process, of a constitutional convention. Australians were denied that due process. Instead, they deferred to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, where only one cohort of Australians got to make a determination about our constitutional future. That's not leadership. That's not about bringing the Australian people on a journey. That is creating division. That erodes the opportunity for every Australian to have a say in their document, a document that is important to them, that governs them and will define our nation into the future. They have misled the Australian people in saying that the Voice is a new concept. It's not. We are repeating the mistakes of the past. We had a representative body before. It was called ATSIC. It's for that premise that the National Party, some nine months ago, made a principled position that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We're not doing something new. We represent the people who are the most disadvantaged. We bear the scars from the mistakes of the past and the ones that we will repeat. We need an intervention in 2023. That intervention needs to be in bureaucracy. It needs to be about reshaping the bureaucracy and empowering local elders in local communities—not regionally, but in the local community—empowering those local elders, because we're repeating the mistakes of the past and they will not shift the dial. We have the data. We have the understanding, of where the gap needs to be closed. This is about making sure Canberra goes to them, not have them come to Canberra. Don't allow bureaucracy to repeat the mistakes of generalising the feedback into national programs. You need local programs to close the gap. You need to be able to understand what they are in bespoke models, in bespoke communities. This is a government-top operation saying to the people out there, 'We know best,' instead of empowering those local elders. This isn't about tangible outcomes. Because if this was about what we all want, which is Constitutional recognition, we made it very clear that if we didn't conflate the two, if we wanted to unify our nation in a meaningful way, to take opportunity, to take that hand on both sides—a moment of political leadership where this nation could actually achieve what the Prime Minister set out to in Constitutional recognition—that would be a unifying moment. But it has been lost, not just in how this Voice has been devised but in the processes that flow beyond it. It's about the processes of treaty, and the consequences and the reach of that, so that Australians understand. If the Prime Minister wants Australians to come on this journey with him, he should be prepared not only to put the legislation for the Voice to parliament to demonstrate he runs the business in this parliament, and be open and transparent to the Australian people about what it is, but also to be open and transparent to the Australian people about what a treaty is, how far-reaching it is and what it means for every Australian. This could be a unifying moment but, unfortunately, this Prime Minister has missed it. 14:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler In the lead-up to this parliamentary sitting week we were told that it was going to be about the cost of living. But they've given up on the cost of living and they have decided to stick with dividing. They have decided to stick with division— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 This is someone who we thought could not be more divisive than the former prime minister, whom he replaced as the leader of the Liberal Party, but of course the Leader of the Opposition is managing it. He is the same person who, as he mentioned, when the former prime minister Kevin Rudd stood at this despatch box and gave the apology to stolen generations—it was a proud moment to be in this parliament. The then leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson, had the courage of his conviction to do the right thing and stand at this despatch box as well to make sure that it was a matter of national unity. Around the country, schoolchildren gathered in front of television screens to celebrate that moment to advance reconciliation, that moment to lift up our nation. And the Leader of the Opposition not only opposed it but also threatened to resign from the frontbench over it and walked out on that event. So terrible was it that in that moment of national unity there were only a few people who were so determined to sow division that they just couldn't cop the concept of saying sorry for the wrong thing being done, for children being stolen from mothers, fathers, grandparents, families and communities. They could not stomach it. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition a range of comments, most of which were not about what is before the Australian people. He spoke about my speech to Garma last year, and I'm proud of it. I'll be proud of the speech that I give at Garma this weekend. There was a time when the leaders of both parties went to Garma, and those opposite now have a situation whereby not a single frontbench member from the coalition is attending this event. Today, on his weekly tough interrogation from Ray Hadley on 2GB, he went on to say that he wasn't going to attend because it was all about a 'left fest'. Well, the Yothu Yindi Foundation hosts that event, and the Leader of the Opposition was happy to go to the funeral of Yunupingu and to state the important work that that great Australian contributed to this nation. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Mr A R36 Also in that interview today, he said, 'I want to see constitutional recognition.' Ray Hadley said, 'If this gets beaten it won't be revisited in my lifetime.' The response of the Leader of the Opposition was to say that the referendum will change the whole system of government, that it will cost billions of dollars—that it will change the whole system. We heard that again today. Well, I say this to those opposite. You can't say that it will change the entire system of government and then say you will legislate for the Voice. That is what you are saying. You can't say it will promote racial division and then say you will legislate for the Voice. You can't say it will make a positive difference but then say you will legislate for the Voice. Clearly they don't see it as radical or divisive, or any of the other noise of confusion that they are seeking to inject into the referendum. Otherwise, why would they legislate for it? Let's be very clear. Both sides say they support constitutional recognition. Both sides say they support legislating for the Voice. The third provision that is being put forward makes it very clear: the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its the composition, functions, powers and procedures. And they ask, 'Where's that legislation?' They actually had nine years. To be very clear, when the Leader of the National Party actually spoke about process, they opposed it before they even knew what the question was. Then the Liberal leader, after they lost the Aston by-election, in a once-in-a-century event, didn't even bother to tell his shadow minister for Indigenous affairs or shadow Attorney-General that he was abandoning the process even before the parliamentary committee had met. And they speak about dividing. They're managing to divide themselves. They had someone who was one of the architects of the wording, the member for Berowra, now sitting up the back. Andrew Gee is sitting up the back as well. Julian Leeser is someone who has more honour in his little finger than the frontbench combined. The truth is that the process that occurred began in the lead-up to the 2007 election, under John Howard, who promised to advance constitutional recognition. Then in 2012 Tony Abbott established a process to take forward what the form of constitutional recognition would be. That process led to the constitutional convention of First Nations people held at Uluru in 2017, where Indigenous Australians said they wanted something that wasn't just symbolic; they wanted something that would make a difference. The way you make a difference is by engaging people directly, by listening to those people who are impacted by decisions. That is why a Voice to Canberra is so different from what has happened over the previous 122 years—which is that, with the best of intentions, it has been a voice from Canberra. And I pay tribute to the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Ken Wyatt. He says that with the best of intentions we need to listen to First Nations people and we need a Voice to Parliament and to government. That is how you get better outcomes. We know that is the case. If we look at the programs that are working the best—Indigenous rangers, community health programs and justice reinvestment programs—they all have something in common. They have all come from Indigenous people. They are all programs of which Indigenous Australians have been the architects. But those opposite, particularly this Leader of the Opposition, seek political advantage rather than trying to come together. 'Makarrata' means a coming together after struggle. It's as simple as that. It's a process bringing people forward in the nature of reconciliation. The fact is that he is not prepared to front up at the Garma Festival this weekend in order to explain his position. He would be received politely if he attended. He would be. One of the things about the Yothu Yindi Foundation and that event is that it's about respect. It's about bringing people together—Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. This is an opportunity to do just that. That's why Australians will vote 'yes' for the referendum when it's held in the last quarter of this year. They will vote 'yes', and they will advance reconciliation. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:10]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

52 AYES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 90 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 64 15:15 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What did the royal commission find were the real consequences of the robodebt scheme? 15:15 Mr 00ATG Maribyrnong SHORTEN (—) (): I thank the member for McEwen for his question. On Monday the member for Cook gave a speech exonerating himself, as the real victim of the robodebt scandal. The Leader of the Opposition has actually called it a strong defence. For the information of the parliament: it was 2,114 words. While he did use 22 words to acknowledge the impact on individuals and families, he reserved the remaining 2,092 for himself. But I'm not going to focus on the fact that for every word he spent on a victim he kept 100 for himself. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cook will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Cook used a phrase. He regretted the 'unintended consequences'. In fact, he used the phrase 'unintended consequences' not once but five times. The member for Cook is the master of the English language. 'Unintended consequences' has a clear implication: it was just an accident; unintended; too bad, so sad. It implies that the consequences of robodebt could not have been predicted, could not have been foreseen. In doing so, he attacks the whole royal commission's core findings. The royal commission showed that robodebt, in its design, in its rollout—the consequences were completely foreseeable. The war on the poor that the coalition launched during robodebt was entirely predictable. Of course, the statement got even more interesting—and I had to watch the video twice— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cook will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I had to watch the video twice. The member for Cook actually says—and I thought it was a misprint in the transcript—'I stopped robodebt.' The sheer chutzpah! The trademark shamelessness! The man most known in Australia for the sprint to claim credit for everybody's actions, including the courage of the victims. The Leader of the Opposition, more alarmingly, says that the member for Cook's slippery language excusing himself was a strong defence. What I have to say to the member for Cook is: how dare you take the credit for stopping robodebt, when you started robodebt! How dare you minimise the courage of the victims! How dare you take the credit of the advocates and all those who spoke against it! I say to the coalition: the member for Cook leaves you in an untenable position. You broke the law and you hurt people. You broke the law and wasted taxpayers' money. You broke the law and continue to defend the indefensible. You have a simple choice: cut him loose or he will damage the whole Liberal herd. Cut him loose now. The Leader of the Opposition must make that decision now or own robodebt for as long as he's there. Natural Disaster Insurance 65 15:18 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Assistant Treasurer, can you update our region on my calls for a parliamentary inquiry into what has been a cold-hearted and shocking response by insurers to the recent storm and flood disaster in the central west of New South Wales? Will you also support our region receiving the same levels of state and federal disaster assistance which other devastated areas have received and which is currently being denied to our residents, such as the home buyback scheme for Eugowra and Molong and the special disaster grants for farmers in the fire-hit Hill End district? The injustice of this is appalling. 15:19 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'd like to thank the member for Calare for raising this matter in the parliament, in asking the Prime Minister a question about this about a month ago. The Prime Minister and I have discussed it, and I can update the House that this morning I gave notice of a motion in the House which will bring forward an inquiry into the insurance industry, specifically the impact of those floods in your electorate, Member for Calare, together with the impact of the floods in Northern Rivers, New South Wales. I thank the member for Richmond for her engagement and our Brisbane based members, including the member for Moreton for the representations he's made about the impact of the floods in South-East Queensland. When disaster hits, it's an absolute tragedy. It's a financial tragedy but it's also a social and emotional tragedy. The insurance policies that people take out to protect themselves against the impacts of these tragedies are there to smooth the financial impact, and they should not be adding to the anxiety of the disaster because of the mismanagement of the claims process. The Prime Minister stated when he was asked this question a month ago that he expects insurance companies to act honestly and fairly with claimants. That is the expectation of the government. I want to thank you, Member for Calare, for inviting me to your electorate. We had meetings with small businesses in Molong. I met with Kayleen and Sarah—I think they run the newsagent and the hairdresser in Molong—who told their personal stories of the devastation wrought by the floods in that town. We went out to Eugowra, and I was very moved. The first shop I walked into was the community centre. I met with Sharon, and she told me, with tears in her eyes, that she'd lost her father in the flood that hit Eugowra. He was washed away, one of two lives lost in that town. I was incredibly moved by that. We met with Brian and Leslie, who are still waiting to have their claims fulfilled. I think it's the Fat Parcel, the pop-up restaurant in town—I guarantee it's not Heart Foundation recommended. I took from that visit that the community had pulled together but they needed more support and they needed the insurance claims honoured and honoured better. So I thank you, Member for Calare, for the engagement. The inquiry will look into the impact of the floods in those regions, the claims management process, the readiness of insurers to deal with it and the affordability of insurance. You've raised with me the issue of contested hydrography reports, and that's something we should be looking at. We also want to look at mitigation and how households, communities and the government can improve efforts around mitigation as well. Unless we look at all of these issues we won't be resolving the problems around insurance, so thank you. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 66 15:22 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Why is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice critical to improving the health of First Nations people? 15:22 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Tangney for his question. As we've heard quite a lot this question time, later this year Australians will get the chance to vote to change their Constitution and recognise the place of First Nations Australians—more than 30 years after the High Court first swept aside that longstanding legal fiction that this was somehow vacant land when Europeans arrived. They'll also get the chance to give shape to that recognition through a voice to parliament—listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to achieve better outcomes. I can't think of a more important area in which to start listening again to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than in health. Let's be honest, Mr Speaker, with the best of intentions on both sides of parliament, with substantial investment, the current approach simply isn't working. In those few areas of health policy where it is working, it's simply not working fast enough. Year after year, this parliament is confronted with the yawning gap in health outcomes reported in the Closing the gap report, the yawning gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Some health challenges for Indigenous kids, for example, are essentially unknown to non-Indigenous Australia—like rheumatic heart disease, which was eradicated from developed countries 50 or 60 years ago. It's a disease of grinding poverty likely never seen by doctors who are working today in our major cities but a disease that sees rates in remote Aboriginal communities among the highest in the world, higher even than in sub-Saharan Africa. These health gaps, and so many more, are riddled right through our system. In some areas, frankly, they're getting worse. In the last decade, for example, cancer death rates across Australia plummeted by 10 per cent, but for Indigenous Australians they actually went up by 12 per cent. The gap actually got bigger. None of this is news to anyone in this parliament, and all of us have worked hard over the years with the best of intentions to make a difference and to close the gap. But we need a new approach. Just like a good doctor listens to their patients, listening to the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the root causes of these endemic yawning health gaps and listening about better, practical and more effective ways to make a real difference is the offer that's being made to the Australian people by Indigenous leaders in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That is the chance to help Aboriginal Australians lead longer, healthier and happier lives. National Disability Insurance Scheme 66 15:25 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Government Services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Has the minister received any advice from any government agency that the NDIS has contracts with any person or entity with links to crime groups? The SPEAK 53517 I couldn't hear the full part of the question because there were interjections. I will ask the shadow minister to state the question again. Mr FLETCHER L6B Has the minister received any advice from any government agency that the NDIS has contracts with any person or entity with links to crime groups? 15:26 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for his question. I'll certainly go back and check any specific matters, but, in terms of criminal activity and the NDIS, it's Labor who's now turned the real focus onto tackling it. The NDIS, when it works well, works tremendously well, and under Labor it's here to stay. But we do want to make sure that every dollar gets through to the people for whom the scheme was designed. One of the issues and challenges with the scheme is that, when there is government money, sometimes people—opportunists, criminals and others—become attracted to trying to siphon that money off for their own good rather than the best interests of participants. I certainly had the view in opposition—and it's been confirmed in government—that there is an element in the Australian community who are basically taking money from participants—robbing people on the scheme—and sometimes not only in an unethical manner but, indeed, in a criminal manner. It is the case, however, that under Labor we've had to invest in crime detection. It was Labor who set up what we call the Fraud Fusion Taskforce in the October MYEFO budget of last year. What we've done is to invest roughly $140 million. That's allowed greater cooperation between the AFP, the Australian tax office, our own NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to start working together. I'm very pleased at the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, but I do have to say, for the record, it didn't exist before Labor got elected. I had the view in opposition—it's been confirmed in government—that under the coalition the backdoor of the scheme was open to rorts, shonks and cheats. I'll give you one proof point of this. Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I'll just caution the coalition members, before they, in a knee-jerk manner, respond to what I just said. In about 2021 there were 26 criminal investigations going on. Under Labor now, there are 46. We've put extra— Mr Tehan 210911 That's not true. Mr 00ATG Well, under the coalition there was $115 million worth of payments being investigated; now there's $400 million worth of payments being investigated. It's only under Labor that you can read in the Daily Telegraph that we're cracking down on crime gangs in Western Sydney and elsewhere. There was one other issue of fraud which did come up which we are investigating. It's dodgy contracts within the NDIA which were done under the previous government. The member for Bruce talked about some of that. So we are certainly looking at that. If the Manager of Opposition Business can tell us where Mr John Margerison is, that will be helpful in our inquiries. He was a Queensland LNP fundraiser. But let me reassure the opposition and Australians listening: under Labor we will make sure, and do our very best to ensure, that every dollar gets through to the people for whom the scheme was designed and the shonks can get off our— (Time expired) Women's Economic Security 67 15:29 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Prime Minister. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to improve women's economic and financial security in Australia, and what impact is this happening? 15:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Indeed, under the former government, one of the groups that were left behind was Australia's women. Australia fell to 70th in the world for women's economic participation and opportunity—70th in the world. We're the world's 12th-largest economy. We have put economic opportunity for women at the heart of our agenda, and last week we learnt that Australia has jumped some 17 places on the World Economic Forum's gender equality ranking, from 43rd to 26th. There is more to do, but that's a direct result of the policies and programs that we have put in place. Of course, those opposite are stuck in the past when it comes to policies for women, for Indigenous Australians and for an inclusive society. In the lead up to the 2007 election, the then acting Treasurer, the member for Dickson, when we said what we were going to have a maternity leave policy, said: Labor's policy will force up unemployment and drive employers away from employing women of child bearing age. That was not said in 1950. It was said in 2007 by the now Leader of the Opposition. He went on to say more: Labor's plan on maternity leave will do little more than hurt the employment prospects of women and cripple small business … It will backfire on women in particular, wreck small business and ultimately undermine the strength of the Australian economy. That was just one of the scare campaigns that was out there—in this case, a scare campaign against maternity leave. Under our government, the gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level on record. More women than ever before are in full-time work. We've established 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. We've given a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, overwhelmingly women. We've got cheaper child care. We've expanded paid parental leave and we're implementing all 55 of the Respect@Work recommendations. This week, we passed the strengthening the safety net bill that they threatened to oppose and block on Monday morning—but by Monday lunchtime they had changed their position. That will expand the single parenting payment for some 52,000 single mums. It will increase rental assistance to the majority of recipients who are women. It will increase help for unemployed people over 55, the majority of whom are women as well. We understand that one way in which you improve the economic performance of Australia is to be inclusive and make sure that all Australians, men and women, are able to contribute and benefit from a growing economy. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 68 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Football Australia: Women's National Team 68 15:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I know that the Matildas are receiving the support of all Australians at the moment. I've written to you and the President of the Senate today, asking, as a gesture of the support of this parliament and, indeed, the nation, that we illuminate the front of the parliament—as we have on various occasions in the past—this Sunday and Monday night, to make clear our support as the national parliament. Our support is not just for the Matildas but also for the increased participation of women in team sport and the inspiration that the Matildas are showing, particularly for young girls. I table the letter to you and the President of the Senate. I hope that you receive this request favourably; it would be a small gesture. Quite clearly, our nation will come together on Monday night to cheer on the Matildas. I think that we should show leadership, and this is one practical way, by lighting up the front of parliament in the magical green and gold of Australia so that we cheer them on and we show leadership on this issue. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Prime Minister for the question and for his letter earlier today. I am pleased to inform the House that the presiding officers have approved a request to illuminate the facade of Parliament House in green and gold this coming Sunday and Monday in honour of Australia's next match in the Women's World Cup on Monday night. I encourage all members to take a look. Good luck to the Matildas! DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Presentation 68 15:35 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 68 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Inflation 68 15:35 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's failure to fight inflation first. 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— 15:35 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It is a privilege to lead this MPI, because this MPI is about those hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead. They are the absolute beating heart of our country, of our economy, of driving the prosperity that we all benefit from. But it is also true that those hardworking Australians wanting to get ahead don't want to become the working poor. They need a government that treats fighting inflation as not just its first priority but its second priority and its third priority. There is no issue more important for this government than fighting inflation. It's important to start with the facts on this issue, as we always should. The reality of the situation we're facing in this country right now is that inflation is stubbornly persistent, and we are facing amongst the highest level of core inflation in the advanced world. We love to be world-beaters in this country, but this is not one where we want to be a world leader. And yet, we are facing amongst the highest inflation in the advanced world. Meanwhile, at the same time we have rampant inflation, the economy is shuddering to a halt. In fact, in the last quarter, the economy only grew at 0.2 per cent, barely above zero. It has essentially stopped. But it gets worse when you look at the economy from the point of view of Australians, because the growth in GDP per capita is not growth—it's shrinking; it's going backwards. Right now, we have negative GDP per capita in this country and part of what is driving that is, in fact, essential to that, and that is labour productivity that is in absolute freefall. It is shocking to know that, since this Labor government came to power, labour productivity in this country has fallen in a single year by 4.6 per cent—in one year! Productivity is absolutely key to prosperity. If you want higher real wages, you need to have strong labour productivity. In fact, it's -4.6 per cent, in a single year. The bad news about this is that this is the worst we have ever seen of labour productivity since the data began back in 1978. We've never seen anything like it. But that's because we've never seen a government like this since before 1978. Gough Whitlam was a strong rival, I would say, of a similar mindset. But -4.6 per cent is an absolute collapse in labour productivity. That means that for a business trying to produce something, it needs 4.6 per cent more labour than it did a year ago. And those opposite are pushing through toxic industrial relations legislation that will make the situation worse. Meanwhile, the government is proposing rapid population growth without a plan—and this is the key—for the housing services and infrastructure to make population growth achievable, manageable and positive for this great nation. All of that leading to a situation where real wages are going backwards. We've seen the minister stand up—he did it again today—and crow about wages. Well, here are the facts. The WPI, the wage price index, went up by 3.6 per cent in the last 12 months. But we learnt yesterday that the inflation faced by hardworking Australian families who are trying to get ahead was 9.6 per cent in the last 12 months. That's for working Australians—9.6 per cent. Do you know what that means? Real wages are going back by six per cent in a single year. We will go back and look at the record books, but I reckon we're going to find it pretty hard to find any time that could rival that atrocious outcome. That is why Australians feel like they are going backwards—because they are. Meanwhile, under this government we have seen 11 interest rate increases and a 4.1 per cent cash rate. Of course, month by month more and more Australians are falling over that mortgage cliff—150,000 this quarter hit by a $95 billion mortgage cliff. Since Labor was elected, a typical family is paying over $1,800 more a month on their mortgage. That's after-tax income. I don't know where they're finding it. They're working harder; there is no doubt about that. They're taking on second jobs. They're giving up all sorts of things, including for their families and their kids. They're making the sacrifices they have to make because the government is overseeing an economy that is going backwards at a rate we haven't seen for a long, long time. The fact of what this is leading to is really stark—incredibly stark. The NAB has shown that two-thirds of Australians under the age of 50 say that the cost of living is their greatest source of stress. DFA reveals over 43 per cent of households in Queensland, the Treasurer's home state, are facing mortgage stress. That's almost half. We are getting to the point where it's almost half. Roy Morgan Research says that in the three months to June 2023, 1.4 million Australians were at risk of mortgage stress. We hear Lifeline telling us terribly stark realities about what is going on on the ground, with over 80 per cent of the calls now coming into Lifeline because of cost-of-living pressures. This is the human toll. Ben Phillips at the ANU has said that the last 12 months is perhaps the toughest in living memory. We see time and time again the pain being felt on the ground. Good local members like those behind me are all seeing it in their own electorates, and it's certainly what I see in my electorate. You would have thought that under all those circumstances the government would be doing everything it can to tackle inflation. Meanwhile, we learn in Senate estimates that the lead economic adviser to this government, Dr Stephen Kennedy, has said that after more than a year in office the Prime Minister has not requested a single personal briefing from him on inflation or any other economic issue. Not a single briefing. He is too busy doing all these other things. He is not interested in the cost of living. Meanwhile, the Treasurer, instead of focusing on what really matters to Australians, is ignoring what matters. Just last week we saw him put out his signature document, a public document talking about a wellbeing budget. But when it came to mortgage stress, the latest data he could stomach in the report was from 2020. This report, like this Treasurer, is out of touch and out of date. They are ignoring what matters. They are completely out of touch with the issues that Australians are facing. We have, in fact, a Treasurer of this great nation who is not a doctor of economics but a doctor of spin. He is more interested in writing a history of his great hero, Paul Keating, than he is on focusing on the hard issues that Australians are facing. He spent last summer not working out how to fight inflation but writing a long diatribe. If any of you get the chance to read it, I assure you: it's a bad idea—don't bother—because it's about remaking capitalism. Those hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead are not interested in a treasurer that remakes capitalism. They're interested in a treasurer that gets inflation down, gets interest rates down, helps them to make ends meet and makes sure that they've got rising real wages because that's what matters to them. There are many things that government can do to fight inflation. The first is: don't leave it to the Reserve Bank. The second is: commit. Their fiscal strategy in the last budget dropped budget balance as an objective—completely gone. That hasn't happened since the Charter of Budget Honesty came into place. The reality of this situation is that we have a government that is not interested in fighting inflation. It's far more interested in its Canberra Voice. It's far more interested in its symbolic focus than it is in the real issues that are facing those hardworking Australians who want to get ahead. The reality they are all facing is that they are on the way to becoming the working poor under this government. 15:45 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth This government was elected to get things done, and we have continued to deliver and get things done despite the fact that we have faced huge opposition from those opposite. They said no when it came to energy price relief, no when it came to cheaper medicines, no when it came to the Housing Australia Future Fund—in fact, they oppose it so much that they're going to come up and say no on the Housing Australia Future Fund twice—no on the National Reconstruction Fund, no to fee-free TAFE, no to Startup Year loans and no to so much more. I don't think it will surprise anyone in this place that I'm not going to take priorities advice from the shadow Treasurer and those opposite. While we were elected to get things done, we were also elected because the Australian people saw an absolute mess in the former government and we were elected to clean up that mess—a cabinet so bad that they gave us secret energy price rises and secret ministries. They left $1 trillion of debt as they were walking out the door. But we've been reminded this week once again of their very public support for robodebt. We've just had a 10-minute lecture from the shadow Treasurer about what the government's priorities should be. The lecture is one thing; I look at the actions that we've seen from the coalition this week in terms of what their priorities are. They started the week with a big splash in the papers, telling us that their priority coming back to parliament was to oppose additional payments for 1.1 million Australians. They wanted to block payments for single parents. They wanted to block payments for the unemployed. They wanted to block additional rent assistance. Then, by the end of that Monday, we found out that their other big priority was actually to defend their legacy when it came to robodebt—again, attacking single parents and attacking people who are relying on benefits from Centrelink. That tells us so much about the priorities of the opposition and what comes to form the basis of their political offering to the Australian people. When it comes to policy development, from what we're seeing from those opposite, there's one big missing pieces of the puzzle, which I think many in this place are waiting to see the answer on. I calculated it: it's been 424 days that the member for Hume has been the shadow Treasurer. I thought: 'That's a substantial piece of time. How many policies has he put the costings out for?' I thought: 'Maybe he would have costed one policy a week.' That would be 60 policies costed by the opposition—by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which is available to every member of the opposition. So I thought there would maybe be 60, which is maybe one a week. But, no, maybe that's too many. I thought: 'Maybe I'll be more generous. Maybe they might have costed one policy a month.' That would be 13 policies. But, no, it wasn't 13. I thought: 'Maybe they've costed one policy a year. That would give them one costed policy.' Nope, we haven't seen one costed policy. There has been a big fat zero costed policies from those opposite after more than 400 days in opposition. I was actually amused, and I think even those opposite will be amused, that the Greens party have costed more policies than those on the opposition benches. So we are seeing a huge gap in policy development. There were big long lectures but no actual policy development by those opposite. Then we get to the things that they still defend. We heard the member for Hume in his speech of defending the 10 years during which they sat in government arguing for lower wages as a deliberate design feature of their policy agenda. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations highlighted in question time, they presided over the slowest wage growth since the Second World War. It was both welfare recipients and wage-earners who were under attack from the previous coalition government. I look at some of the things that have changed for the Australian people. We're asked why we come to this place. It's because we want to change people's lives for the better, to implement and deliver policy that improves the lives of all Australians. Here are some of the things that have happened to the people of Australia only because they chose to elect the Albanese Labor government. We've seen the minimum wage increase by nearly $3 an hour since the change of government. We've seen 250,000 aged-care workers get a 15 per cent pay rise, changing their lives. That means that nurses who are on the award can earn an extra $10,000 a year if they're working full time. That changes people's lives, and it happened only because the Australian people chose a different government last year. There are also half a million more Australians in work since Labor came to office. Things have changed in local electorates. There's been a lot of discussion about the big changes—for example, the 1.2 million families who benefit from cheaper child care. For the electorate of Cunningham that means 5,700 families are better off. Our cheaper medicines policy means that people in Cunningham have saved $597,000 as a community. If you look at the great electorate of Lyons, in Tasmania, you'll learn that 1,700 families are better off because the Australian people chose to elect a government that is committed to cheaper child care. The community of Lyons have saved $249,000 in total in cheaper medicines, and there is more to come. If you look at Swan, my neighbouring electorate, represented by the member for Swan, cheaper child care means 6,900 families are better off. Mr McCormack 219646 Give us a stat about Macnamara! Mr GORMAN 74519 I'm asked for a statistic about the great electorate of Macnamara. Mr McCormack 219646 It's so well represented! M 74519 It is so well represented. I commend the member for Macnamara for being part of the government and for his vote for cheaper medicines—$702,000 was saved in the electorate of Macnamara and 6,100 families are better off because of cheaper child care because the people of Macnamara know good policy, they know good representation and they sent the member for Macnamara here to stand up for those families and to deliver for all of those people who wanted to see a government that wants to get things done, not those opposite, who constantly say no. Let's talk about what's in the future for the electorate of Corangamite and all over Australia. We want to deliver more social housing, and that's the question in front of this parliament right now. Both chambers of this parliament have in front of them housing legislation to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes. I know that the member for Corangamite is 100 per cent committed to delivering more affordable homes for more Australians and proudly does not stand part of the Greens-Liberal-Nationals coalition. What we see when it comes to housing is a big fat no from those opposite. When it came to action on climate change they came in here and said no. We saw that today, when it came to whether they could commit to truly supporting an increase in wages. Do you actually believe in stronger wages? We've put legislation into this parliament to give people more secure jobs and more wages in their pockets so that they can actually pay for things they need. Again, it was opposed by those opposite. We get to this point where, while there are all these things that are opposed by those opposite, we still have the big lie from the Leader of the Opposition. When he marked his own homework his self-assessment was: 'I think we've been a constructive opposition.' I don't think even his backbench wants him to be a constructive opposition. I'm not even sure if that's still the plan to be a constructive opposition, but that was his own mark of his homework. I end with this. Those on this side of the House came here to fight for cheaper medicine. Those opposite opposed it before they even knew the details. We came here to fight for cheaper child care. Those opposite said it was not the policy they would have introduced. We came here to fight for an increase in the minimum wage. Those opposite told us it would wreck the economy. We came here for 30,000 new affordable homes. They told us that our priorities were all wrong. We came here to raise the standards of the Australian government, and those opposite defend the member for Cook week after week. 15:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I wouldn't mind it so much that the member for Perth mentioned—424 days, was it?—costing policies. The Australian public would just love 424 days of not costly policies, because that's what Labor has produced. Government members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 That's a good one, isn't it! I thought of it just then as I looked at all you Labor members. It's a zinger—I came up with it. They are costly policies. Whilst we might all have a bit of joviality right here and now in this matter of public importance debate, out there they're hurting. Ms Coker 263547 That's right. Mr McCORMACK 219646 'That's right,' I hear from the member for Corangamite. It's Struggle Street at the moment for many people who, when they go to the supermarkets, are finding it tough to pay for their groceries. When they go to the bowser, they're finding it difficult to pay for their fuel. When they get their electricity bill in the mail, they are finding it very, very difficult to be able to afford that, like a constituent who wrote to me. I'm not sure whether this person is necessarily a Nationals voter. She's in the Riverina, and I'm sure she probably may well be, but she writes: 'As you know, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to cut power bills by $275 for households by 2025 at the last election. He isn't making good on his promise. I am urging you to hold Mr Albanese to account. I opened my electricity bill for this quarter and was shocked to find it had more than doubled—more than doubled. I hold no faith in renewable energy sources, and alternative policy on energy needs to be prosecuted more broadly now. We need to consider nuclear energy.' That's just one view. It may not be shared by everybody in this chamber right here and right now, but it is indicative of what many people on Struggle Street in regional Australia and elsewhere are now encountering with their power bills. The now Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, promised on 94 occasions no less that there would be a $275 power bill cut. Where is it? I notice they've all gone quiet. I would ask the members opposite: where is that $275? Where is that power bill cut? Inflation has just gone up and up, and it's gone up and up on the watch of those opposite. It has indeed. The latest CPI data shows inflation is still running rampant at six per cent. That is making it so tough. You only have to read the Daily Telegraph online today: Sydney home prices could end up 2023 up to $60,000 higher than they were at the start of the year as the ongoing housing market recovery continues, new modelling has revealed. We hear those opposite talking about their policy—whether it's costed or uncosted matters not—and the amount of money, billions upon billions of dollars, that is going to go into this housing proposal they've got before the Senate. They talk about 30,000 homes. It was a million not that long ago, and now it has gone down to 30,000. Irrespective of whether it's thousands or in the order of hundreds of thousands, you can't find people to build houses to save yourself, let alone building supplies. We're joined by the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury. I'm glad he walked in. I won't be too hard on him, because it's his birthday. Happy birthday to the member for Fenner! Last week he got into the writing stakes—just like the Treasurer, who wrote the thesis, the epistle, on re-energising and remaking capitalism. It puts Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace to shame. It was a great piece. The member for Fenner has written an op-ed. To quote Michelle Grattan: … an assistant minister in the Albanese government, has launched a swingeing attack on the stranglehold the factional "duopoly" has on the Labor Party. Dr Leigh BU8 I think it's called swingeing. Swinging is something else. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Swinging or stinging, it makes no difference. She continues: Leigh says the factions' power is at an all-time high, which suppresses ideological debate, distorts preselections, and discourages people joining the party. So we have the Treasurer talking about remaking capitalism. We have the assistant minister—who should be on the front bench; his talent is being ignored, and more's the pity; I mean that genuinely—writing about factionalism in the Labor Party. And out there on 'Struggle Street' they're finding it difficult to pay their bills. So stop writing op-eds, stop writing epistles, and get on with the job that you are elected to do. 16:01 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara The member for Riverina is finished and wrapped up for the week, and we wish him well on his travels back to wherever he comes from. We are here to talk about the MPI and I am so pleased that we've got all of the opposition members coming in to support the shadow Treasurer. Look at them all there! Hundreds of them coming in to support the shadow Treasurer. But the shadow Treasurer's not here to support himself on the MPI. The shadow Treasurer is so committed to his own MPI he didn't even turn up to it. Anyway, we move on. It is a bit hard to take seriously the shadow Treasurer, when he comes in here and talks about inflation, because the shadow Treasurer gets confused from time to time. I don't mind waking up on a Sunday morning and putting a bagel in the toaster, cutting it in half, of course, and then putting a bit of butter and Vegemite on the bagel. Obviously, you need to keep an eye on the cost of Vegemite. The shadow Treasurer keeps a very close eye on the cost of Vegemite. The shadow Treasurer is a real student on the cost of Vegemite. He's learning about the cost of Vegemite every single day. He's smearing Vegemite all over the place. Here's a quote from the shadow Treasurer. He said, 'In the last month alone'—that's an important part of the quote; I'll come back to it—'the price of Vegemite has increased by eight per cent, peanut butter by nine per cent and yoghurt by 12 per cent.' That would be alarming had it been happening in the last month. Unfortunately for the shadow Treasurer, he's getting confused between one month and one year. It wasn't just us taking a little bit of a shock to the fact that the shadow Treasurer is getting confused between his months and his years; it was also those great Labor defenders at Sky News who were shocked by the fact that the shadow Treasurer—the head bean counter from the opposition—was unable to work out the difference between a month and a year. Andrew Clennell called it 'deeply embarrassing' that he couldn't do it. Sky News had a headline saying that there was a monumental gaffe and that it bemuses colleagues. You can just imagine the shadow cabinet: 'Oh, no!' Angus Taylor had an absolute nightmare when he came in and said that Vegemite was going up by eight per cent in a month. There was another great headline about the shadow Treasurer: 'Angus Taylor slammed for deeply embarrassing Vegemite claim in parliament'. This is the man leading their charge on inflation. You could take them seriously if they came into this place and put their money where their mouth is. These people opposite like to come in here and complain about the price of energy, yet they vote against lowering the cost of energy. These people come into this place and complain about the cost of housing, yet they come in here and vote against the construction of more housing to bring down the cost of housing and increase its supply. These people come in here and complain about the cost of living, yet at each and every turn they have opposed support payments and the lifting of the social safety net for those people who are doing it tough. They come in here and complain about the cost of living, yet under them not one incentive, policy or effort was made to lift the wages of working Australian people—not one thing. Do you know why? It's because it was a deliberate design feature of the way in which those opposite manage the economy. They come in here and complain about the cost of living, yet they oppose every single wage rise that we on the side of the House have helped to bring in since coming into government. They complain about the cost of living, but they oppose wage rises to aged-care workers. They oppose wage rises for those on the minimum wage. They oppose a wage rise at every single chance that they get to put their money where their mouth is. So we won't be taking lectures from those opposite. Instead of voting and using their power as representatives in this great place to help the people who are struggling with the cost of living, those opposite come in here to complain. That is their MO. They want to use every opportunity to make a political issue while we on this side of the House are going to do everything we can and use every single day we have to lower the cost-of-living pressures for the people we are privileged to represent. 16:06 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne We have a toxic brew in the economy at the moment. I know that it's Thursday and everyone is keen to get out of here, but this is a really serious issue, because people are hurting in Australia. Everywhere you look, inflation is eating away at the value of their savings and their assets. The year-on-year CPI issued by the Ai Group was seven per cent for the last year. Inflation is eating away any wage rise that people get. Admittedly, it may finally be working. The monetary policy that the Reserve Bank governor was basically sacked for has had its effect, and that monetary policy is slowing things down. But, yet again, today we see that house prices are taking off already. The interest rate increases may not have ceased. We will watch closely. But, as inflation is galloping away, what do we have from the other side? The last budget saw the low and middle income tax offset removed. There are increased taxes on superannuation. Franking credits—the lifeblood of many retirees in my electorate and around the country—are being limited by changes in the rules. There are workforce shortages as a consequence of COVID. Yet, despite all this, we don't see anything, beside what the Reserve Bank governor has done, to stop inflation eating everything away. We know that inflation happens when you spend money without any productivity or anything to show for it. What we got in the last budget was mind-boggling. You would think that the fundamental economic theory of reducing government spending to reduce the amount of unproductive capital in the economy would be followed, but the Treasurer just threw fuel onto the fire. An extra $185 billion of government spending has come out of COVID. We were cutting back. We were putting the brakes on. The former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, was described as 'cruel' by members on the other side, yet they wanted to spend more during COVID. We put the brakes on and started removing all the supports, and then they came in and inherited a booming economy. Now it's all going pear-shaped because they put an extra $185 billion into the economy with nothing productive out of it. They've just let the unions loose on the workplace. The flexible, agile philosophy of our wages and industrial policy is being wound back 20 or 30 years, and that will lead to less productivity. To improve productivity we should be allowing flexibility in the workplace, not making it rigidly controlled. All of that is a recipe for more inflation. As well as that, coupled with tax increases and interest rate rises, the standard variable rate with one of our biggest well-known banks is varying from 6.24 per cent to just over seven per cent. Admittedly, when we were in government, rates were very low, but we haven't seen an increase in interest rates like this for decades. It's all happening on your watch, and you can't keep blaming the former government. As I said, everywhere you look there are increased costs in business. Wages for unskilled labour have gone up. The wage structure that's been forced on the NDIA has really made unskilled labour unaffordable for lots of businesses, because you can get paid double or triple in the NDIS. It is really distorting the marketplace. No wonder there are shortages in coffee shops. You can get 15 or 20 bucks more by taking people who are on the NDIS out for coffees than you can by working in a coffee shop, or in lots of industries. Look at the electricity bills we're all facing. It's because of your environmental policies, which are shutting Tomago, just like the plant in Gladstone is going to be closed, because of the safeguard mechanism. (Time expired) 16:11 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Well, that was an absolutely incoherent contribution from the member for Lyne, and it just goes to show the incoherence of this MPI that we face from the shadow Treasurer. As if we didn't already know, this shadow Treasurer is somebody who should never again be handed the keys to any economic portfolio—the same man who changed the law so he could keep a power price rise secret from the Australian people, and he sees fit to come into this place to lecture us about inflation. Yet where is he? The shadow Treasurer, the alternative Treasurer of this nation, can't even stay in the parliament for the MPI he has moved—a matter that he believes is so important that it should be debated in this chamber, and he can't even stay for it Inflation started going up under the government that he was a senior minister in. In fact, the March 2022 quarter had the single highest inflation rate in Australia this century—in 23 years. So, inflation in the March quarter of 2022 was the highest in 23 years—under the Liberal government. Inflation kept going up because his government kept spending like there was no tomorrow and failed to put a lid on a pot that was boiling over. I don't pretend that the inflation pressures affecting Australia are all the fault of the previous government. That would be as disingenuous as their suggestion, in this MPI, that inflation now is the fault of our government. Every credible economist and commentator knows and has stated that inflation is a global issue and is affecting many economies around the world. The war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic caused economic pressure to build up internationally, and here in Australia of course we've had a number of droughts and other disasters that have affected local production. When these things happen, either the pressure can be turned down, or it can bubble over. Central banks around the world have tightened monetary policy, raising interest rates, to cool their economies. When debt gets more expensive to service, then people who are holding debt, particularly mortgage holders, have less money to spend on other things, thereby reducing inflationary pressure. Indications are that 15 months after the tightening cycle started we are seeing inflation and interest rates stabilise, both here and internationally. It has to be remembered that the Reserve Bank of Australia started putting interest rates up under the former Liberal government. The indications were clear before the election that inflation was higher than desirable and interest rates were on the march. What did the former Liberal government do in response? What decisions did the now shadow Treasurer participate in when he was a senior cabinet minister under the former government to keep inflation in check? While the pressures are global, decisions made domestically can make a difference. Did the former government rein in spending? Did they work on bringing down the national debt, which they had doubled before COVID and then tripled to nearly $1 trillion? No, they did not. The government the shadow Treasurer was a minister in kept on spending and spending, pork-barrelling its seats, shovelling public money to its mates, wasting money left, right and centre. Every dollar of it added to the debt mountain. Every dollar of it contributed to inflationary pressure and higher interest rates. Compare that to the decisions of this government since the May 2022 election. We knew at the election that cost of living and growing inflation and interest rates would be inherited problems to deal with. Our focus has been on providing cost-of-living relief to the most vulnerable while not adding to inflationary pressures. Our assistance measures have been targeted, measured and responsible. Our economic decisions have been about making the structural decisions we need to grow the economy for the long term. We've delivered rent assistance, energy bill relief—which they voted against—cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. Our cost-of-living relief measures are expected to reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. Inflation will still be higher than we'd like and more persistent than ideal, but it's down from where it would have been if those opposite were still occupying the government benches. Our measures are making a meaningful difference to families around the country. Inflation remains our No. 1 challenge, and we have a three-point plan to address it: budget restraint—delivering a $20 billion surplus, something those opposite failed to deliver—targeted cost-of-living relief, and investments to lift the capacity of the economy. The Reserve Bank governor made it clear that our measures are not adding to inflation. I don't think the budget is adding to inflation; as he said in May, it will actually reduce inflation in the next financial year. 16:16 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I'm looking forward to getting back home tonight. Tomorrow I'm going to one of my schools to talk to the year 12 debating team there. We've just had a really good lesson from the speakers opposite on how not to structure an argument. Some are purporting that the government is doing all these amazing things to solve the cost-of-living challenge. Others are claiming that the previous government, which finished 15 months ago, are to blame for it. Then a third cohort are suggesting that there is no cost-of-living challenge to speak of and that Australians are doing very well. When I go out and doorknock in my electorate, which I do every week, very regularly, the No. 1 issue raised is the cost of living. Everyone says that it is very difficult to bring the household budget together at the moment. Difficult decisions are being made by families across my electorate, and I'm sure that's the case across the country. They're talking about cancelling family holidays. They're worrying about how much the next electricity bill will have gone up since the last one. To suggest that things are not tough out there indicates to me that members opposite are simply not listening to people in their electorates, because it is really tough at the moment. Real wages are going backwards. That's something to be ashamed of, not to gloss over, not to dispute. It is a disgrace, and they should admit it. The Labor Party is in government and real wages are going backwards; they should hang their heads in shame. Rather than take responsibility for it and do something about it, they put it on a government that finished 15 months ago, being more interested in excuses than achievements. That says a lot about the priorities of a government, particularly ones that calls itself the Labor Party. They need a new name, because they're clearly not about the workers of this country when they are presiding over the deterioration of wages. Wages going backwards is appalling and something to be embarrassed about. In my home state, electricity prices are going up by 24 per cent this quarter. We've heard members opposite brag about the changes they've made to the energy system in this country, changes that are resulting in a 24 per cent increase on the average bill in my home state. To be proud of that— An honourable member interjecting— Mr STEVENS 176304 I absolutely voted against energy prices going up by 24 per cent; thank you for the opportunity to reconfirm that. The fact that the government are bragging about electricity prices under their policies going up by 24 per cent is surprising, politically, but also disgraceful, when you think about the impact that is having on family budgets. Real wages are going down. Electricity prices in South Australia are going up by 24 per cent. Mortgages are going up. Rents are going up. People are making very difficult decisions around the kitchen table. They are cancelling family holidays. Maybe they are taking their kids out of a private school that they can't afford to send them to anymore. They are making difficult decisions about budgets for Christmas presents and how they're going to make ends meet through the holiday season, the high-cost season, because they don't have the real purchasing power today that they had 12 months ago, two years ago, three years ago or four years ago, because they're going backwards. Their wages are going backwards and their costs are dramatically going up. The most recent inflation figure is six per cent annualised. To suggest that that's something to welcome and to delight in, the fact that it has moderated from seven per cent—as if six per cent is some sort of improvement from seven per cent. That means the destruction of people's wealth has slowed from seven per cent to six per cent. They're still going backwards, just at a slightly lesser velocity than the quarter before. Bragging about that and suggesting that that's something to be proud of as a record of the government absolutely beggars belief. It is tough times out there right now, and those opposite had an opportunity to talk about what they're doing to address it. Instead, they're either pretending that it hasn't happened or talking about a government that ended 15 months ago. Why do people go into politics and want to get into government to then proceed to do absolutely nothing when they're there? We know what the culture is amongst those opposite. They're all about themselves and not about the struggling families of Australia. 16:21 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I know that it's Thursday afternoon and that some people might not be very happy vegemites on the other side of the chamber. However, I would say that this is a government that fundamentally cares about people. I would agree with one thing that the member for Sturt said: the cost of living is an issue that families are grappling with. That's something that we fundamentally understand. But what we're talking about today is who the better economic managers are. Who is it? I know that we on this side are that. That's not an opinion; that's fact. Those opposite said that government spending would result in increased inflation. They were wrong. Inflation has moderated. They said that the budget was out of control. They were wrong. The Albanese Labor government delivered a surplus budget. Who was trying to do that for how long? And who printed the mugs? All coffee, no mugs. They said that government spending would lift wages and that wage increases would reduce the rate of employment. They were wrong. Unemployment is at historic lows. Yesterday I announced to the House that in my local regional alone there has been an increase in jobs since June last year. In real terms, that means 9,000 more jobs in my local region. Unlike the Liberals, our economic plan is working. It's not an opinion. The figures show that. The Liberals cannot put inflation first when they keep saying no to Australians. The Prime Minister calls them the 'no-alition', the 'nasty party' and the 'naysayers'. They say no to everything. With the items that we've put forward to tackle inflation, they have said no. On energy relief they've said no. On a real increase to minimum wage they said no—to our lowest-paid workers that have done so much heavy lifting during the pandemic. On the Housing Australia Future Fund they said no. On fee-free TAFE places to address our skills shortage they said no. The National Reconstruction Fund has a productivity benefit. When we found out that media reports said that they were going to vote no for this, the Prime Minister needed to fact-check it. He was like: 'Really? Really? Are they going to say no to this?' We fact-checked it and, yes, they've said no! Instead, the Albanese Labor government moves forward and is making smart and responsible decisions to balance the demands of the economy. The Albanese Labor government is in tune with what's going on in the country. We understand the cost-of-living pressures that are affecting Australians. I know that many families are doing it tough right now. I've spent lots of time in my community talking to families about this. But I also know that the Albanese Labor government is indeed tackling the inflation dragon first. Unlike those on the other side, I've taken time to understand what it means to my community. Ours is an economic plan that has been carefully calibrated and constructed, and we're putting it together with the aim of easing cost-of-living pressures in a targeted way and not making it worse. It's a plan that's driven by the need to fight inflation first. Our plan is reducing inflation comparatively. Our plan is a long-term strategy to balance the priorities of the nation, because the truth is that we on this side see a future for our nation. We are looking not just at that short-term things that we need to do but at the medium term and the long term. I see that those opposite aren't looking to this side because I think they agree that our plan is indeed actually working. Our plan includes assistance to Australians where they need it first: relief to energy bills, cheaper child care for Australian families, cheaper medicine for people who need it, and rental assistance for those that are struggling to meet payments. Lower inflation will ultimately lead to comparatively lower interest rates. This is good news to homeowners. We know that we need to keep working hard on helping Australians cope with cost-of-living pressure. I know that I like my Vegemite on Turkish bread with butter, and I want to make sure that all Australians can continue to afford their Vegemite. The inflation levels are more consistent than we would like them to be. We know that we must continue to moderate and help the inflation dragon die. We're working hard to ensure that we do the investment that we need in Australia's future as well. The measures I have outlined are fighting inflation first. Labor's is correcting the decade of Liberal mismanagement. Labor is economically credible. We will fight inflation. 16:26 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I suppose it's good to speak on this debate. It is the last day of the week, and there is a bit of joviality in the chamber—Turkish bread and 'back in black' mugs and all of the rest of it. But at the heart of this debate are real Australians suffering. That's what's going on here. Real Australians are in the middle of a crisis. That's what we are talking about. It's an important and very serious topic. I get around both the division of Wide Bay and the broader nation and I speak to people. They're telling me that they're doing a tough. They're finding it hard to make ends meet. They're also telling me how disappointed they are in this Albanese Labor government. This has turned out to them to be a government that is more interested in treating the nation as a social and economic experiment than a serious job at hand. Indeed, they tell me that the Prime Minister has betrayed them. I can't help but agree with that. This is a prime minister who sat before the nation in what is the nation's biggest job interview and made any number of claims about how he was going to ease the cost-of-living pressures, how life under him would be easier, how life under him would be more affordable. What has happened? We are not better off; we are worse off, and we are facing a crisis in relation to inflation. The policies of this government aren't addressing inflation. Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, effectively, and this government's policies are about pumping more money into the economy and creating a scarcity of goods. It's manifesting itself in some very shocking numbers that the government can't run away from: six per cent inflation CPI. That is shocking. I know the Treasurer came in here yesterday with a big sigh of relief about the cash rate staying on hold. I'm sure he was buoyed up by maintaining a bad economy that's not getting worse, but the reality is he is presiding over a shockingly bad economy. We've got some of the highest core inflation rates amongst advanced economies. This is not me making it up. These are facts. Our labour productivity is going through the floor. Real wages—what you get for the dollar that you earn—are plummeting at a record rate. Australians are suffering. They are suffering. The recent National Australia Bank survey into home borrowers showed that 67 per cent of Australians under the age of 50 are saying that the rising cost of living is their biggest cause of strength. That is shocking; that is really, really bad. We've got Lifeline reporting that 80 per cent of its calls relate to cost-of-living pressures. The SPEAKER 53517 The discussion has concluded. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT Small Business 77 16:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Today I rise to speak about the situation facing small businesses in Warringah and Australia more generally. Australia lost so many small businesses during the three years of COVID, and many surviving businesses only just made it through those difficult times. After COVID, many businesses were expecting a recovery. However, most have been so badly affected by rising inflation and the cost-of-living crisis that it is harder for them now than it was even during COVID. Accountants and insolvency experts in Warringah have warned me that they have never seen so many small businesses going under. We must recognise how important small businesses are to Australia's economy and to the local communities. From an economic perspective, small businesses make up 97.5 per cent of all businesses in Australia. In Warringah alone, there are over 8,000 small businesses. From 2020-21, over five million Australians were employed by small businesses, and small businesses contributed to 33 per cent of Australia's total GDP. They are the backbone of our communities and our economy. Our local cafes, shops and restaurants are focal points for community gatherings. Small businesses include childcare providers, GPs, local accountants, butchers, bakers, hairdressers and sports coaches. They also include innovators and start-ups. They have the potential to make great changes in our country. Small businesses in Warringah and throughout Australia are feeling significant pressure. The cost-of-living crisis is reducing customer spending, and it is getting increasingly difficult for small businesses to keep up with significant cost increases in electricity, petrol, freight and wages. The 12 consecutive interest rate rises have resulted in a dramatic downturn in consumer spending on non-essential items, with the March quarter seeing a six per cent contraction in retail spending, putting many small shops on the brink of going out of business. I know this is a wicked problem when it comes to dealing with inflation and the power the Reserve Bank has. But there is a role where government can step in to assist small businesses in weathering this storm and getting through. The constant media reporting on the impending recession and rising cost-of-living pressures is also affecting consumer spending. In my community, there are stories of desperation as a combination of these factors seriously impact income flow for small-business owners. Another major issue is the difficulty of recruiting staff, particularly after the mass exodus from industries such as hospitality after COVID. While we have seen the return of international students and working holidaymakers who may assist with retail and hospitality workforces, unfortunately, we've also seen a return to pre-COVID restrictions on the number of hours that these international students can work, which could potentially constrain their ability to assist with staffing pressure. So it really doesn't make sense. Despite these obvious difficulties, businesses are reporting that the Australian Tax Office is extremely aggressive, even if a payment is only one day late. The government needs to do more to support our small business community, given their importance to the Australian economy and to our communities. Small businesses are struggling to navigate the tax systems, business activity reporting, pay as you go, STP and super payments. Arduous reporting procedures are time consuming and difficult for small businesses, especially when they have staff shortages, which puts further pressure on them. Rents are also rising, not just in residential for housing but also for commercial properties, and small businesses are dealing with inflexible landlords. That is being compounded by landlords who are now seeking to recover the cost of rising interest rates and claw back the income lost during the reprieve conditions that we encouraged in relation to rent during the COVID pandemic. It is the perfect storm. I call on the government to work on reducing gas and electricity prices, consider incentives for small businesses to purchase solar panels, invest in electrification and energy efficiency measures. It means putting in place incentives for commercial property landlords as well as residential properties. Amid this cost-of-living crisis, the government needs to come up with creative solutions to support small businesses. Unions and big businesses have a lot of access to government around policy. Small business needs a voice and more attention. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 77 16:35 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce It would be difficult to pick the worst moment in parliament this week. People could well choose the opposition's gutter politics on Constitutional recognition and a Voice for Indigenous Australians, and the misinformation and disinformation they're spreading not just in the media but here in this House. They want to divide and not unite the country for their own political reasons instead of making a practical difference to people's lives. The Opposition Leader and his deputy are too scared to go to the Garma Festival and face people this weekend. People could well pick—and I may—the audit report I tabled on the Liberal government's grants rorts. This was industrial-scale rorting of billions of dollars of funds, treating taxpayer money as if it were Liberal Party money. But even among all that, surely, this week the former prime minister Morrison's response to the robodebt royal commission tops the list. The response was weak and pathetic. He dismissed the royal commission as a quasilegal process. The royal commission was established by law—46 days of public hearings, with more than 100 Australians giving evidence. Commissioner Holmes is a former chief justice of the Queensland Supreme Court, and she forensically examined how the former Liberal governments designed and perpetrated this illegal scheme for years. More than 400,000 vulnerable Australians were the victims. She found: Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled … He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility … Former welfare minister Alan Tudge famously said he would 'find welfare cheats and hunt them down'. He had a crack, didn't he, as the commission found when he leaked the personal details to the media on some kind of revenge mission on someone who spoke up. Former minister Stuart Robert invented a new doctrine of cabinet—solidarity—in claiming it was okay to say things which were demonstrably not true. But the worst aspect was that instead of taking responsibility himself, the former prime minister cast himself as the victim-in-chief. This guy was the most powerful person in our country. He is still privileged to serve in this parliament and has power in that way. He is not the victim. The real victims were Australians sent fake debt notices for money they did not owe. The real victims were those who had the onus of proof reversed when they got a letter with the power of the Commonwealth logo and had no way of getting records from employers who went out of business years before. The real victims were those Australians who committed suicide, and those who loved them. That's permanent. That's forever. Nothing can really make up for that, but at the very least these people are owed, surely, acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse. I represent Bruce, one of the most disadvantaged electorates in the country. Do those opposite really know what it's like to sit down week after week with vulnerable poor people sent fake debt notices for $20,000 or more for money they didn't owe? How many years does it take to repay a debt like that at $10 a week? It's more than 38 years. But it's not even the financial pain or the trauma—it's the sense of injustice and fairness, and the further loss of dignity. Why is it important to learn these lessons of robodebt? Why must our nation not forget robodebt and just move on, as those opposite tell us we should do? Because Australia needs to understand what happened and make changes so this cannot happen again. Because the Liberal Party needs to accept that their values and culture are rotten. Yes, they should cut the former prime minister loose, but the Leader of the Opposition sat around the cabinet table for years and advocated this policy. He is culpable. All of them are culpable except those one or two who have apologised. There's something that all politicians need to take responsibility for and listen to. To quote the royal commissioner's words: Politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments. The evidence before the commission was that fraud in the welfare system is miniscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years. Anti-welfare rhetoric is easy populism and useful for campaign purposes. It is not recent; nor is it confined to one side of politics as some of the quoted material in the report demonstrates. It may be the evidence in this royal commission has gone some way towards changing public perceptions. Largely, these attitudes are set by politicians, who need to abandon for good, in every sense, the narrative of taxpayer versus welfare recipient—words we should all reflect on. Dawson Electorate: Fishing Industry 78 16:40 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson We are in a Labor created cost-of-living crisis and that's about to get worse. One of the most important and enjoyable things you can do is to have fish and chips on the beach or in a park with a partner, your family or friends. However, this simple pleasure is going to be taken away from us because federal and state Labor governments have decided to persecute our fishermen. In June a joint media release from federal and Queensland Labor said they're going to ban gillnet fishing—no consultation with the community, no consultation with our fishermen, and short time frames. This is going to happen by the end of this year. Then we'll see at least 90 licensed fishermen having significantly reduced incomes or being wiped out totally. It's simply not right. We're talking about people's lives here: fishermen and fisherwomen's lives, fish-and-chip shops, and fishmongers. This cruel federal Labor government is taking away the rights of these fishermen to earn a living. I was talking to one of these fishermen. He happens to have a daughter who's in grade 12—a straight-A student who wants to go to university to become a doctor, a GP, and we certainly need more of those in rural and regional Australia. Now, with the stroke of a pen in Canberra, this dream is being taken away. It's absolutely disgraceful. What about the effect on the communities and the chandleries? As we know, the fishermen operate in a tough environment, out in the sun and salt. They need a lot of shackles, ropes, floats, anchors and all those sorts of things. Without this, the chandlery shops are going to go out of business—and the ice producers. When a fisherman catches a fish he bleeds it and puts it on ice and that way keeps it nice and fresh so we can enjoy eating the fish. He's going to be out of business. The boatbuilders and repairers will go out of business. The outboard sales and service will go out of business. What does it mean for the average Australian when you take 2,000 tonnes of fresh, wild caught fish out of the equation? It is simple supply and demand. When you take the supply out, the price will go up. Then we'll be relying on more imported fish. Rather than having fish from our pristine waters, we'll be importing lesser-quality fish, and prices will skyrocket. I'm not taking this lying down. I've written to Minister Tanya Plibersek. Surprise, surprise: I haven't received a reply. I'm calling on Minister Plibersek to come to my electorate, do some community consultation, talk to the fishermen, have a discussion and see how the fishermen fish. They actually have to sit on the nets, follow the nets and make sure that they're looked after. This absolute rubbish about looking after the Great Barrier Reef—these nets don't go within 60 kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef—is just another Labor lie. I have a big message for all the recreational fishermen out there. I'm a recreational fisherman myself. I love to recreationally fish with my family and friends. We have an absolute ball. When this cruel Labor government punishes and persecutes professional fishermen, we'll be next. They'll be coming for us. The wild caught fishing industry in Queensland deserves to be protected and deserves to be supported. The wild-caught fishing industry is sustainable, and the fishery is in good condition. The wild-caught fishing industry is operated by a quota system that has been developed by science. The wild-caught fishing industry is heavily regulated. They have to check in at night. They have to have their logbooks. The wild-caught fishing industry is heavily monitored via GPS. The wild-caught fishing industry is run by professional men and women, and has been for so many generations. Australia, we must stand up and support our professional fisher men and women. Do not let this cruel Albanese Labor government destroy our primary industries. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, JobSeeker Payment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, Housing 79 16:45 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Week after week in this place, we see the continued and ongoing contempt that the modern day Liberal Party have for vulnerable Australians. One of the most contemporary examples of their disregard for vulnerable Australians was, of course, the implementation and support of the illegal robodebt scheme. The member for Cook's automated debt recovery system targeted welfare recipients, seeking to claw back alleged overpayments without adequate evidence. The scheme was illegal, and the consequences were devastating. Innocent individuals, many already struggling to make ends meet, were burdened with crushing debts pushing them further into poverty and despair. The emotional and financial toll of this heartless and illegal scheme cannot be overstated. While the victims continue to face the impacts of this scheme on their day-to-day life, the member for Cook rose in this very place to reject any adverse findings against him that were made by the royal commission. That's right—he really stood up here to say that he had no role or responsibility for robodebt. While vulnerable Australians are still hurting, the member for Cook felt that the most important thing for him to do in this place this week was to play the victim. Instead of apologising and taking responsibility, he said, 'It's not my fault.' And, unbelievably, the Leader of the Opposition chose to back him in. He continues to support the member for Cook despite the adverse findings of the royal commission. The Liberals' disregard for and outward attacks on vulnerable Australians do not end there. We had the opposition leader this week saying that the Liberals would attempt to reverse increases to JobSeeker. Then we had the coalition's proposal of doubling the income-free area, which could see an additional 50,000 people become eligible for JobSeeker overnight. The coalition is happy to see longer term reliance on casual work and JobSeeker rather than actually providing genuine support to transition recipients into the workforce. So deep is their contempt for vulnerable Australians on JobSeeker that they would rather oppose increases to the rates of JobSeeker, rental allowance and single parent payments. And we haven't even spoken about their disgraceful week opposing the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. All week, we had the opposition leader and shadow ministers line up and jump up in order to jeopardise the success of this important referendum. Liberal backbenchers continually espouse falsehoods about what the Voice would mean for this country and Indigenous communities. We have an opportunity to enact a generous offer from Indigenous Australians. The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender balanced. But members of the Liberal Party say that Indigenous people have already had their say and that the status quo is fine. They're fine with the fact that the national target of no gap in life expectancy between First Nations people and other Australians is not on track to be met by males or females. They're fine with the fact that the number of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander children commencing school that are developmentally on track has gone backwards since 2018. They're fine with the fact that Indigenous children continue to be vastly overrepresented in out-of-home care. The Productivity Commission's review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap reinforced yet again what Indigenous communities have been saying for years: Closing the Gap is not working, because Indigenous communities are not empowered with a proper voice or say in their own affairs. Yet the Liberal-National coalition would prefer to maintain the status quo as they continue to campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Their continued attacks on the vulnerable extend to stopping more affordable and social housing from being built. A decade of inaction under the former government has left us grappling with significant housing challenges nationwide, and they're doing everything in their power to stop a solution to our nation's housing challenges. Week after week, we go on without this crucial policy implemented because it's being blocked by the Liberals, who are enabled by the Greens political party. The delays caused by their opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund mean that every day $1.3 million that could have been utilised for social and affordable housing is not being spent. There's a theme here. The Liberal Party's repeated attacks on vulnerable Australians, from the robodebt scheme to opposition to the Voice, demonstrate a disturbing lack of empathy and compassion. This is the modern day Liberal Party under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. Mallee Electorate: Energy 80 16:50 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Every government must take responsibility for the investments it makes using taxpayer funds—every government. This week, a damning new report has laid bare the waste and cost blowouts of a transmission project through western Victoria that is threatening not just prime farmland and the livelihoods of those who farm it but the energy bills of energy customers struggling with the cost of living. The Victoria Energy Policy Centre, VEPC, has put out a report called No longer lost in transmission—an excellent title—which highlights that AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, has, firstly, understated the cost of the Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector West, VNI West, and, secondly, is relying on outdated data. Can you believe it? VNI West is facing increasing pressure from the Albanese Labor government's Rewiring the Nation plan and from disgraceful ministerial orders from the Victoria Labor government riding roughshod over the interests and ownership of those who live in the region. The VEPC report helpfully lays out an alternative plan B which would deliver transmission goals at a lower cost and with less disruption to farmland, communities and the environment. Plan B involves upgrading existing transmission lines on easements between Bendigo and Kerang, in line with the initial VNI West plan, rather than cutting large new swathes of easement for new poles and wires. The state energy minister's ministerial orders enabled AEMO to change tack and move the project to run almost completely through my electorate of Mallee. This risky plan has communities right along its path, from Stawell in the south of Mallee to Kerang in the north, concerned about what it will mean for them. I make no apology for raising this topic wherever I can. I stood with farmers at protests in Saint Arnaud and Horsham, where the Prime Minister himself was unwilling to engage with the farmers. I organised a town hall meeting at Charlton, attended by the Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, and me. I also hosted a delegation of farmers here in Canberra and I encouraged Australia's Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer, to attend a community meeting in Saint Arnaud this week—which he did—so that local voices could be heard. David Littleproud and I will attend a further protest at Victoria's Parliament House on 15 August—I look forward to seeing anyone else there—because city-centric Labor governments cannot ignore our farmers. That is what they have done so far in the interests of pushing their renewable energy dogma to keep those inner-city voters from voting Green—who would have thought? Alarmingly, the people of Mallee will not even see much benefit from these proposed transmission lines that will be running through the countryside as part of a larger line along Australia's eastern seaboard. Leaving aside the tangible physical impact of the VNI West on farmers, AEMO so far haven't been explaining in their tokenistic consultations how much all Victorians will pay for this project. The VEPC plan B report costs AEMO's extended option A plan at $11 billion during the construction phase alone, which is significantly higher than what AEMO is claiming. This cost will be passed on to consumers—make no mistake, Mr Speaker—as will the annual operating costs. The difference in annual electricity bill costs between the VEPC's plan B and the extended VNI West is a whopping $940 million by 2036. That is a huge impost on Victorian families. Imagine the financial pressure on those families for years to come as they pay for these poles and wires. Energy Minister Bowen claims that adding more renewables into the system is key to delivering the cheapest possible energy prices. This repeated claim by renewable energy advocates largely rests on the CSIRO's annual GenCost report. However, there are opponents who question the veracity of that report's data. For one, Sydney-based data scientist Aidan Morrison claims the CSIRO's assertion that renewables are the cheapest form of energy is a misapplication of the sunk cost fallacy. He states: … the CSIRO treats future spending on renewables as sunk—even before spending has occurred—allowing the analysis to exclude this expenditure from the total cost ... (Time expired) Mongolia 81 16:55 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Earlier this month I had the extraordinary opportunity to visit Mongolia. It's a country which is off the radar for most people, apart from the odd adventure tourist, but it has a growing and mutually beneficial relationship with Australia, particular over the last 20 years. I'm the chair of the interparliamentary group for Mongolia in this parliament, and I'm thankful to the member for Bean for encouraging me to assume that role. I also thank the member for Leichhardt, who will visit Mongolia later in the year, for agreeing to be the deputy chair. Prior to the trip, I met a number of times with His Excellency Mr Davaasuren Damdinsuren, Mongolia's ambassador to Australia, including in Perth earlier this year, at the second meeting of the Australia Mongolia Business Council. His Excellency was very generous with his time and his advice about Mongolia, and he appreciates the enthusiasm with which the relationship is being pursued. Mongolia is similar in size to Queensland and Western Australia, and its population is similar to that of my home of Western Australia. Like WA, it has transitioned from a mainly agricultural economy to one based on mining. Mongolia, however, has embraced this change rapidly. Since becoming chair of the interparliamentary group, I've had the honour of welcoming the Mongolian Minister for Education and Science, Lkhagvyn Tsedevsuren, and representatives of the Mongolian parliament. I met the minister again when I was in Mongolia, where I was very pleased to learn that the Australian government has committed to increasing the number of scholarships provided to 'Mozzies'—Mongolians with very strong links to Australia—to enable them to continue studying here. There are over 6,000 Mongolians living and working in Australia, and those who have studied here and returned home to Mongolia include the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Economy and Development and many others. The literacy rate in Mongolia is now over 96 per cent, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who doesn't hold at least one degree or PhD, having studied at Monash, ANU, Berkeley or Yale. It is an extraordinary group of people that are leading that country today, in government, industry, health and many other sectors alike. The timing of the visit enabled me to attend two events in the capital, Ulaanbaatar; one was political and economic in nature, and the other was cultural. On the Monday I attended the Mongolia Economic Forum and participated on a panel discussing areas for improvement in the minerals sector. There I was able to share Australia's experience, particularly in WA, of ensuring the participation of regional and remote communities and maximising their opportunity in the development of any of those resources. Australia has been active in Mongolia for many years now, assisting the Mongolian government in the design of its regulatory environment. I commend our diplomats there on their work. I met with Australian Ambassador to Mongolia, Her Excellency Katie Smith, as well as the Foreign Minister of Mongolia, Battsetseg Batmunkh, who will also visit Australia next month. The trip coincided with Mongolia's major annual cultural event, the Naadam Festival. On the Tuesday, I attended the festival's opening ceremony, which was rich and beautiful, with horseriding, wrestling and archery on display. On the Wednesday, I travelled by light aircraft across the Gobi Desert to the Oyu Tolgoi copper and gold mine. It is the largest mine in Mongolia, run by Rio Tinto and owned by Rio and the Mongolian government. It contributes a significant portion of the Mongolian GDP and is expected to continue grow. Rio were keen for me, as the chair of the interparliamentary group, to visit the mine, and they sponsored the trip. I thank Rio and, particularly, Munkhsukh Sukhbaatar, Dom Hannigan and Paul Holland for their assistance, enthusiasm and support. Estimates of the size of this resource put it between the third-largest and the largest copper deposit in the world. Copper, of course, is a vital metal in the move to net zero. I was certainly interested to see this development with my trade committee hat on, as well. It's a massive operation, with the mine extending 1.3 kilometres underground. Importantly, Rio enabled leaders from the Nyangumarta community, in the Kimberley, to see firsthand the open pit mine there. They could see the environmental impact and how the herders have been able to realise jobs and opportunities, which could be mirrored back home in Western Australia. Mongolia is an amazing place, both geographically and culturally, and I look forward to returning. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 82 NOTICES Presentation 82

Thursday, 3 August 2023

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Ned, Mr Jason 84 09:30 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy If it was a proper and fair world, Jason Ned, the mayor of Doomadgee, would have died with a pastoral lease the same as every other cattleman in Australia. He was a First Australian and chose to live in his family's homeland, Doomadgee, north-west Queensland. So much centred around Jason in our battle for land rights in Australia. This bloke ran the camps for one of the biggest cattle operations in Australia's history. He mustered over 70,000 head of cattle per year. He was head stockman. There are few people in world history that have been responsible in their lifetime for mustering over a million head of cattle. Jason spearheaded the fight to get landownership off the state and federal governments, who control all of the Aboriginal lands in Queensland. They look after it for the custodians, and we thank them! First Australians can't get pastoral leases. Whitefellas can get pastoral leases; blackfellas can't. What use is it then to have all these nice-sounding phrases about First Australians when we can't get to own a piece of land in our own country, where we've lived for 40,000 years. Jason's gone to his death with no right to that land except squatter's rights. I proudly say that we Australians that came to Australia seized squatter's rights because the government wouldn't give us the land either. It was empty, and they wouldn't give it to us—and they're not giving it to us again now. Jason was five-eighth in the heyday of the mid-west rugby league competition, where the Doomadgee Dragons won four premierships. He has been a highly respected mayor and long-serving councillor. He was a colossus. He should be a colossus to every single person in Australia. Along with Troy Fraser, we were in the process of issuing our own Doomadgee First Australian title deeds. You whitefellas won't give it to us, so we're just going to take it. And, if you contest us in the courts, we will win. It'll be Mabo 2, and we will win. The key to this, of course, was Jason Ned, who by himself had got nearly a thousand head of wild cattle together, but he had no land title. A thousand head of cattle is worth about $1.3 million. This man created $1.3 million, and his nation would not even give him the right to own his own land—his own land, where his forebears have lived for 40,000 years. The loss of Jason Ned, his death two weeks ago—I personally couldn't think straight for a week afterwards. Everything centred around Jason. Jason Ned, who died on 22 July 2023, is to my mind one of the First Australians' greatest heroes ever. God will give him a high place in heaven. (Time expired) Franklin Electorate: Men's Sheds 84 09:33 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin One of the real privileges of being in this job—many of you, I'm sure, will agree—is going around to visit community organisations, particularly great ones like men's sheds. I had the real privilege to drop into a men's shed in my electorate where they are focusing on men's wellbeing. This is a new men's shed that has started up in my electorate. This has been some time coming. It's at South Arm in my electorate, on the eastern shore. Many men's sheds change lives and involve men in their community, particularly men who are lonely or who are finding it difficult after the loss of a loved one. The Harrow men's shed in my electorate was recently awarded $2,000 through the National Shed Development Program, to assist the shed to undertake first aid and defibrillator training. The South Arm Peninsula Men's Shed has received grants from the former federal government and the current federal government. This was an idea that I think goes back to when they got their first grant, which must have been 2019. It was really terrific to see the shell. They've got the shed up and under construction. They had the wiring up when I dropped in a week or so ago. They're still cladding it, and they have the plasterer coming, but they expect their men's shed to be up and running in the next month or two. In the meantime they have been having meetings and working in their community till they get this physical space up and running. It's been a very long time coming for that community. I met with Eric and Robin from the men's shed, and with Michael Seddon, down there recently, and I heard lots of heartwarming stories about the dozens of community members who have given their time and their skills to make sure that they could get this men's shed up with a very limited budget. They have people doing the actual construction work, and they're getting licenced electrical contractors to do some of the wiring. They have people doing gardening. They've had working bee days where they've all come and tidied up around this men's shed. It's been such an amazing community effort. They've also had a lot of supplies donated by local businesses. Local businesses are either donating goods or providing goods at lower cost to help make this men's shed happen so they have a physical location at South Arm. I'm proud to be part of a government that is supporting the men's shed. I do acknowledge that they received some support from the former federal government but, importantly, this shows that it has support across the entire community. This is an area in my electorate that is some distance from Hobart. Mainlanders would probably laugh at that! But it is reasonably isolated for people. In terms of public transport, it's not terrific. But this is an example of how a community can get together, get something to happen and get support across the divide. North Stradbroke Island: First Nations Australians 85 09:36 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman North Stradbroke Island is paradise. It draws tourists from all over Australia, not just for its amazing beaches and natural beauty but increasingly for the cultural experiences delivered by the island's Indigenous community. But hidden from the eyes of tourists and too often ignored by the eyes of policymakers are the illegal settlements which have housed many Indigenous residents for decades. Last week I joined local elders to visit the settlements at One Mile, Two Mile, the former Myora reserve and areas around Amity Point to learn more about the housing challenges on the island. Many of these areas predate European arrival as sites of Indigenous habitation, yet the current residents have no official tenure over the land they occupy. Some of the properties are clearly well built and well maintained. Others are constructed from whatever is available and affordable. Some are constructed from scrap materials. Others are extensions and mobile homes. These informal settlements have no mains water or sewerage connections. Roads are carved out of the sand and frequently washed away. Homes are powered by generators and other makeshift electricity connections. In One Mile, a single skip bin is provided by the council to cater for the household rubbish of over 60 people. I regret to inform the House that just 38 kilometres from the centre of Brisbane we have Australians living in Third World conditions. Some of these encampments are on unallocated state land, but most are on land subject to native title. There is no security of tenure on these homes. There are no planning approvals, no building approvals and no title office registrations. Most are simply built on land that is claimed by an individual, sometimes with unofficial sanction from offices within the prescribed body corporate. Of course, with no title and no tenure these properties can't be insured, and they can't have the services that are expected in the nearby townships. While many homes have existed in families for decades, they cannot be formally sold or leased. I worry for the welfare of my constituents living in these encampments. I worry about the severe bushfire risk that they face. I worry about the lack of security, both financial and physical, that these properties provide to their owners. And, with the complete lack of housing options on North Stradbroke Island, I worry that this situation will only get worse as time goes on. The successful native title decision in 2011 has done little to resolve this impasse. These residents want to live on the land of their ancestors, but they don't want to trade their current status of de facto ownership just to become tenants of the prescribed body corporate. Sadly, governments have largely turned a blind eye to this problem, but the elders have some innovative policy solutions that could provide an equitable resolution. These include the Aboriginal rights of residence proposal, which could enable community ownership, investment in essential infrastructure and more housing supply, while creating trade and training opportunities for locals. I'll be working with elders, residents and other stakeholders to try to give the Australians living in these settlements the security they deserve. Face, Hon. Jack Richard 85 09:39 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Today I pay tribute to a man who dedicated his life to the Australian Labor Party and the Hunter region, Richard Face, who passed away yesterday. Richard's life was dedicated to public service, working as a police officer before being elected to the New South Wales parliament in 1972 as the member for Charlestown, a role he held for the next 31 years—an incredible length of service in a region that produces MPs who serve for a long time at a state level. He won his 1988 re-election by just 62 votes, but in a tough year for Labor at the state level he managed to hold on when two of his Hunter colleagues lost their seats. In the next election, in 1991, Richard was comfortably re-elected with a 10 per cent swing to him. Richard's contribution to the Hunter and the state of New South Wales was immense. He served as Minister for Gaming and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development in the Carr Labor government from 1995 until his retirement in 2003. His service in this portfolio was at a vital and historic time in the region's industrial history, with the closure of the BHP in 1999. Until this time, steel-making had been an integral and, quite frankly, defining part of the economic life of Newcastle and the Hunter, and it was particularly vital for the Australian war effort in both world wars. Richard served his region with distinction and made a significant contribution in this period following the BHP's closure. As the Newcastle Herald reported on his passing, he was instrumental in 'the Hunter's transformation over three decades'. The Hunter region is the dynamic and exciting place it is today because of the vision, commitment and hard work of people such as Richard. Richard played a key role in the delivery of things we take for granted today, such as the Glenrock state reserve, where I love bushwalking with my kids and wife; the Newcastle Inner City Bypass; and the redevelopment of Newcastle International Sports Centre, then known as Marathon Stadium and now known as McDonald Jones Stadium, the home of the Newcastle Knights and Jets. Richard was also instrumental in establishing the Windale Police Citizens Youth Club. Windale is a special place, and the club continues to be an important community hub for the people of Windale. It's unfortunately a town with the lowest socioeconomic status in the entire state. I was there at the club just a few weeks ago, visiting volunteers from Our Community Place who provide food hampers and lunches from the PCYC. It's a service that could not have existed without Richard's great effort to establish the PCYC. On behalf of the people of Shortland, I recognise and pay tribute to Richard's public service and send my condolences to his partner, Gaye, his children and his grandchildren. Hinkler Electorate: Xavier Catholic College, YMCA Bundaberg Vocational School 86 09:42 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Last week I attended the opening and the dedication of a new college chapel at Xavier Catholic College at Hervey Bay. This was an incredible story, to be frank, and congratulations to the principal, Simon Dash, and all of the people who worked on this project. This was originally the church at a very small community called Woolooga, in the member for Wide Bay's electorate, more than 100 kilometres away. It originally opened around 1920 and has been repurposed, relocated and rededicated as a chapel for Xavier Catholic College. In fact, whilst at Woolooga, it was dedicated to Saint Francis Xavier as well, so the connection is quite incredible. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can just imagine how many christenings, funerals, weddings and other events occurred at this small church in a small rural community from the 1920s onwards, and, for it to now provide another service to the kids who go to Xavier Catholic College, I think it's a remarkable story. It was attended and blessed by Father Adrian Farrelly, together with Father Jacob Kalu, and there were a number of dignitaries from Brisbane Catholic Education and right across the community. I think the best part was the prep students creating their own artwork for the new chapel after the blessing, and congratulations to all of them. This is a little change of pace, but you won't find me doing the YMCA to the Village People in the near future, I don't think! However, at the YMCA in Bundaberg, we have just had the opening of the vocational school last week. We, in the coalition, announced funding of $1.45 million back in December 2020. This project not only has been completed but has been opened and is operational in that short period of time. It is the first regional site and the 10th YMCA vocational school in Queensland, and it is for those kids who have challenges in traditional education. They can come and learn skills that they desperately need in an environment that works for them. These discussions started way back in March 2019. It's a wonderful facility and it was really incredible to be there amongst the community of Bundaberg at the YMCA and particularly with the kids. As I said to them at the time—and this senior campus has more than 27 students in years 10 to 12, and those enrolments are growing. The message I gave at the time was to them. I was one of the few people in this place in the cabinet—I think the only one—who came through the vocational system as a tradesperson. So the opportunities for them are endless. They simply need to dedicate themselves, pick the target they want, work hard and have the opportunity, and that's what these types of facilities provide. To each and every student that is attending the vocational school at YMCA, I say: good luck to you. Go at it. Have a crack. You can be anything. As an example to look to, I'm happy to put myself forward. It can be done; you've just got to have a go. Aston Electorate: Community Events 87 09:46 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston Over the winter break, I was able to spend some time in my electorate of Aston, where I volunteer down at the Knox and District Toy Library with the state member for Bayswater, Jackson Taylor. The Knox and District Toy Library has been an integral service for the families of Knox for the past 40 years. The Knox toy library provides a variety of fun, educational, and age-appropriate toys for loan at an affordable rate to promote children's learning and development through play. The toy library is also an informal meeting point for parents of varying cultural and socioeconomic groups and caters for children from six months to six years of age. A toy library membership gives children the opportunity to experience a wider range of toys that they wouldn't normally have access to and allows children to make decisions and learn from their decision-making as well. Thank you to Chris and the team at the Knox and District Toy Library for providing such a fantastic service to the local community of Aston. I also attended the Hut Gallery in Ferntree Gully, home to the Ferntree Gully Arts Society and where I officially opened their print and drawing open exhibition. The Ferntree Gully Arts Society continues provide a warm and welcoming environment for artists of all abilities and ages. It has been active since its inception in 1944. The Hut was an old Army hut that was purchased in 1947 and moved from Darley, near Bacchus March, north-west of Melbourne, to the present site in Ferntree Gully—hence the name of the Hut Gallery. Some of the fantastic artworks that were displayed utilised printing techniques such as linocut. I remember having a crack at this myself back in year 11 art class back in the late eighties. There was a piece using a technique called drypoint etching or engraving for three tiny dollhouses, and these three different houses each had their own tiny little features. The detail in the etching work was just exquisite. The artwork, entitled Dollhouses, picked up first prize in this category, and congratulations goes to the very talented artist, Kathleen Formoso. It was a great delight to attend this year's Ferntree Gully Arts Society print and drawing exhibition, and I thank Shirley Dougan, from the Hut Gallery, for always making me feel so welcome. Lastly, I was thrilled to attend this year's Chinese Association of Victoria's Mid Year Dinner in Wantirna. The theme was 'Glitter Night', and it was wonderful to see a dazzling crowd bursting with community spirit. The dinner was held in conjunction with the School Building Trust Fund's fundraising pledge, and a grand sum of $77,000 was raised. I thank the Chinese Association of Victoria and the Chinese community of Aston for all their warmth. Durack Electorate: Coorow Primary School 87 09:49 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Today I want to share with you a heartening story of a small primary school in my electorate: Coorow Primary School. This little gem of a school is nestled in the mid-west region of Durack, between Moora and Carnamah. The town and its school may be very small in size, but their ideas and spirits are as vast as the bush that surrounds them. Recently I had the privilege of receiving letters from years 5 and 6 students at Coorow Primary School in response to my Durack Biggest Survey. This comprehensive survey was sent out to all Durack households, aimed at identifying community concerns and gaining a deeper understanding of what truly worries my constituents. Ms Shiona Herbert is the students' science and HASS teacher who helped these young people to articulate their views on the questions contained within the Durack Biggest Survey. Through Ms Herbert's guidance the students were encouraged to delve into important community issues, paving the way for them to be able to develop an interest in matters that shape our society and nation. Ms Herbert's efforts in nurturing these bright minds from a tender age are truly commendable, and I want to thank her for that. As I read through their responses, I was simply amazed by the level of wisdom and understanding displayed by these young minds. Their concerns reflect not only the challenges faced by their families but also the compassion that they hold for their community. Concerns raised in these letters were across a range of issues, with a focus on the increasing cost of living. These children are now living in a world where, in their own words, 'Nanna and Pop can't even buy us treats anymore.' Additional concerns raised were about local roads and accident black spots that impact the safety of their community. One student even wrote the word 'miserable' instead of using the 'good, fair, poor' rating system. Such was the quality of the roads in this young person's region. Some students mention that their parents are struggling with employment, a fact which seems to weigh heavily on their minds as they acknowledge the emotional and mental toll that it can take on families. One student suggested that there was a need for more security around the pub and asked that a sign be installed saying, 'Turn beams off at the top of the hill.' Obviously this was a road safety initiative, and this young person had thought a lot about what the community needs. Another said, 'I think WA should be its own country but still in Australia, like Scotland in Great Britain.' Another said that they would like to have more frog bogs. When asked what is most important for school education at the time, the majority of the students asked for more funding for facilities and more teachers and resources. My take-out from these young children is that they love their community and they love their families but they are concerned. Lilley Electorate: Einbunpin Festival, Lilley Electorate: Everton Park State School, Lilley Electorate: Aircraft Noise 88 09:52 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Brisbane turned on its best winter weather last Sunday for Sandgate's annual Einbunpin Festival in my electorate of Lilley. More than 15,000 Northsiders turned out for this much-loved event on the Brisbane festival calendar, which has well and truly shaken off its post-COVID hangover to celebrate its 31st iteration. My first stop at the festival is always to secure my jams from the Nashville State School stall, where I purchase some of their very popular range from mothers, before heading to the Nundah Rotary Club stall for a sausage sizzle. I was also impressed, as I am every year, by the wares on display from the Sandgate men's shed. One of their famous clocks, which is made from the old wooden pylons of the old Shorncliffe Pier, takes pride of place in my office. I was able to don my federal sports minister cap to join with state member for Sandgate and Queensland sports minister Stirling Hinchliffe and Counsellor Jared Cassidy to assist in the judging of the hotly contested egg-and-spoon races. Then Minister Hinchliffe and I turned our skills to adjudicating the biggest event in the Lilley calendar, the annual Einbunpin mullet-tossing competition, which is a highly competitive event in which I am pleased to say no real mullets were harmed. I congratulate Natasha from Sandgate and Walter from Taigum on taking out the open women's and men's categories this year. As always, I extend my congratulations to the festival chair, my good friend the councillor for Deagon Ward, Jared Cassidy. It takes months and months for him and his organising committee of volunteers, local businesses and festival sponsors to pull such a huge event together, but it is a great Northside tradition, and I'm glad it was a rousing success again this year. On 19 July, I was able to roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty planting trees alongside the students from Everton Park State School in my electorate of Lilley. Thank you to the amazing principal, Aminta Miller, for inviting me to participate in the official opening of the school's new butterfly arbour, which was made possible with Commonwealth government funding. Prep students, together with year 6 students, worked to plant their legacy trees around the school, including a flame tree. I look forward to returning to Everton Park State School to see firsthand the progress of the arbour and those trees as the years go on. This week, Airservices Australia has launched the next phase of the community engagement around the Brisbane aircraft noise action plan. Residents in Lilley have been invited to have their say on proposed new flight path options to be developed over the next two years. Residents can register to attend one of 14 drop-in sessions across the city, including one at Everton Park Bowls and Community Club on Saturday 12 August, this weekend. Community feedback is open until 10 September. I would urge all northsiders who care about this issue to have their say in this process. Wool Industry 88 09:54 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It has often been said that Australia once rode on the sheep's back. It is no longer the case. There was a time when Australia had 170 million merino sheep. We now have 70 million. I make the point on merino sheep because they are wool producing sheep, of some of the finest wool in the world. I'm concerned at the number of farmers and pasturers that are actually abandoning the merino industry, getting rid of their wool producers and putting in meat producing sheep, largely dorper flocks. One might ask why; wool prices are historically good, and it's a wonderful fibre. I wear wool suits myself. They wear well, they pack well, and they don't crease too much. We should all be wearing wool. It's simply the lack of shearers. Farmers are getting out of the sheep industry because they can't get shearers at the critical times of the year. It's just another one of those tough physical jobs that modern Australians have lost enthusiasm for. It's tough work, but it doesn't pay too bad. The award rate for shearing a sheep is $3.31. Most shearers are earning well over $4, and some are earning $5 to $6, simply because of the shortage. That is $5 to $6 a sheep. A good shearer should shear 800 to maybe 1,200 sheep a week, depending on the weather conditions. So it's pretty good money. I've spoken to the Australian wool industry, to the Shearing Contractors' Association of Australia and WoolProducers Australia. They are all concerned that, if Australia cannot keep its merino numbers up, we will reach a tipping point where the great mills of the world in Italy and China and whatever turn over to synthetic or other fabrics and we become more of a cottage industry. It's very important for us that we do not allow this to happen. We had been filling up the shearing shortage in Australia largely with Kiwi shearers because, of course, we have easy come-and-go with New Zealand and they have a background in shearing sheep. Historically, they came here because the rates were better than in New Zealand. But they've increased their rates there recently, and the advent of COVID stopped the free flow of people across the Tasman. It really has put a bomb in the industry. We're finding it difficult to attract enough numbers of Kiwis back here. We have shearers from all over the world. There are many countries that shear sheep. There was a program that AWI was working on with Pacific workers. I doubted that it would work because it was asking people to shear sheep when they had never seen one before. It just doesn't quite gel. What we need to do, I believe, is open up a special visa class to bring in specialist teams of shearers in the busy times of the year. That's what I've been talking to those industry leaders about. There are good shearers in France, South Africa, Uruguay and Chile. We need to find a way for them to come and go. Backpackers can do it, but they're limited to an age of 30. So I'm hoping to be able to work with the industry to develop policy that we can actually take to the government or implement ourselves. Human Trafficking 89 09:58 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Last Sunday, 30 July, marked the World Day Against Trafficking in Persons, with the theme being, 'Reach every victim of trafficking; leave no-one behind.' Here today I'd like to reaffirm the Albanese Labor government's commitment to tackling these abhorrent crimes and the extensive work that we're doing to ensure that no-one is left behind. According to the Global Slavery Index, there are currently 49.6 million people experiencing modern slavery across the world. Victims and survivors of modern slavery have been denied their basic human rights and have experienced unimaginable suffering, exploitation and harm. Modern slavery can be very complex and take many different forms. Human trafficking, forced marriage, forced labour, servitude and debt bondage are just some of the ways that slavery presents itself in modern society. At the very heart of it, all types of modern slavery are about exploitation and taking freedoms away from the more vulnerable people in the community. Our government made an election commitment to tackle modern slavery, with a focus on prevention and disruption initiatives as well as improved programs for survivors to access the support they need. I was privileged last month to address the Modern Slavery Conference in Melbourne, which brought together governments, experts in the field, police and, very importantly, those with lived experience of modern slavery. The value of people with lived experience of modern slavery being able to safely share their experiences and insights cannot be overemphasised. In our 2023-24 budget, our government committed $5.3 million to establish an antislavery commissioner, and we committed an additional $24.3 million in funding over four years for the Support for Trafficked People Program. The program seeks to address the immediate needs of survivors while supporting them to rebuild their lives and achieve the best possible health, community, education and employment outcomes. We've also announced a pilot commencing mid next year that will enable survivors to come forward and receive support from the program without having to first speak to and notify the police. Improvements to our policy responses directly reflect feedback we receive from the community, from survivors and also from our incredible service providers. Just last week, I was able to visit a safe house for victims and survivors of modern slavery and to meet with those on the front line, who are working tirelessly to support victims and survivors to rebuild their lives. I commend them for the work they're doing. We must all work together when it comes to ensuring that no-one is subjected to modern slavery. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 89 CONDOLENCES Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay 89 10:01 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It is with great sadness that I rise to say a few words about the passing of the Hon. Simon Crean. Like many on the Labor side and in fact across our parliament, I was quite shocked at hearing that Simon had passed. I knew Simon in my capacity as the federal member for Bendigo, on that very personal level, but I also knew of him well before then. His achievements for both the labour movement in this place and outside of this place have been well documented. There are just a few things I want to say in memory of Simon. He really, really inspired a generation of young labour activists. He really challenged people's views of who could be a union official and an advocate for working people. He was part of a generation of union activists that came a different path, not necessarily the traditional path from the shop floor up, but he had a deep, genuine and enduring respect for people who did come through the union movement and that pathway. At his core was the belief that working people deserved more than a fair go and that the role of both the movement and the parliament and government was to improve the lives of working people and their families. I remember stories, being a young activist, about his great days at what later became the NUW and today is my own union, with our unions merging. I can remember catching up with Simon not that many years ago and saying, 'Comrade, we're now in the same union.' In his early days at storemen and packers, it probably would not have seemed possible that the cleaners and nightwatchmen union, the beverage union and the early childhood educators union would one day merge with the storemen and packers union. But it did. The stuff that he achieved at the ACTU and the changes that he was part of cannot be underestimated. It's rarely just a minister or a member of parliament or a prime minister or a government that moves legislation and reform through. There is a group of activists and there are organisations that are part of that forming, storming and putting forward of proposals and changes. That is definitely the role that he did at the ACTU. I can remember being a young activist involved in the student movement at the time, and I had the privilege to be here in parliament for his budget reply speech when he was Leader of the Labor Party. I can remember sitting there in the gallery as he spoke with deep conviction and passion about the Murray-Darling Basin. From my memory, he was one of the first Labor leaders to really put on the agenda that we needed a Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a national plan that brought the states together—that the Murray was in bad shape, dying, and we needed to have national leadership. The plan that he put forward was so revolutionary for its day. It was 2003, and here he was putting forward a plan to help save the Murray-Darling Basin. It would take many years before that idea would become a plan and, to this day, we're still working on the very proposal that he put forward that many years ago. He had a deep respect for the regions, and that continued after his time in this place. That's probably where I really got to know Simon Crean as a person. When he was in this place he shared a house with two good friends of mine, Brendan O'Connor and Warren Snowden. I can remember being at dinners, the 'orphan' dinners, that happened on Thursday night at La Cantina, and just the conversations. Whether you called them the 'three wise men' or the 'happy couple', the three of them had a great bond and would quite often debate policy, debate ideas and debate the role of parliamentarians—what we could be doing, should be doing. Of course there were always the stories, or their version of truth-telling, that would come out at those dinners. But it was also an opportunity just to learn, almost through osmosis, the different things that he had learned. It wasn't just those informal conversations that you'd have with Simon; he was always willing to help out and share advice and support to the next generation. But he did so in a way that was incredibly inclusive. He would quite often not be the first in the conversation; he would hear what you had to say, or he'd ask a question, and then he'd come back with some advice. In my experience he was a very different mentor and leader of the next generation. And he helped out. We heard the current member for Hotham, his old seat in Melbourne, share how he got out and helped out in her council election. That was very much who Simon Crean was; he believed in the legacy and the power of educating, supporting and mentoring that next generation of Labor activists and true believers coming through. I really want to acknowledge the work that he did with an organisation based in my electorate, FRRR. On many occasions he was here in parliament, post his career, to support the work that they do. He was involved in that organisation. For those who don't know about FRRR, it's a body which receives philanthropic funding and government funding. It has a series of grants and different strands of grant funding to support rural and regional Australia, whether it be for education projects, environmental projects, community resilience and flood recovery projects, or bushfire recovery projects. It's an organisation that reaches to every part of rural and regional Australia, and Simon was incredibly involved in that organisation and a true champion of it and the work that it does. In one event here at Parliament House, I was heavily pregnant with Daisy—my first—and he actually said to me something that will stay with me forever: 'This will be,' as in Daisy, 'the most important and enjoyable thing that you will do. And good on you! But, also, what you do here in your role as being a member of parliament will ensure that she has a great life and it's just as important. Finding the balance can be hard but you can do it.' That was the kind of person that Simon was. He wasn't afraid to tell you his values and to give you that little bit of hope that it could be and would be easier. We heard speeches that mentioned his post-parliament role in trade, particularly European trade. He was also the chairperson of the Australian Livestock Exporters Council. That was a tough role to take on post the Rudd-Gillard governments, but he did take on the role of chairperson of that council. That's also where I had quite a bit of interaction with Simon post that very chaotic and turbulent time for Labor—and I guess that's the best way to describe it. He wasn't afraid of a challenge and he did the work that needed to be done. He really was a true champion of the regions and of working people in the regions. He had the ability to bring people together. He didn't believe in the deliberate combative nature of modern-day politics in this place, in the community or in the workplace. He truly did believe in bringing people together at a table and nutting out and getting a deal. He was incredibly intelligent and incredibly inclusive at the same time. Those are rare qualities. When he was dealt the toughest of blows in being rolled as the leader at the time he just picked himself up, got on with it and still made an incredible contribution to this parliament. He wasn't bitter for a day. He just moved on and said: 'What else can I do? What's next?' I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Carole, and his beautiful family. I know that many in this place have shared that they truly were generous in sharing their time with Simon with the rest of us. Vale, Simon Findlay Crean. May he rest in peace. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:12 to 10:27 10:27 Mr B 300129 Spence URNELL () (): I'd like to take this opportunity to follow a number of my parliamentary colleagues over this sitting week and pay tribute to a true Labor hero. Simon Crean was truly an impressive figure inside the parliament and outside of it too. He was a man who left a lasting legacy for the Australian Labor Party, a political party he dedicated his life to and to leading, although not to victory, through a period one might diplomatically describe as choppy waters for us—during some tough times in the Howard years. Simon also dedicated his life to the union movement and oversaw a period of transition into what paved the way for some of the reforms that underpin our present-day industrial relations framework. Simon was a man who strived to seek out the 'light on the hill' of his forebears and approached public life with honour and decorum, which is no mean feat in a field of work known for its rough-and-tumble nature, even to this very day, let alone what it has been described as in decades past. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:28 to 10:42 Mr BURNELL 300129 As I was saying, whilst I never had the good fortune to have met Simon, I have been so moved by a number of contributions made by my colleagues, both in the House and in the Federation Chamber. I was, to say the least, extremely moved by those on our side of the chamber who knew him best, but most moved by what some on the other side of the chamber and the political spectrum had to say in tribute to the impact and impression that Simon had left on them. I was particularly moved by the remarks made by the member for Riverina. In my first year in this place, I soon discovered that it is one thing to be generally and genuinely liked by your caucus colleagues—you can gauge the measure of how someone is seen as a political operator. However, when you carry yourself throughout your political career in such a way that the same can be said about you by your political opponents, it is a reasonably true measure of how someone conducts themselves in this building as a person. The member for Riverina spoke of Simon as a man who had the time of day for those who also played with a straight bat. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that most of us might be travelling in different directions but toward the common goal of bettering our nation. For that matter, I've always appreciated having a chat with the member for Riverina and if I have Simon to thank for instilling those values in him then I know that I am better off for it. Knowing the profound impact that Simon has had on so many made me think about his place in history, especially the history of our Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement. Being a proud union member, delegate and official for a significant portion of my working life, it was hard to ignore the existence of Simon Crean. This started well before he took his seat on the green leather bench in this building. It is hard to ignore Simon's long, proud career in the Australian trade union movement, especially with his historically significant contributions to public policy on the outside of this building as the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In fact, at the time he became president this building was still three years away from its official opening. For Simon, taking the top job at the ACTU occurred at a historically significant window, as he found himself in a role where the top job in the government of the day was occupied by Bob Hawke, who, along with his Treasurer, Paul Keating, joined with Simon and the ACTU secretary at the time, Bill Kelty, and the broader union movement, where he played a crucial role in furthering the prices and incomes accord. One of the lasting impacts from brokering the accord was the further expansion of universal superannuation. This is further emphasised by Simon's role in moving our industrial relations system toward enterprise bargaining. Having Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and Bill Kelty to collaborate with certainly created a perfect storm for creating reforms that could be seen as tectonic shifts on the status quo at the time. It is an unavoidable by-product of having a cohesive group of individuals that occupy positions of power and influence that have the mandate and vision to manifest their ideas into reality and have them last the test of time—evidenced by many of the initiatives they brokered together still, in broad principles, being a part of how we do things to this very day. But Simon's time at the ACTU would not last forever, because, just like several others who have held senior leadership positions of the ACTU both before and after his time as president, eventually Simon would leave the role to make a different kind of contribution to public life, and, upon the 1990 federal election, Simon was elected as the member for Hotham. Upon his election to this place, Simon was immediately appointed as Minister for Science and Technology, as part of the recently re-elected Hawke government. He would hold several ministerial portfolios in his long career in parliament, with a long list of achievements in each role. Many of them, we would all recognise today. Not long after, Simon served as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy between 1991 and 1993, where he, all the way back then, worked on initiatives related to forms of renewable energy and started early dialogues on the need to transition away from having an overreliance on fossil fuels. As Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Simon initiated reforms which integrated vocational education and training, with the aim of increasing Australia's skill base, which is a playbook that our government has also adopted in a holistic way by way of establishing Jobs and Skills Australia. Minister Crean also worked toward the development and implementation of the Australian Qualifications Framework, which, even to this day, sets a consistent national qualification standard for educators within higher education, vocational education and training and in schools. This could not have been possible if not for the minister's ability to facilitate an open dialogue and foster a workable consensus between himself and the state and territory education ministers at the time. As Minister for Trade between 2007 and 2010, Simon's achievements in this role were many. In the wake of the global financial crisis, he travelled far and wide and played key roles in brokering a number of free trade agreements. One key agreement that comes to mind is the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement, as it also signified a focus by Simon Crean as trade minister to actively seek stronger ties with ASEAN nations and advocate for Australia to place a higher priority on Asia-Pacific economic integration. Simon then served as the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, as well as being the Minister for the Arts between 2010 and 2013. I particularly note that Simon, as the minister responsible, oversaw the creation of Regional Development Australia. As arts minister, Simon launched the national cultural policy, Creative Australia, a policy framework that the Albanese Labor government has worked on reviving through the launch of our government's national cultural policy and re-establishment of Creative Australia. It's quite a storied career, full of lasting reforms and achievements. The present-day member for Hotham, the Minister for Home Affairs, gave an extremely moving speech in the House on Monday, describing him as a giant and a mentor to herself and to many others in the Labor Party—although hearing this from the member for Hotham might have come as a shock to the member for Riverina, if he had thought that Simon only mentored recently-elected members of the National Party. But many in the Labor Party have him to thank. We are, as a party, better off for having people come up through the ranks that have had the values and attitudes that have made Simon so widely respected. I am almost entirely certain that, upon her election to this place after Simon retired after being a parliamentarian for 23 years, the member for Hotham felt she had very big shoes to fill. For that matter, I'm sure presidents of the ACTU feel the same way when they internalise the fact that previous occupants of their job included one Bob Hawke but also Simon Crean. I would only imagine that the member for Cooper would agree with me there. I must say that, despite having been appointed as the minister for many diverse areas of public policy, Simon Crean didn't forget who gave him the opportunity to do so: the people of Hotham. Despite serving as a minister under the Hawk, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments—four different prime ministers, a feat that potentially no other labour members of parliament in recent memory have been able to obtain—it was a Hotham that put him in the position to serve in ministerial roles and bring about nation-changing reforms. Simon Crean is truly one of the greats. We are worse off for not having the ability to tap into his counsel as many have done previously, but we can still strive to live by his examples by way of how we conduct ourselves as members of this place. As is so often the case, a statesman is a politician who is no longer in office. Simon was one, an elder statesman within the parliamentary Labor Party and for our nation. Knowing that this doesn't come close to scratching the surface, I'm speaking on what Simon may consider to be his proudest achievements as a minister in one of many Labor governments or as a president of the ACTU. Knowing that members like him sat in the same party room that we meet in ensures that we truly stand on the shoulders of giants, of which Simon Crean is most definitely one. He was a man of unwavering belief and principles and a minister with the commitment to see through lasting reforms that continue to shape our nation, a man who was a public servant through and through, a man with a life committed to serving the public and the public good—a life well lived. And we are all better for having him make that decision to dedicate his life to the public good. I express my sincere condolences to a great Australian who accomplished so many great things for Australians. Vale, Simon Crean. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 93 ADJOURNMENT Schools, Griffith Electorate: Schools 93 10:52 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith On the south side of Brisbane, in my electorate of Griffith, my office has now served— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:52 to 11:07 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 As I was saying, on the south side of Brisbane, in my electorate of Griffith, my officers now serve 9,843 school breakfasts and community dinners, and by next week will have ticked over 10,000 meals. Using the resources of my electorate office, a dedicated paid organiser, a small salary sacrifice on my part and the incredible commitment of a bunch of Greens volunteers, every week in three public schools in my electorate we also have a universal free breakfast for any kids, parents, teachers or any other school staff who want a free brekkie. If anyone is wondering, last week we served breakfast quesadillas with egg, cheese, spinach and salsa, along with fresh fruit juice. By 2025, the goal is that we'll be running a free breakfast in six schools across the electorate. We have also partnered with the state Greens MP and a local councillor, Amy MacMahon and Trina Massey, to run two free weekly dinners, one for rough sleepers in South Brisbane and the other in Raymond Park for anyone in the community. We're now serving at such a scale that it costs us, on average, 50c per meal. Along with all of this, we also run a free community pantry, which empties out at least once a day. Of course, this is just a small drop in the ocean compared to the level of poverty and financial stress in this country. What I hope it does demonstrate is that if my office can do it then there's absolutely no reason why the federal and state governments couldn't fund a universal free school breakfast and lunch program in every school. Right now we know that there are over 1.2 million children living in poverty here in Australia, but in countries around the world governments fund universal free school lunches and breakfasts. In fact, seven states in the United States now, including Michigan, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, New Mexico and Vermont, all run free, universal school lunch programs. In Finland, every schoolkid gets a free hot lunch which, for decades, has ensured that no kid in Finland goes to school hungry. Trials of free school lunches and breakfasts in Australia and around the world have seen enormous improvements in attendance, concentration and grades, and even improved relations between teachers and students and between students. This should hardly be surprising: ask any teacher and they'll tell you that it's hard to teach hungry kids. More broadly, there are enormous benefits in terms of nutrition and physical and mental health and there are cost savings in the long run if we ensure that every kid in this country gets a free school lunch. What we do know is that is also eminently affordable. When the government is able to find $30 billion a year for the stage 3 tax cuts—that sees every politician in this place get $9,000 extra a year off in their tax—you would think that they could find a few extra billion dollars to do what has been done successfully around the world, including in the United States and Finland, and roll out a universal free lunch program for every public school kid in this country. The benefits would be enormous. There's absolutely no reason why it can't be done. If my office can do it on the smell of an oily rag then the government should easily be able to roll out a program like this. It would fundamentally transform the lives of millions of kids in this country and have enormous flow-on benefits for not just our public education system but broader society as well. The decision today by the state government to bulldoze the local public East Brisbane State School and not replace that school with any land in the catchment area will deprive two of the fastest-growing suburbs on the south side of Brisbane—East Brisbane and Kangaroo Point, with a population close to 16,000 people—of a public school. There will be no public school in two of the largest and most densely populated suburbs in inner-city Brisbane. It is complete madness. Why is it happening? Because the federal and state governments, in a $7 billion Olympics infrastructure program, are spending $2 billion to demolish the Gabba stadium and rebuild it for a four-week sporting event. In that process they will bulldoze a local public school and the much-loved Raymond Park. The decision is completely mad, but perhaps the most destructive thing about this decision is that two of the densest suburbs in Brisbane will no longer have a public school. Their solution is to replace it with a school entirely outside the existing catchment. We already have issues with school overcrowding in Brisbane, and I'm sure across the country. To deprive two of the biggest suburbs in Brisbane of a public school seems to be not only deeply negligent but an abdication of what I argue is one of the most basic responsibilities of any government, which is making sure that people have access to good quality public schools and hospitals. In this instance hundreds of kids may have to walk up to an hour to reach the new location in Coorparoo. Coorparoo Secondary College is a wonderful school, but it makes absolutely no sense not to have a school in two densely populated inner-city suburbs. We're losing a much-loved public school with enormous history and quality. It's a great shame on both the federal and state governments. Wills Electorate: Glenroy Post Office 94 11:12 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I put on the record here my disappointment and shock at the decision to close the Glenroy post office in my electorate of Wills in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. It came as a shock to me as well as to the local Glenroy community. The decision was made by Australia Post with no communication, a lack of transparency and no consultation. I've received hundreds of calls and emails from distressed local community members who oppose this decision. This decision will have detrimental consequences for the local community in Glenroy. The post office in Glenroy provides essential services in my electorate. It's a busy post office and a hub for community activity. It's the only location in the area that is easily accessible via public transport, so it's an important feature for many of my constituents that allows them to complete their day-to-day business. A local post office means locals can continue to independently carry out banking, bill paying, postage, parcel pick up and passport services. The importance of the current location within a major activity centre cannot be overstated. Many Glenroy locals do not drive or own a car and rely on walkable local access to essential services, such as this, to pay their bills. Many locals face significant barriers related to age, disability, language, income and a lack of internet access. Surrounding post offices will be difficult for people to access, given mobility barriers and a lack of access via public transport. The decision by Australia Post to close the Glenroy post office, disappointingly, has not taken into consideration the diverse demographics of the suburb of Glenroy. It's home not only to a culturally and linguistically diverse population but also to many people in an ageing demographic with disabilities and households with lower incomes on average. The decision to close the Glenroy community's post office will take away many people's autonomy as a result. In June I wrote to the CEO, Paul Graham, and the board of directors of Australia Post to express my opposition to their decision to close the Glenroy post office and make an argument for them to reconsider or reverse that decision. My state colleague the state member for Broadmeadows, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, has also been working hard to advocate on this issue. She's collated a petition with over 2,000 signatures, and that shows huge community support for Glenroy post office staying open. Kathleen and I will be at a community rally out the front of the post office tomorrow morning, Friday morning, and I expect a lot of locals to be there as well. My team members and the state member also met with officials from Australia Post to make some really clear arguments about their decision, and Australia Post advised that the decision to close the office was made solely on the basis of foot traffic, even though the Glenroy level crossing removal would, of course, have had a significant impact on patronage during the last couple of years, when it was taking place. National figures were also used, and these showed a general decline in national Australia Post services. But I'm perplexed because no local modelling was done. There was no specific look at what was actually happening on the streets of Glenroy and at the impact of that closure. I'm also perplexed because Australia Post has not fully explored alternative options, including the use of other vendors to take over the operations of that particular post office. The decision has significant implications for the community, and they deserve to have more time and resources put into the consideration of this decision. The community is aware that there are other local LPOs around, but there is no guarantee that they will remain open. Remaining LPOs are also not accessible to those who cannot drive, as they are not near public transport. Australia Post has not explored whether that— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:16 to 11:28 Mr KHALIL 101351 As I was saying, Australia Post has not explored whether other LPOs could relocate to a more accessible location in Glenroy. The lack of communication and consultation is a disgrace and really unacceptable. Many in the community face real barriers relating to age, disability, language, income and a lack of internet access. Everyone should have access to essential services, such as a post office, no matter where they live. The closure of Glenroy Post Office has severe consequences for all of the people in my community. There will be the loss of local jobs, financial exclusion for vulnerable individuals, a decline in the availability of local services and trade, a decrease in that sense of local pride of having a community hub where people can gather, the general inconvenience and the potential security implications as well. On behalf of the Glenroy community, along with my colleague the state Labor MP for Broadmeadows, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, and many petitioners—over 2,000 petitioners—I urge the Australia Post CEO and the board of directors to reconsider this decision, reverse this decision and keep the Glenroy Post Office open. Western Australia: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 95 11:30 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Go broke or go to jail—that's what the farmers, pastoralists and landowners believe they're facing under WA's Labor government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. They also know that this is a direct attack on their property rights. What I as a farmer am seeing and hearing is the palpable anger and extreme frustration that they're feeling. Activities that now have to be considered include social, spiritual, historical, scientific and aesthetic activities as well as intangibles such as songlines, and these can change at any time. The process farmers, and anyone with a block over 1,100 square metres, are forced to use is complicated, contradictory, confusing and expensive. I understand this will affect around 450 pastoral leaseholders, 5,700 farmers and 60,000 small landholders. No wonder we're seeing a paralysis in farm work and the community. A tree-planting ceremony was stopped. An individual demanded $2.5 million. A public art trail around Lake Claremont was stopped. I recently heard that in the South West nine people charged $3,000 apiece, $27,000 in total, to assess a 15-square-metre site where no heritage was found. There is also the revised WA water act. I think this will place even greater Aboriginal cultural heritage impositions and requirements on landowners with property on waterways and water bodies. And, as we know, the federal Labor government is planning even more aggressive federal heritage laws. There is no doubt that this is a continuation of state and federal Labor governments' divisive approach. There's also no doubt that the act and regulations are unfair and unjust, particularly if they are misused by activists, with due-diligence assessments under a complicated three-tier system involving extensive, lengthy, costly consultation and survey responsibilities with local Aboriginal cultural heritage services, as well as any other interested individual or group. I read the guidelines. They're an absolute nightmare, as are the fees and costs. There are also no comprehensive or exhaustive cultural heritage maps, and the maps are constantly changing, so farmers can have no confidence that the work they're doing is within the law. The minister and the department talk about like-for-like activities for farmers, but there's absolutely no mention of this term in either the legislation or the regulations. I suspect that this will be determined, ultimately, by a court. The like-for-like constrains the farmer to live and work in the past: you can only do what you've always done. It doesn't consider the fact that we constantly change, adapt and innovate and that what we do on farm has to change constantly. But now, to make those changes, they face the extended and expensive legal requirements under the act or else face significant financial penalties and possible prison terms. This is land that, in many cases, farmers are working their hearts out just to pay off, and they are very concerned about what this will do to reduce the value of their properties. I suspect the new standard question when buying and selling will be: is there cultural heritage on this property? We've already seen in Western Australia the hit on farming businesses from Labor's ban on live sheep exports. I also want to raise the issue of the role of inspectors, who can come onto farmers' and landowners' properties. They do not need a warrant. They have, essentially, more powers than the police. They can enter a place that's not a dwelling. They can stop, enter and detain or move vehicles, using any means reasonably necessary to do so, at a level limited only to actions not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, whether or not the person is in the vehicle. They can use any of the farmers' or landowners' vehicles, equipment, facilities or services. I just wonder who will pay for any damage. I can only imagine what will happen if a farmer with a tractor and header worth about $1.5 million is expected to do so. Inspectors can inspect and open any package, compartment, cupboard or container and inspect records; enter, at any time, any place except a dwelling; direct the owner to give a copy of records; use the owner's computer; and demand codes or passwords—I'll give you passwords! You're forced to answer questions with no legal representation present. There's a fine of $20,000 for obstructing an inspector. All of this is based on the fact that inspectors only have to reasonably suspect something at a given time, even if those grounds are subsequently found to be false or non-existent. They certainly don't have to show their identity card immediately. There are a lot of things that are not exempt. No wonder there is great concern in Western Australia. Maribyrnong Electorate: Law Enforcement 96 11:35 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Yesterday at lunchtime, on busy Puckle Street in Moonee Ponds, in the heart of my electorate of Maribyrnong, four innocent people were stabbed—two men and two women. I find these words still heart— A division having been called in the House of R epresentatives— Sitting suspended from 11 : 35 to 11 : 57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Yesterday at lunchtime, on the busy Puckle Street in Moonee Ponds, in the heart of my electorate of Maribyrnong, four innocent people were the victims of a stabbing—two men and two women. I would have walked up and down Puckle Street a thousand times with my family. It is literally 200 metres from my electorate office. So, saying these words, it is still quite difficult to believe. It's a terrible incident, which has shocked and saddened me and my whole community. To be honest, it makes me incredibly angry that it happened. Those who were injured were simply going about their daily lives—a small-business woman and members of the public passing by—when they became victims of an abominable assault. The owner of Amazing Bargains, a shop that is usually the destination for people looking for party supplies or parents trying to placate their kids at the $2 shop, was the first victim. Media reporting is that the owner was trying to stop the assailant from shoplifting when he became agitated, punching her before stabbing her. It is a terrible thought that someone protecting their livelihood should suffer such a violent and criminal reaction. After leaving the owner bloodied and distressed, the man then proceeded down Puckle Street, randomly attacking passers-by—one an 80-year-old man. Thankfully, none of the four have life-threatening injuries. They're recovering with very capable help at the St Vincent's and Royal Melbourne hospitals. And, as always, at times of crisis, heroes emerge. To the courageous members of the public who offered assistance or confronted the assailant, I express my admiration and gratitude for your efforts to help. These brave community members weren't thinking of themselves. Human kindness and compassion, as so often occurs, overtook any fears for their own safety. They did all that they could do to help those who were bleeding and distressed or stop this from happening to anybody else. I'm also grateful for the remarkable response of our ambos, who were on the scene within five minutes, offering expert care and comfort to the victims. To the officers down the road from my office at the Moonee Ponds Police Station who worked in conjunction with the criminal investigation unit to respond swiftly to apprehend the perpetrator within 10 minutes, I offer my deepest thanks. I also thank the witnesses who Moonee Ponds police say were instrumental in the quick arrest, giving officers the information they needed to lead them to the Moonee Ponds Train Station, where they found a 36-year-old Broadmeadows man. Because our community worked together, the assailant was detained before he could cause any more harm. He spent last night in custody and this morning has been charged with 29 offences, including armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and intent to cause injury. He will appear in the Melbourne Magistrates Court today. As I said, the alleged crimes happened 200 metres from my electorate office. This is in my community. This person is not believed to be a terrorist; it's believed to be one individual who, in an act of violence, shattered the peace of our lovely neighbourhood. We pride ourselves that we live in a wonderful and harmonious part of Melbourne which has been built together by successive generation. I may be a little biased but, to me, there's no better part of Australia than the inner north-west. It's a hub of rich cultural diversity where people from all walks of life gather to eat, work and play. Puckle Street, as I said, is a street I've strolled along with my own family for more times than I can count. Like thousands who live in the area, we do our weekly shop there and often stop for coffee. The incidents affected us deeply, and I'm sure that all who love Moonee Ponds will be feeling the same pain. I acknowledge the great small businesses in the street: Olga Kenny at Paulene Maree; Rob Furness at Sims Sports; and Phan Vu Alterations, on the other side from where this happened on Puckle Street. These are all places that I have visited in the last 72 or 96 hours. I join in this with the local state member for Essendon, Danny Pearson, and Moonee Valley City Council mayor, Pierce Tyson, and councillors. Mayor Tyson said that it was incredibly disturbing to hear of locals attacked in the middle of the day in our part of the world. I just want to say to all of the residents: I share your anxiety and I share my admiration for our community. But I also recognise that this violent incident does not define Moonee Ponds, but the heartening response from the community most certainly does. Capricornia Electorate: Energy 97 12:01 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia This government is on a reckless race to its renewables targets. The unrelenting march to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 is a hard blow for regional Australians. In my electorate of Capricornia, the proposed Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro scheme will directly impact over 100 locals through forced acquisition for the flooding of their properties. Hundreds more throughout the community of Eungella will be impacted indirectly, with the loss of essential infrastructure, like Eungella Primary School, from the drastic decline in population. The Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro scheme is bringing the communities of Eungella and the Pioneer Valley to their knees and is grinding the local economy to a halt during this state of uncertainty. The multibillion-dollar project blindsided the community, with residents directly impacted by the project unaware until they saw the Premier of Queensland make the announcement on the 6 pm news. Eungella has been a thriving tourism destination, with tourists flocking to see the lush rainforest and to enjoy the diverse wildlife. Eungella National Park has over 1,417 recorded species, including those listed as threatened under the EPBC Act—one of which is listed as being extinct or endangered and 10 of which are vulnerable. One of the most well-known animals which the pumped hydro project threatens to wipe out is the platypus. This iconic Australian native animal inhabits the land where clearing of vegetation, excavation, drilling and use of heavy machinery, and complete flooding, will eradicate the platypus population and their breeding habitat. It's not as easy as moving the platypus population a little further downstream; the pumping and releasing of water will damage river banks through greater erosion, which will destroy the shelter needed for the platypus to survive. Increased sedimentation and erosion will alter the availability and quality of food and shelter for the platypus. Not only is this government ready and willing to invest in a project that would decimate a vast amount of pristine land in the name of renewable energy but it's also willing to invest in a technology that has proven to be inefficient. These facilities can be vulnerable to weather conditions, which can impact on their ability to generate electricity. Additionally, the efficiency of pumped hydro can be low, with losses during the pumping and generation process. For example: the Dinorwig power station in the UK, one of the largest pumped hydro facilities in Europe, has an efficiency of about 75 per cent. The negative impacts on the environment and communities; costs; construction issues; cost blowouts; and poor performance associated with pumped hydro facilities make this a questionable investment for governments and energy companies. Yet this is not the only renewable energy project in Central Queensland to be detrimental to the environment and communities. The proposed Moah Creek Wind Farm, 30 kilometres west of Rockhampton, will impact 560 people within a five-kilometre radius of the wind turbines. It also risks damaging the ecological diversity of the Kalapa and Wycarbah region. The vast 654-hectare footprint of the Moah Creek Wind Farm would jeopardise the habitat of no less than 11 endangered or vulnerable species. These include the koala, greater glider, echidna and ghost bat. Along with the loss of our iconic native animals, the windfarm will cause the destruction of the ancient cycad plant, with no less than 468 plants to be wiped out. While graziers and cane farmers are required by law to adhere to strict reef regulation legislation and tree-clearing laws, renewable energy companies have open slather to demolish areas of protected native vegetation and habitat for endangered animals. The clearing of 4.7 hectares of watercourse ecosystems alone goes against the reef regulation legislation, and 654 hectares of destruction will have an immense impact on the Great Barrier Reef. The environmental damage that will be caused, and the fact that the renewables sector does not have to comply with any current regulations in Queensland, including tree-clearing guidelines, reef legislation or environmental protocols that have been imposed on every other industry, is outrageous. It's time this government implemented legislation around the renewable energy sector that will apply governance over how these projects are getting built and their impact on the environment and on farming sectors. On 22 August there will be a rally against Labor's reckless renewables at Parliament House in Brisbane at 12 pm, and we would like everyone to show their support to save our regions. Tangney Electorate: Oberthur Primary School 98 12:06 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney I'm thrilled to share with you today the incredible success story of our local Chinese language immersion school in my electorate of Tangney. For the past decade, Oberthur Primary School has fostered an environment of linguistic diversity and academic excellence. Being one of only two language immersion schools in Western Australia, and the only one in our electorate of Tangney, it has played a significant role in nurturing our future generations. Their Chinese immersion program is a first in Western Australia, and this does attract a huge Asian student cohort. It started in 2013. All primary school students received 7½ hours a week of classes, using Chinese Mandarin as the target language to teach Chinese literacy, maths, society and environment, music and physical education. Oberthur Primary School is blessed with a very dedicated principal, Mr Tim Bamber, as well as a great team of teachers and assistants. Having a team like this has been vital to preserve and foster a cultural asset like language. The impressive academic results achieved by the students are a testament to the school's dedication to language education. These remarkable results are made clear by the Public school review report for Oberthur Primary School. According to this document, their 'belief in the fundamental importance of positive and productive relationships is evident'. The survey showed a high level of staff and parent satisfaction, with great support for educational programs that focus on extending, challenging and preparing students for the future. For every parent, knowing that their child is immersed in a safe and caring learning environment gives them peace of mind. At Oberthur Primary School, this environment is underpinned by clear, shared values and expectations for learning. In their Public school review report, it stated: The school's work in delivering high-quality teaching and learning is driven by a strong sense of collective responsibility … Its language immersion program has led to the school achieving Lead Language School status. As a result, this is positively impacting students' outcomes and the transference of thinking skills across learning areas. The positive impact of language immersion on academic achievement cannot be overstated. Research has shown that students enrolled in immersion programs often outperform their peers in standardised tests. The benefits of bilingualism enhance their overall academic performance, positioning students for success in higher education and future careers. But the impacts extend far beyond just academic achievement. Through the immersive experience, students have developed not only strong language skills but also a deeper understanding and appreciation for other cultures. This year, I was honoured to be invited to attend their 10th anniversary celebration, and I have witnessed the meaningful contributions of this school, and particularly its language immersion program, to our local community's culture. When students learn a new language, they are not just memorising words but immersing themselves in the customs, traditions and heritage of that culture. This knowledge cultivates empathy and tolerance, fostering a stronger sense of community. Language immersion offers unique opportunities for social development. By learning alongside peers of different backgrounds, students develop a deeper appreciation for diversity and inclusion. These invaluable social skills create a compassionate generation of individuals equipped to contribute positively to their society. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:12