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

Tuesday, 8 August 2023

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

 

PRIVILEGE 1 PRIVILEGE Member for Cook 1 12:01 Mr 300246 Brisbane BATES () (): I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The matter involves the former Prime Minister and member for Cook and whether statements made by the member for Cook constitute a possible breach of privilege or contempt of the parliament. The member for Cook made statements in the House in relation to the robodebt scheme that have subsequently been shown to be false by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Just last week, the member for Cook made statements that clearly contradict the findings of the royal commission. This is the first sitting week since these statements were made and the earliest opportunity I have had to present this matter to the House in the manner required. In response to a question without notice on 11 June 2020, the member for Cook stated: Where we have advice and where matters indicate, as has been the case in relation to the use of income averaging as the sole determinant of raising a debt, then obviously government practices change. At no point did the member for Cook report to the House that the robodebt scheme was implemented without legislative change and was therefore illegal. Even after the release of the full report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, the member for Cook has deliberately made assertions that are clearly false. Given the evidence before the royal commission and the timing of the member for Cook's statements after the release of the report, it appears clear that he not only deliberately made false statements but did so in order to mislead the House. On 31 July 2023, the member for Cook said in a statement on indulgence that he 'relied on the advice of the department', disclaiming responsibility. In fact, as the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, Mr Morrison allowed cabinet to be misled. As the royal commission noted, the eighth edition of the Cabinet Handbook explicitly stated: Ministers are expected to take full responsibility for the content, quality and accuracy of advice provided to the Cabinet under their name. Despite the member for Cook's statement in response to a question about robodebt—'Where we have advice, then obviously government practices change'—the findings of the royal commission clearly show that government practices did not change for several years, despite clear advice on the illegality of the scheme, until the matter was before the courts. Given the intense public interest and media scrutiny on the robodebt scheme that had persisted for several years by 2020, it appears extremely likely that, in answering the question, the member for Cook not only misled the House of Representatives but did so knowingly and deliberately. This is especially important in light of the royal commission's finding that he had earlier misled the cabinet. I will give two subsequent examples. On 10 June 2020, the member for Cook stated in response to a question without notice on the robodebt scheme: This has nothing to do with the issues of technology or how technology is used to do this. On 8 December 2020, he stated: So there is no issue, as those opposite seem to suggest, regarding the use of technology … In relation to the use of technology, the royal commission very clearly sets out, in the conclusions in chapter 17: The automation used in the Scheme at its outset, removing the human element, was a key factor in the harm it did. These statements made by the member for Cook also, prima facie, satisfy the test under section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act in that they were 'intended to or likely amount to an improper interference with the free exercise by the House of its authority or functions'. The critical functions of the House that were impeded in this regard were the ability of the House to seek information and clarification on government policy, and the surveillance, appraisal and criticism of government administration. It is fundamentally apparent that the House cannot hold a minister or, indeed, a Prime Minister to account if the relevant minister makes false statements to the House. Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider granting precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members Interests. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this important matter, and I table the documents referred to in support of this request. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for Brisbane and I will consider his statement and the tabled material in the usual way. It is important that I consider this material carefully and thoroughly. I reserve the matter for further consideration and, once considered, I will report back to the House as soon as possible. For the benefit of all members, standing order 51 provides the mechanism for the Speaker to consider a privilege matter raised when the House is sitting. BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 2 12:06 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I have two matters, Speaker. Firstly, for the benefit of members: because of the time priorities for order of the day No. 1, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works will most likely be dealt with between items and we'll go straight to item No. 1. Secondly, I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 3, government business relating to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is returned to the House for further consideration. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day. BILLS 2 BILLS Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 2

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 2 12:07 Mr 260805 Canning HASTIE () (): I rise to support the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, as it will clarify the intended operation of certain provisions in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Specifically, the bill amends sections 65 and 137 of the TIA Act to ensure that foreign intelligence information obtained under certain warrants in the TIA Act can be communicated, used and recorded to protect Australia's national security. These changes will facilitate more timely sharing of foreign intelligence, which is critical to ensure our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are able to identify threats to Australia's national security as they arise and take the necessary steps to mitigate them. This includes malicious cyberactivity targeting Australian interests, terrorist communications and foreign intelligence services threatening Australia's interests. Schedule1 of the bill will clarify the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in accordance with the proper performance of their functions. This bill, importantly, does not seek to alter or expand the information that may be intercepted under foreign intelligence warrants. The amendments would augment the existing requirement for the Attorney-General to approve the persons who can receive foreign intelligence information with an approach where the Attorney-General can limit communication and the use of information by specifying purposes or by imposing conditions for which the information can be shared. Importantly, this bill also includes a number of safeguards to ensure that foreign intelligence information is used and communicated in a controlled and targeted way. This includes ensuring that where a person receives foreign intelligence information under the relevant parts of the TIA Act it may only be communicated in line with the relevant agency's proper performance of functions, duties or powers, and subject to any purposes specified or conditions imposed by the Attorney-General. The use of these provisions will remain subject to independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The coalition will always support sensible changes which ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose, so that our intelligence agencies and the people who work in them can do their best to protect Australia and our national security. I thank the government for working with us on this, and we support this bill. 12:09 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to make changes to the telecommunications laws around ASIO's practice of sharing foreign intelligence information. At the outset, we know that this being rushed through at such a rapid pace raises significant concerns about the laws that ASIO has been operating under. Under the current law, ASIO can only share this information with persons named in the warrants issued by the Attorney-General. The bill seeks to change this by creating a purpose test for sharing information instead of a person test and by imposing conditions. What this means is that the Attorney-General, instead of specifying who intercept material—aka the results of phone taps—can be provided to, will specify a purpose for which information can be shared. Instead of information only being shareable with persons approved by the Attorney-General, the explanatory memorandum says: … the amendments will allow the Attorney-General to limit the communication and use of such information by specifying purposes, or imposing conditions. However, the AG does not have to put in any limited purposes and is not required to put in conditions. The bill, in fact, refers to 'a purpose, if any', which means there is likely not even a need to provide basic purpose. This would allow the information to be shared with anyone for any purpose that ASIO sees fit. This is a fundamental flaw with the conditions clause too, since the conditions imposed only restrict ASIO and are not imposed on any people ASIO gives the information to. The rationale for supporting the bill is that ASIO says it needs the ability to rapidly share time-sensitive information about credible risks from foreign targets in Australia to protect from risks such as cyberattacks. On balance, we do not believe the bill should be supported without significant amendment. The Greens will be seeking to move amendments in the Senate to address the accountability gaps in the scheme proposed here and implement some reasonable checks and balances. The amendments will focus on requiring the AG to put in specific purposes for the use of any information obtained by a warrant and, in recognition of the rushed nature of the bill, put in place a three-month sunset clause in the bill to allow a rapid review of the bill and consider it afresh after that. This is part of a worrying trend for years now in Australian governments, where the context of emergency and urgency is used to rush through the expansion of powers, especially when it comes to our national security apparatus. It has been used repeatedly, often ironically, to undermine our democratic freedoms and civil liberties in Australia. This instance, in particular, highlights a practice that has been used by governments again and again. It's alarming as well that this information can be shared by ASIO with anyone, including, obviously, foreign intelligence services like the US. This is a part of, again, a broader trend we've seen over the last few years of surrendering a lot of this country's sovereignty to the United States. There was a recent report in the ABC with the headline 'US military analysts to embed in Australia's defence department'. It's quite remarkable that that was accepted as a sort of fait accompli—that we would invite the United States into our defence department. I think that there's a clear and worrying shift—in the context of AUKUS, in particular—towards shifting our sovereignty and surrendering it to the United States empire. The irony of this is that so often these laws are used and claimed to be protecting Australia's freedoms and security, but, often when these laws are rushed through, you see the opposite happen, in that we give up our civil liberties and democratic freedoms without so much as a debate. It's remarkable to me that, so often when these laws are rushed through, there is very little media scrutiny, very little parliamentary debate and, in this instance, barely any consideration of the practical effects of this bill or why this is being proposed at such an urgent time. It's clear that we should be holding our intelligence services, including ASIO, to account. We should be ensuring that there are strict rules and regulations around who they can share information with. Certainly, I think that expanding it to a purposes test as opposed to naming individuals is a clear expansion of their powers and something that the Greens are firmly opposed to. This warrants parliament taking its job seriously around ensuring that any expansion of the powers of intelligence services are scrutinised to the nth degree and given proper scrutiny in the same way that a lot of other bills in this place are. The Greens would hope that this bill, rather than being rushed through, is given the timely consideration that it deserves and that civil society in Australia is given the chance to understand the effects of this bill and what it means. By the way, it's clear that, while this is targeted at foreign agents, this could include intercepts that include an Australian citizen. The effect of this could allow ASIO to share information, or the results of wire taps that include an Australian citizen, with foreign intelligence services without the Attorney-General necessarily signing off on the specifics of that information being shared or naming a specific person. That is a remarkable and alarming expansion in their powers. Sometimes it seems taboo, in a way, to comment or critique the expansion of national security powers—often using the threat of emergency or claiming that any resistance to a shift or expansion in these powers is somehow going to put Australians in danger. Of course, over the last 20 to 30 years, especially since 2001, we have seen a surrender of a lot of our civil liberties, powers and democratic freedoms that Australians once enjoyed, through the excuse that this is all about keeping Australians safe. However, over the last 20 years we have seen a marked and alarming expansion in the powers of our national security services, often without so much as a debate or any proper opposition from the official opposition in this parliament, whether it be the coalition or Labor. I would encourage this parliament to take this bill seriously—in the same way as any other bill—ensure that it undergoes proper scrutiny and ensure it goes through the committee process in the normal fashion and isn't just rushed through again. We're never going to hear about it again with any chance to scrutinise its effects, impacts or why it's being rushed through at such an alarming rate right now. 12:16 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to this debate on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. The government is committed to ensuring the legal framework in relation to the use, recording and communication of foreign intelligence information is fit for purpose and underpinned by robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Foreign intelligence information plays a critical role in enabling intelligence agencies to identify threats to Australia's national security, foreign relations and national economic wellbeing. The communication and use of this information is critical to identifying and mitigating these threats. The bill does not grant any new powers or expand existing information practices in relation to foreign intelligence information. The bill clarifies the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia, in accordance with the proper performance of their functions. We have a system of sharing foreign intelligence which has significant, strong and effective safeguards, and none of those are changing as a consequence of this bill. In fact, those safeguards are an essential part of advancing and protecting Australia's national security interests. The bill includes a number of safeguards to ensure that foreign intelligence information is used and communicated in an appropriate manner, including that the communication of foreign intelligence information remains subject to approval by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General may also impose conditions on, or specify purposes for, the communication of foreign intelligence information. The government is committed to ensuring that Australia's legal framework continues to support the work of national security agencies while also ensuring that these powers are subject to the appropriate safeguards. I'd like to thank my colleagues for their engagement with this debate—particularly the opposition for their support. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 4 Report 4 12:19 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 5 of 2023 entitled Department of Defence—Facilities to support JP9101 Phase 1 enhanced defence high frequency communications system—Project Phoenix Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—The report I have just presented considers the proposal referred in June from the Department of Defence for the installation and sustainment of an enhanced defence high-frequency communications system titled Project Phoenix. The supporting facilities are to be constructed across 15 different Defence sites throughout Australia. The total cost of the proposed project is $280.2 million. The Enhanced Defence High Frequency Communications System enables Australia's Defence Force to provide reliable, automated and survivable long-range high-frequency radio communications and serves as an alternative to satellite communications. Project Phoenix will support Defence's communication system and boost Australia's strategic high-frequency communications capabilities needed to support us regionally and globally. The system will be employed by Australia's defence forces to support our aviators, soldiers and sailors at home and abroad for decades to come. The project before the committee is a multi-site project that will upgrade the engineering services at various transmit-and-receive sites and install new fibre-optic cables connecting each pair of transmit-and-receive sites. As such, the project will refurbish, repurpose and extend existing buildings on sites so that they meet capability, building code and energy requirements. The project will also build below-ground communications links between existing receive-and-transmit sites. As part of this project, the Department of Defence will construct a new receive site at the Mount Bundey Training Area in Darwin, in the Northern Territory. The proposal is to construct a new control building that includes a backup power supply and external works on the control building and antennae, including a new access road and high-voltage grid. The committee would like to thank personnel from the Department of Defence for providing a comprehensive briefing about the project. The presentation gave members of the committee an opportunity to understand the motivation for site selection of Project Phoenix, the safety of the works and how the works will be implemented across Australia's states and territories. The committee considers that this project represents value for money and is meritorious in terms of need, scope and cost. The committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed work be carried out. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 5 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 5

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 12:22 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023. Through this bill, Labor has finally and begrudgingly moved to address a serious issue that the coalition had been pursuing for years. But the government has done too little too late. It has produced an incomplete solution that ignores the way that the prosecution of foreign bribery can be significantly enhanced by allowing deferred prosecution agreements. We will support this bill because we are committed to opposing foreign bribery. We will move amendments to add a deferred prosecution scheme because doing so makes the enforcement of foreign bribery offences significantly more effective. Foreign bribery is a serious criminal offence. It is bad for business, it hurts us economically and it damages our international reputation. The coalition has been fighting foreign bribery for decades. That is why the coalition introduced the first foreign bribery offences into the Criminal Code in 1999. That is why, under the leadership of John Howard, Australia ratified the OECD anti-bribery convention. That is why we introduced these measures—I say 'we' introduced these measures because, although this is a government bill, the Attorney-General has frankly admitted that they are almost an exact copy of measures the coalition introduced in 2017 and then reintroduced in the last parliament. Labor has been copying the coalition's homework. And why not? It's good policy. As we said to the parliament when these changes were first included in the coalition's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019: The opaque and sophisticated nature of corporate crime can make it difficult to identify and easy to conceal through complicated structures and transactions. Investigations into corporate misconduct can be hampered by the need to process large amounts of complex data, including evidence that may be held overseas. Court proceedings can be protracted, expensive, and involve well-resourced corporate defendants. The measures in the Bill seek to address these challenges and remove undue impediments to the successful investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery cases. We are pleased that Labor has come to the party, but the wisdom of the measures in this bill is not the whole story. These measures should have become law in the last parliament, but the reality is that Labor did everything it could to delay action on foreign bribery. You need only look at how they approached this issue at the last public hearings when these measures were examined by a committee in the last parliament. The very first question from Labor was whether the bill should be deferred. The second question expressed surprise and concern that the provisions of the bill, including the schedule which set out the very provisions we're looking at now, hadn't been changed following the banking royal commission. The third question asked why the legislation was necessary at all. The fourth suggested that 'the whole matter', being legislation to address corporate crime, should be put on hold. Having made clear that it did not want the matter to progress, Labor's dissenting report then recommended the removal of key parts of the bill. Labor was not alone. The Greens also made it clear that they did not support the legislation proceeding at that time. They also wanted the bill deferred. It's worth putting on the record Labor's history of opposition, delay and obstruction when it comes to foreign bribery. It's worth doing because it illustrates a recurring problem with this government and with this Attorney-General. The measures in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 are lifted almost directly from the coalition's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019 introduced in the last parliament. They were a good idea then and they're a good idea now. But in 2020, when given the opportunity to support measures that are clearly in Australia's national interest, Labor decided it would prefer to delay because the policy came from the coalition. Labor was not prepared to put Australia's national interest ahead of its own tricky political gains. Now that Labor has finally come to the party, it's done so too late and with a weaker solution. This bill is weaker than the coalition proposals it is based on. That is because the foreign bribery measures in this bill would work so much more effectively if they were part of a package which included deferred prosecution agreements. The international consensus is that these agreements are an essential tool in the prosecution of foreign bribery. This is what we recognised when in government, when we coupled foreign bribery amendments with a deferred prosecution regime in the bill introduced in the last parliament. Disappointingly, Labor convinced itself that the scheme must be a bad idea because it came from the coalition, so they have cut deferred prosecution agreements from this bill. It's worth spending a little bit of time explaining what a deferred prosecution agreement is and why it is so important to the prosecution of foreign bribery offences. A deferred prosecution agreement allows a prosecuting body to negotiate conditions with a defendant in exchange for the deferral of the prosecution, potentially indefinitely. These agreements often involve paying a significant fine and making changes to the way business is done. If the conditions are not met, the prosecution can be re-enlivened. Deferred prosecution agreements are used widely in other jurisdictions for corporate offences, such as foreign bribery and false accounting. These crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. They require intensive investigation. They involve paper trails that cross jurisdictional boundaries. The volume of documents and data can be immense. Proceedings can be protracted and expensive. Defendants are often well resourced and, on top of this, there is the inherent difficulty of proving in a court of law that a corporate entity had the requisite state of mind to commit a crime. This means that when prosecuting these crimes, scarce investigative and prosecutorial resources are tied up in protracted and uncertain litigation. This risk and expense is what Labor is saying Australians will have to accept. Rather than deploying our resources to achieve the greatest possible good for the community, they want the Australian government to commit to a course of action that is expensive and difficult. Deferred prosecution agreements offer an obvious solution. They allow the punitive element of justice to be satisfied. Under a deferred prosecution agreement, prosecutors will typically secure significant penalties, sometimes involving fines amounting to billions of dollars. They serve corrective purposes. Deferred prosecution agreements can drive changes to corporate behaviour through measures like enhanced compliance programs and ongoing monitoring, with a view to ensuring the offending cannot happen again. And they can assist in the prevention and deterrence of crimes—for example, through measures requiring ongoing cooperation in prosecuting individuals who are responsible. Everything that you'd achieve in a successful criminal prosecution—punishment, prevention and deterrence—can be achieved through a deferred prosecution agreement. When it comes to foreign bribery, it seems that these are the benefits Labor does not want Australians to have. By deleting the provisions to establish deferred prosecution agreements from this bill, the Labor party is effectively saying, 'Rather than achieving similar results at a fraction of the cost and risk, we want our finite investigative resources tied up for years.' The Australian Labor Party is effectively saying, 'We do not want Australia to share in international schemes such as the deferred prosecution agreement that saw Airbus pay around US$3.9 billion in global penalties for foreign bribery that was shared amongst multiple jurisdictions.' Deferred prosecution agreements are the cornerstone of foreign bribery prosecutions in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, because they offer clear benefits to multiple stakeholders. They incentivise self-reporting. It's not hard to imagine how. You can easily imagine how a corporate head office might become aware of corruption at middle-management level and seek to cooperate with authorities to clean its house. This was the experience in the United Kingdom with the ICBC Standard Bank case. The use of deferred prosecution agreements can also limit collateral impacts where a corporation has engaged in serious and ongoing wrongdoing. In cases where the corporate conduct is so egregious that the financial sanctions would put the company out of business, innocent people often suffer. Pensioners, employees and others, including manufacturers, customers and suppliers, may all be harmed. The experience in the United Kingdom is that, in these cases, deferred prosecution agreements can strike a balance, securing penalties but limiting the second-order harm inflicted on others. The experience in other jurisdictions in evidence received before this parliament is that deferred prosecution agreements lead to an increase in prosecutions and increased fines. They allow a result to be achieved much more quickly, and they are subject to overriding safeguards. For example, under the coalition's proposal, before a deferred prosecution agreement could be executed, a former judge would need to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement were fair, reasonable, proportionate and in the interest of justice. The Attorney-General made it clear that this bill is meant to enhance implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. But, in 2021, the OECD Council expressly recommended that efforts to stamp out foreign bribery should encompass the use of 'non-trial resolutions' to improve the prosecution rates for foreign bribery. In the words of the OECD Council: Non-trial resolutions refer to mechanisms developed and used to resolve matters without a full court or administrative proceeding, based on a negotiated agreement with a natural or legal person and a prosecuting or other authority. In short, the governing body responsible for the convention says that foreign bribery measures should be accompanied by mechanisms like DPA schemes. It is, therefore, not entirely surprising that a wide range of stakeholders have expressed support for the use of deferred prosecution agreement schemes. In the inquiry into this bill, parties as diverse as Allens Linklaters, the well-known law firm; the Law Council of Australia; Transparency International Australia and the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria and Tasmania all made submissions in support of a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. Even Austrade, a government agency, called for measures to encourage self-reporting and cooperation. Let us compare that to what the Attorney-General and the Labor Party have had to say in defence of this bill. In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General told the parliament: The purpose of a deferred prosecution scheme is to strike a balance between encouraging companies to self-report serious offending and holding companies to account for serious corporate crime. However, given that there is universal agreement that the existing foreign bribery offences in the Criminal Code are grossly inadequate, it is premature to entertain the introduction of a deferred prosecution scheme. The introduction of such a scheme should only be entertained after the measures in this bill have been enacted and given time to work. Maybe the Attorney-General simply feels Australians should wait a few more years. In practice, that is what giving foreign bribery offences 'time to work' actually means, as the Attorney-General would know full well. When the coalition last introduced these proposed changes in the form of a bill, the relevant coalition parliamentarians explained that the experience across the OECD has been that foreign bribery cases take an average of 7.3 years to be concluded. Even with the improvements in this bill, we can only conclude that the Attorney-General effectively wants to wait until the next parliament or even the one after before 'entertaining' a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. Or perhaps, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he is genuinely persuaded by the silly rhetoric of Labor senators who spoke about 'two-tiered justice' in the last parliament. Regardless of the Attorney-General's motivations, he is missing a clear opportunity now to enhance Australia's enforcement of foreign bribery offences committed around the world. I observe, therefore, in conclusion, that the coalition will support the measures in this bill. We are glad that Labor has introduced this bill. It is coalition policy. We support it. But we will also be moving amendments in the Senate. We will seek to improve this bill by adding to it the deferred prosecution agreement scheme that was coupled with these measures the last time a bill substantially, in these terms, was introduced. We will also include a statutory review in our amendments, with a view to being able to, after an appropriate period, consider whether the scheme is working as intended. The statutory review will also provide an opportunity to consider whether there is a case for broader corporate crime measures. These might include the changes we proposed the last time a bill substantially, in these terms, was introduced, with a view to ensuring that, when prosecuting a corporate entity, the term 'dishonesty' means the same thing in both the Criminal Code and the Corporations Act. I conclude by, again, extending on behalf of the coalition an invitation to the government to reconsider its opposition to deferred prosecution agreements. I commend this bill to the House. 12:37 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa It's a sad fact of life, but law enforcement often plays catch-up with criminals. Every day it seems there is a new online scam or fraud. Often, but not always, these scams and frauds can be traced overseas. Sadly, too often, the victims are the most vulnerable and, equally sadly, too embarrassed to come forward; hence, the crime goes undetected, not investigated and not punished. Criminals are clever. That's why we need robust laws to combat them. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill, while not aimed at online fraud, is equally necessary in addressing another type of international crime—bribery. Global corruption is far reaching and hugely damaging. Bribery, in particular, harms investment and economic growth. It distorts markets, artificially inflates prices and leads to substandard products being procured. Further, it undermines efforts against poverty and disease and facilitates serious transnational crimes. Bribery corrodes good governance and contributes to social and economic inequality in local communities where it occurs. Thankfully, Australia is a party to a number of international instruments aimed at fighting corruption, including bribery. These include the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD—and the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. In addition, Australia is also engaged in the following regional and international forums and initiatives: the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts' Working Group and the ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia-Pacific. Undetected and unpunished, bribery undermines the reputation of all Australian businesses and negatively impacts business and government relations. The Australian government has a zero tolerance policy in relation to foreign bribery and supports ethical business practices. So, this bill is both welcome and timely. Bribery, by its very nature, is incredibly difficult to investigate and prosecute. It is both opaque and sophisticated. Sadly, there have been relatively few foreign bribery prosecutions in Australia, because the current foreign bribery defence in division 70 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code has been overly prescriptive and difficult to use. This bill seeks to address this issue. It does this by replacing the existing foreign bribery offence with a new carefully developed offence. For example, the prosecution needs to show that both the bribe and the business advantage were not legitimately due. This wording presents difficulties for prosecutors, so it will be replaced with 'improperly influencing a foreign public official'. The bill also broadens the scope of 'foreign bribery offence' so that it will now capture bribery conducted to obtain personal advantage. This is because experience shows that bribes can include a range of benefits, including personal honours and the processing of visa or immigration requests, or in relation to reducing personal tax liability. Further, this bill seeks to prevent foreign bribery in the first place by implementing a new indictable corporate offence. This is in order to overcome the problem of companies that wilfully choose to turn a blind eye to misconduct by their employees. These provisions will apply to companies where an associate bribes a foreign public official for the profit or gain of the corporation. Importantly, the offence would not apply if the body corporate was able to demonstrate that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent the bribe in the first instance. In a positive sense, this new provision will provide an incentive to companies to be proactive towards preventing bribery. I know many Australian companies already have rigorous procedures in place to combat bribery, and I commend them on this. To assist those companies that may not have the necessary procedures in place, guidance material on what constitute adequate procedures will be produced. The measures in this bill may sound very familiar to those opposite. That is because they are virtually identical to the amendments introduced by those opposite in 2017 and then reintroduced in 2019. Both times under the watch of those opposite, those bills were allowed to lapse, failing to even be debated. The previous government had 1,627 days to bring the measures forward for debate and to pass them. They didn't. On these matters of corruption and bribery, there can be no leeway, no slacking off. We must be vigilant. The stakes are too high. Australia's international reputation for world-leading corporate governance, including antibribery provisions, must be protected, and this bill does that. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing the bill to the House. I commend it to the House. 12:43 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I'm astounded at that last contribution to the House, by the member for Werriwa. The Labor Party, in true Labor Party style, when they come into government, complain about something we didn't do, when they blocked us continuously when we were in government. The hypocrisy of those on the other side of the House leaves me speechless. But I'll move on, because I do have a lot to say. When we were in government we brought these measures to the parliament because we believe in combating foreign bribery. Why is this important? Well, we live in a very uncertain world right now. In the Australian parliament, when we were in government, we committed to spending $210 billion on critical defence procurement, whether aircraft, vehicles, ships or submarines. There is no doubt that we are living in the most geopolitically unstable period since 1945. The Australian government, along with a lot of other governments around the world, is spending a lot of money on defence, and understandably so. This bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combating Foreign Bribery) Bill, is so important, and the best example of why it is so important is a deferred prosecution brought by the US Department of Justice against Airbus, which fined Airbus a record $3.9 billion for actions that Airbus have taken to, effectively, bribe US and foreign officials in order to win and maintain defence contracts. Just remember that—$3.9 billion. It's the largest fine ever, and it was done under a deferred prosecution agreement. This bill will further the aim we had when we were in government to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting foreign bribery. I'm not disappointed to see this bill come before the House, but I am disappointed to see the political gamesmanship that is being brought by the other side. I'm not complaining that they're copying our homework—the best form of flattery is imitation—but they have left some very important parts out of this bill. Members opposite need to reconsider the importance of adding a deferred prosecution scheme to make the enforcement of foreign bribery offences more effective. We're committed to moving amendments to that end, and we ask those opposite to wake up to themselves, stop playing petty politics and accept those amendments. The fight against bribery and corruption is something that the coalition has been dedicated to and focused on for decades. At the last election, members opposite came to government on a platform of integrity and accountability, but, when push comes to shove, they are not prepared to do what is right—they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is and introduce legislation which provides for integrity, accountability and transparency. In 1999 we introduced Australia's first foreign bribery offences into the Criminal Code—'we' being the now opposition. In the Howard years we ratified the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. In 2017 we introduced the very measures that we are debating today. Between Labor's petty politics and the 2019 federal election, those measures lapsed, but we believe in the fight against bribery and corruption. That's why we reintroduced those measures in 2019, and we were again confronted by Labor's political games. Time and again, Labor tout themselves as the be-all and end-all for transparency. This federal Labor government is clearly plotting the same course as the Queensland Labor government, and that is to hide and obfuscate. These measures should already be the law of the land, but Labor did everything it could to delay action on foreign bribery. Their approach to these measures has been nothing short of incompetence and obfuscation. Their performance in the previous parliament shows it plain and simple. The Labor Party wanted to put on hold legislation to address serious white-collar crime, and that was demonstrated in a parliamentary inquiry in the last parliament. Labor's dissenting report to that inquiry recommended the removal of key parts of the bill. They spent the lifetime of two parliaments trying to derail this legislation. Then, they spent six weeks, in an election campaign, arguing about integrity. Now, in government, they are finally coming to the table. They're finally ready to redress white-collar crime, after nearly 18 months in office. But they come with a weaker solution and an even weaker commitment to good government and real change. The government are nothing more than political phoneys, and Australians see right through their nasty tricks and politics. The issue of foreign bribery— Mr Khalil 101351 You're talking about yourself. Mr WALLACE 265967 I'll take that interjection from the member for Wills, because they are doing— An honourable member interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 Not quite yet, although I know that you'd like to be there! But then you wouldn't have to put up with me in the PJCIS. The issue of foreign bribery is one that goes to the heart of foreign interference and influence in this country. It's not just a matter of corporate crime. It's a matter for politicians and political parties; it's a matter for government, it's a matter for bureaucracy; it's a matter for all Australians, families and their businesses. What makes it a challenge to address is that red tape and complex corporate arrangements make it difficult to get to the bottom of cases and to enforce wrongdoing. When we tabled the bill last time when in government, we said that the opaque and sophisticated nature of corporate crime can make it difficult to identify and easy to conceal, through complicated structures and transactions. We said investigations into corporate misconduct can be hampered by the need to process large amounts of complex data, including evidence that may be held overseas. Court proceedings can be protracted, expensive and involve well-resourced corporate defendants. We said that the measures in the bill, at the time, seek to address these challenges and remove undue impediments to the successful investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery cases. It is the same now. The bill before us creates a new offence for corporations that fail to prevent foreign bribery, which carries a maximum penalty of $27.5 million. We absolutely must hold corporations to account when they squander Australians' goodwill, when they accept foreign bribes and abuse the trust of the Australian people by committing such offences. But harsh penalties and strongly worded legislation amounts to nothing if it can't be enforced. Labor have weakened this bill by preluding deferred prosecution agreements. A deferred prosecution agreement, DPA, allows a prosecuting body to negotiate conditions with a defendant in exchange for deferral of a prosecution, potentially indefinitely. They often involve paying a significant fine and making changes to the way business is done. If the conditions aren't met, the prosecution can be re-enlivened. International consensus is that these agreements are an essential tool in the prosecution of foreign bribery. We saw that with the US Department of Justice and Airbus that I talked about earlier—a $3.9 billion fine. Yet this government thinks that, despite the United States having DPAs, the Attorney-General knows better. He knows better than a tried, proven and successful mechanism that is working, seeing record penalties holding the corporate world to account in an environment where the world is awash with money being spent, particularly, in the defence sector. The Law Council of Australia, Transparency International, even Austrade, an Australian government agency, agree that a DPA is necessary. They are an invaluable tool to punish offenders, deter offences and disrupt complex and organised crimes, where this would not necessarily be possible. Not only is enforcement difficult but prosecution is incredibly hard. We're talking about multiple jurisdictions and, sometimes, multiple nations, as we saw with Airbus. We're talking about intensive investigations with deep forensic accounting, extensive paper trails and, oftentimes, the need for specialist cyberinvestigation skills. And we're talking about the Australian government logjammed, tied up and financially invested in protracted and uncertain litigation for years. A DPA is about more than efficiency; it's about efficacy and ensuring that Australia's justice system is functional. It's about actually holding people to account for their misconduct instead of just throwing their cases in the too-hard basket. It's about countering foreign interference and influence to bolster our sovereignty and national security. Our own head of ASIO, the Director-General of Security, has identified that foreign interference is the greatest threat posed to the security of this nation, yet the government doesn't want to introduce deferred prosecution agreements. It just beggars belief. What we have proposed is a requirement that, before a DPA could be executed, a former judge would need to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement were fair, reasonable, proportionate and in the interests of justice. The Attorney-General himself made clear that this bill is meant to enhance implementation of the OECD antibribery convention. However, in 2021, the OECD council itself expressly recommended that foreign bribery provisions consider using non-trial resolutions to improve the prosecution of foreign bribery. How much evidence do they want? This is so typical of those opposite. They say it's about accountability, but they fail to make the accountability mechanism functional. They say it's about enhancing compliance with the OECD convention but have opted not to include the one component they indicated would be most helpful. It's a simple solution to a massive problem, and Labor have refused to support it. Why do government members opposite refuse to support DPAs? It's because it was our suggestion. This lot are so politically driven by ideology that they just will not accept a good idea if it's been put forward by us. Members opposite need to wake up to themselves and look at the good that can be brought to bear against bribery and corruption. Listen to yourselves. Go and replay the tapes of what you talked about at the last election. Listen to what you said about accountability and transparency. It would be really interesting to see if we hear any teals speaking on this bill—the teals who talked in such a high and mighty way about integrity and accountability. Let's see what the teals have to say about holding the government to account on introducing, or agreeing to, the amendments that we're moving in relation to the deferred prosecution mechanism. This is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing—the sensible thing—and I'm looking forward to listening to the member for Wills, who's going to make a contribution where he'll stand up, put his hand on his heart and say: 'We got it wrong. This is what we'll do. It's a good submission by Mr Wallace. We will accept the recommendation, and we will accept deferred prosecution agreements because that is the sensible way to go.' 12:58 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I'm going to start in good faith. I assume that the member for Fisher agrees that foreign bribery is serious and it's harmful. I assume that he agrees that it increases the costs for communities and reduces the quality of goods and services. I'm going to assume that he agrees that, when Australians and Australian businesses engage in bribery, our international standing is impaired. I'm going to assume that he understands that it undermines our rule of law—a very important principle for him as a lawyer and for all of us, as Australians. I'm going to assume that he understands that it diminishes the global market for our exports, and I would hope that he would agree and understand that our government has zero tolerance for corruption, whether it be in the public or the private sector and that this government is taking action and cracking down on foreign bribery by Australian companies. We're removing the barriers to investigations and prosecutions. I say this because there was a fair bit of grandstanding from the previous speaker, the member for Fisher. This bill, he would understand, is long overdue. Despite his empty protestations, the Liberals—his party—had almost a decade to enact such measures within the bill, but they failed to do so. For 10 years they failed! The measures we're currently debating are almost identical to the amendments first introduced to this parliament by the then former Liberal government in 2017, and which were then reintroduced in 2019. Despite the critical nature of these measures, the former government, of which the member for Fisher was a member, allowed those amendments to lapse and never brought them on for debate. This was despite being given bipartisan support from the Labor Party, which was then in opposition. The Liberal government sat on the bill after first introducing it in December 2017 and then had until 21 May 2022, the date of the last federal election, to do something about it. But they did nothing! Nothing! That word aptly describes in summation the former government's efforts—nothing. It's clear that they made a decision not to put those measures up for debate, otherwise we would have debated them. It's clear that strengthening Australia's foreign bribery offences was not a priority of the former Liberal government. The fact is that this bill will help this government to crack down on bribes that are built into seemingly legitimate contractual arrangements. What makes this bill particularly critical are recent reports of millions of taxpayer dollars allegedly being paid to foreign officials through suspicious contracts between private companies and subcontractors engaged by the Department of Home Affairs on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea. These are allegations of suspicious contracts during the time when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Home Affairs. He was in charge; he knew what was going on, one would assume. Reports suggest that the Department of Home Affairs may have disregarded what was effectively a bribe disguised as a legitimate contractual arrangement. This happened, as I said, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Home Affairs. He had responsibility. Furthermore, when the now Leader of the Opposition was in his role as the Minister for Home Affairs, he knew that his department had a multimillion dollar regional-processing contract with a man who had been charged by the AFP with foreign bribery. Even if the Leader of the Opposition claims that he did not know about the foreign bribery at the time, these contracts became a matter of public record in September 2018. In September 2018, Mr Bhojani, who was associated with Radiance International, was charged by the AFP for foreign bribery. And in August 2020, he was convicted after pleading guilty. The department continued to pay Mr Bhojani millions of taxpayer dollars, and extended contracts with his company during this period. One of the companies related to suspicious contracts on Nauru was Canstruct International. A contract was awarded to this company to provide welfare and garrison services on Nauru, despite not having any experience of providing welfare or those services to vulnerable people. The contract between the Department of Home Affairs and Canstruct International was extended many times, without a competitive tender. This was a shelf company with no relevant experience getting a $1.8 billion contract without a competitive tender from the former Liberal government. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition knows this company very well. Executives of Canstruct enjoyed exclusive access to the now Leader of the Opposition during this period. These sorts of arrangements are exactly what this government intends to target through amendments to this bill. I will say that the corporates in this case, in respect of this bill, will be protected where they can show they have followed adequate procedures—that those are in place to prevent foreign bribery by an associate. So we're going to have guidance material for the corporations. I know that the previous speaker was up in arms about the impact and so on on these companies, but there's a fair set of guidance material that will be able to guide corporations. They can follow those guidance materials and make sure that they're above reproach. The UK has utilised a similar offence to prosecute companies in a few cases of foreign bribery. These are reforms that ensure that a company cannot simply ignore bribery conducted by its employees or contractors where it results in benefits for their business. Companies can currently avoid criminal liability under existing offences in the Criminal Code even if they know or strongly suspect foreign bribery is occurring. These companies have been able to remain wilfully blind to the activities of their associates, including through the use of third-party agents located offshore. These reforms will enable bribery by an associate of a corporation to trigger corporate liability. That's what the member for Fisher was so upset about—not that they just sat on this for five years after they introduced the bill; maybe he was upset about the transparency of this. Maybe all of those in the opposition who had the responsibility to actually do something about this when they were in government and did nothing, maybe that's what they're upset about. Maybe there's a little bit of guilt about the fact that they did nothing about this when they should have. At any rate, this will encourage corporations to put measures in place to ensure bribery can be prevented. The reforms will create a new offence—that is certainly true—for corporations that fail to prevent foreign bribery. The maximum penalty will be $27.5 million or higher. Companies can also be held directly liable for the foreign bribery activities of their employees, external contractors, agents and subsidiaries unless a business can demonstrate they had adequate procedures in place. That is eminently fair. You are responsible as an entity for the operations that you are conducting as a corporate entity. These reforms are about ensuring accountability, something that was very far away from the minds of the opposition when they were in government with respect to sitting on this bill and doing nothing for so many years. We know that prosecuting for foreign bribery is currently so challenging. The offence in division 70 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code is thought to be difficult to use and too prescriptive. To date there have been low numbers of prosecutions in Australia. The OECD has also previously warned that Australia's enforcement system is inadequate. It does not sufficiently punish the bribing of foreign officials. The OECD, led by a former Liberal finance minister Mathias Cormann , also raised serious concerns as to whether the enforcement regime provided sufficient deterrence for this type of activity. That is why these reforms will remove barriers to prosecution and help in the effort to deter this type of activity. As part of this bill, the existing foreign bribery offence will be replaced to ensure it better captures typical cases of foreign bribery identified by law enforcement. Prosecutors currently need to show that both the bribe and the business advantage sought were 'not legitimately due', which is difficult in cases where bribes are disguised as legitimate payments. This bill replaces the need for this and instead requires prosecutors to demonstrate the improper influencing of a foreign public official. It also broadens the scope of the foreign bribery offence to include bribery conducted that involves a personal advantage, not just a business advantage. It modifies the definition of 'foreign public official' to include candidates for public office. The bill also introduces a new corporate offence of failure to prevent foreign bribery. This relates to cases where an associate of a body corporate has committed bribery for the benefit of the body corporate. We heard a lot of grandstanding from the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, railing against the very bill that was introduced by his government when he was part of that government back in 2017, and then reintroduced again in 2019—the very same bill and the very similar measures which they sat on, did nothing about and did not bring on for debate in this parliament. Well, we're not doing that. We're a government that takes action. We see the problem and, despite the do-nothing attitude of the previous mob, we are going forward and ensuring that this bill passes through this parliament, because it will fundamentally change the way corporations are prosecuted for bribery. Companies will no longer avoid criminal liability if they know or strongly suspect foreign bribery is taking place. They will no longer be able to turn a blind eye to activities of their associates or through the use of third-party agents. The only defence they will have is the existence of adequate procedures that have to be put in place, based on the guidance material, to prevent bribery from occurring in the first place. The Albanese government is taking action on foreign bribery by Australian companies after 10 years of nothing happening. This is about accountability and the value of accountability, which we hold high. This is about having no tolerance for corruption. That is why we are pushing ahead with this bill, despite the empty protestations of the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, and the do-nothing attitude that was emblematic of the opposition when they were in government. It's time for us to take action. It's time for us to pass this bill through the House. 13:10 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill. We will support this bill, but there are flaws in the bill, and that is what I would like to speak on. Foreign bribery is a serious offence. It is insidious and it undermines our reputation as a nation that values democracy, the rule of law and freedom, and it undermines those concepts internationally, as well. Right now, democracy in many parts of the world is fighting for its existence. Wherever we can as a nation, including our corporate entities, we must not be strengthening the arm of those who seek to undermine democracy, which is what foreign bribery does. We must always hold ourselves to a higher standard. As someone who served overseas, I was proud that we held ourselves to a higher standard, as we should have, and we hold ourselves to account for that. The same should apply in how our corporate entities conduct themselves. So the coalition support this bill but are committed to moving amendments to add a deferred prosecution scheme. That is the area of difference and debate that we have seen from the other speakers. What did the Attorney-General and the Labor government say about this specific issue? I enjoy reading second reading speeches by the Attorney-General. They are usually well crafted and ones we should listen to. So let's look at what the Attorney-General said on this bill. He said: The purpose of a deferred prosecution scheme is to strike a balance between encouraging companies to self-report serious offending and holding companies to account for serious corporate crime. However, given that there is universal agreement that the existing foreign bribery offences in the Criminal Code are grossly inadequate, it is premature to entertain the introduction of a deferred prosecution scheme. He added this: The introduction of such a scheme should only be entertained after the measures in this bill have been enacted and given time to work. In that part of the speech the Attorney-General acknowledged that there are benefits in a deferred prosecution scheme but he would prefer to kick the can down the road and not actually deal with it as it is before the House now. The Attorney-General knows full well that when this side was last in government and introduced those changes, the explanation was given that, across the OECD, foreign bribery cases took an average of 7.3 years to be concluded. After my experiences in uniform and overseas, I had an experience in courtrooms. Those who have been involved in litigation, whether as solicitors or barristers or in any other capacity, will know it is resource intensive and time intensive and has enormous delays. When you add on cross-jurisdictional and international factors, it gets monumental. We have to be careful about how resources are managed, particularly if in a firm the key people, the key witnesses, move on, move overseas. Let's remember that we're probably talking more often than not about large corporations, where some of the staff might not be Australian citizens. To not deal with these in a timely way undermines confidence and doesn't deal with an issue as it comes before us. Again, when we're talking about foreign bribery and the effect that has on reinforcing corruption and undermining democracy, delay is not something we should build into the system. What is a deferred prosecution agreement, or a DPA, for those who like acronyms? It allows a prosecuting body to have another tool in their kitbag. It allows them to negotiate conditions with a defendant in exchange for a deferral of a prosecution, potentially indefinitely. They often involve paying a significant fine and making changes to the way business is done in the here and now. If those opportunities are lost in a potential prosecution and trial that will take years then other damage can be done if there is a problem with the culture of a particular company or particular individuals. It isn't a set-and-forget scheme—sign here and all is forgiven—it's not a confessional. It is something that hangs like an anvil over the individual's and the corporation's head. The prosecution could be enlivened at any time. A normal prosecution requires intensive investigation—again, from limited resources. They involve paper trails across jurisdictional boundaries. If we can find a way to deal with the issue in the immediate and short term then we should grasp it. It's important, because when we think of prosecutions there are goals that have to be met not just for the individuals and the corporations that are in the eyes of the investigators and the prosecutors but also because of the message it sends to others who may consider doing the same. There is a punitive element, there is a corrective element and there is a deterrent element. We often speak of specific and general deterrence—and both matter—and all of them can be achieved through a DPA or deferred prosecution agreement. Everything that you'd achieve in a successful criminal prosecution—punishment, prevention and deterrence—can be achieved with a method that is more timely and more sensitive to our limited resources. By cutting these agreements away from this bill, Labor is saying that, rather than achieving similar results at a fraction of the cost, risk and time, we would prefer that these resources are tied up, potentially for years. The example has been given by other speakers of the Airbus, where a deferred prosecution agreement saw the payment of US$3.9 billion in global penalties for foreign bribery, shared amongst multiple jurisdictions. That is a significant fine for any corporate entity, and achieves all of those purposes. That lesson was learnt not only by Airbus but also any other corporate entity that engages in that field or others. So why wouldn't we embrace that with both hands and deal with it right now? Deferred prosecution agreements are the cornerstone of foreign bribery prosecutions. We're not alone. We're not reinventing the wheel here, which when we do as a nation sometimes doesn't end well. We're learning from the examples and mistakes of others, including our partners and allies the United States and the United Kingdom. What they have found—and we get to look at the experience there—is that there is a very important incentive in deferred prosecution agreements. They incentivise self-reporting, and it's not hard to imagine how. You can imagine how a corporate head office might become aware of corruption at middle-management level and seek to cooperate with authorities to clean house. That was the experience in the UK and the example of the ICBC standard bank case. These agreements allow for companies to improve their businesses, deal with bad actors whether they're internal employees or contractors, and have certainty rather than having to face courts year on year. I've been in cases before state and federal courts that have involved corporate entities where almost none of the key witnesses work there any more. They've all moved on and it makes it so much harder—and that's just in civil cases. It gets even harder in criminal cases, with all of the additional evidentiary standards that come with that. The experience from other jurisdictions is one we should take seriously and we should learn from, and the experience is clear: the evidence before this parliament is that these agreements lead to an increase in prosecution and an increase in fines. That's what Australians want in this area, and that's what an amendment like that would achieve. They're also subject to overriding safeguards. There maybe a concern by some that if we are taking decision-making away from judges and juries and the courts, what's happening behind closed doors doesn't have sunlight providing that disinfectant. There is sunlight providing that disinfectant, and there are safeguards. Our proposal included a requirement that, before an agreement could be executed, a former judge would need to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement were fair, reasonable, proportionate and in the interests of justice. The Attorney-General made clear that this bill is meant to enhance the implementation of the OECD anti-bribery convention, and it's noteworthy that he referenced that. However, in 2021, the OECD Council itself expressly recommended that member countries consider using non-trial resolutions to improve the prosecution of foreign bribery. These were the words of the OECD in offering that as a mechanism: Non-trial resolutions refer to mechanisms developed and used to resolve matters without a full court or administrative proceeding, based on a negotiated agreement with a natural or legal person and a prosecuting or other authority. In other words, the governing body responsible for the convention, the OECD, says foreign bribery measures should be accompanied by mechanisms like DPA schemes. Don't just take our word for it. In other debates, whether it's the drafting of the Voice or other issues, we like to say: 'What does corporate Australia say? What does the Law Council say? What does Transparency International Australia say?' Very rarely do they tweet or provide posts that are in line with this side of the House, but they are here. Each of them made submissions in support of the introduction of a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. Even Austrade, a government agency, called for measures to encourage self-reporting and cooperation. I conclude with this: we take foreign bribery seriously. It goes to the heart of who we are and what we stand for, and it goes to the heart of the struggle between democracies and autocracies. Democracies need all the help they can get right now. Foreign bribery undermines democracy, and we should stamp it out wherever we can. We should do it in the short and medium term, not kick the can down the road, as has been proposed in this bill. 13:22 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Foreign bribery is a threat to Australia's democracy and to our values. Recent revelations that the Department of Home Affairs entered multimillion-dollar contracts with a man suspected, and since convicted, of bribing public officials in Nauru has illuminated major gaps in Australia's foreign bribery laws. How Radiance International—an Australian based company under investigation by the AFP for paying more than $100,000 in bribes to two officials in Nauru—was given $9.3 million in government contracts remains unclear. While the Minister for Home Affairs has wasted no time in launching an independent inquiry into the management of regional processing procurements, it once again begs the question as to how we got here in the first place. Questions must be raised as to whether our own systems are fit for purpose—the evidence would suggest not—and whether the super-portfolio experiment of home affairs is actually in the national interest, including whether the right checks and balances are in place or are indeed functional. Staff turnover in the Public Service is another issue that feeds into the weakening of the system because, without institutional memory, we cannot build up a firewall against threats within or without. The insidious threat of bribery to our democracy remains ever present, and it demands our vigilance. By January of last year, Australia had dropped 12 points in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index since 2012, placing us 18th in the world. The Albanese government's introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will help harden the system against the influence of foreign interference, but more needs to be done. The work is ongoing in response to evolving threats. Foreign bribery erodes trust in public officials and, by extension, public institutions. It undermines good government and compromises the integrity of Australian business in the eyes of the local and international community. It distorts the playing field with respect to trade or commerce, compromising both our integrity and our economic standing. Without adequate channels for successful prosecution, these clandestine practices will continue to go unchecked and unpunished. In 1999 Australia ratified the OECD's antibribery convention, criminalising foreign bribery under division 70 of the Criminal Code. Over time, this legal framework has proved inadequate in deterring and punishing those who seek to gain leverage over public officials. Despite playing with the idea of strengthening Australia's foreign bribery laws, the former government failed twice to deliver any meaningful reform within the space of five years. They essentially kicked the can down the road. If we are to effectively criminalise and prosecute foreign bribery, we need a framework that is simple to enforce and adaptable to the evolving nature of foreign bribery offending. We need a framework that protects natural justice and due process without being overly bureaucratic or prescriptive. We can't afford a system in which holding criminals to account is more effort than it's worth. The proof is in the prosecutions. Since Australia's first foreign bribery laws were enacted more than two decades ago, Australia has successfully prosecuted only three cases of foreign bribery involving corporations and seven involving individuals. That is an unacceptably low track record. The current framework is overly prescriptive. The threshold is set too high, with a need to show that both the bribe and the business or personal advantage that were sought were not legitimately due. 'Legitimately due' can present challenges. For example, bribe payments can be concealed as agent fees, making it difficult to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were not legitimate. The bill before the House today, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023, seeks to streamline the investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery offences. The amendment sends a clear message to actors who seek to buy influence overseas. If you attempt to bribe a foreign public official, you will be caught, and you will be prosecuted. Under this bill, the offence of bribery of a foreign official is replaced by a much broader scope of offending, now encompassing the bribery of candidates for public office and bribery with a view to obtaining personal advantage. The amendment removes the barrier for the prosecution to prove the element of 'not legitimately due' and replaces it with the concept of 'improper influence'. Improper influence may not always be dishonest, an example being the conferring of a scholarship to a child of a foreign official to exert improper influence. The bill makes related changes to income tax legislation to prevent a person from claiming tax deductions relating to foreign bribery. It vests responsibility in corporations to prevent bribery of a foreign public official on their watch. Businesses that turn a blind eye to the misconduct of their agents or employees face penalties of up to $30 million, if not more—a significant incentive for companies to implement and maintain practices that actively combat this practice. It also repeals a number of arduous barriers to prosecution. No longer can bribes be concealed as payments that are legitimately due and thus immune to prosecution. No longer is there any requirement that a bribe have actual influence over the exercise of someone's duties. Under this bill, the rights and freedoms of suspected offenders are preserved. The measures it takes are reasonable, proportionate and undeniably necessary in delivering on the bill's objectives. Importantly, the bill ensures that the rights enjoyed by the defendant in a criminal trial in Australia are in no way diminished or altered. The bill is a continuation of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to strengthening integrity in public institutions, hardening them to the corrosive effects of corruption. On 1 July the NACC opened its doors, delivering on our commitment to investigate and report serious and systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector. The bill is cast from the same mould, matching our commitment to stamping out foreign bribery with a legal framework capable of delivering exactly that. I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Energy 15 13:29 Mr JOYCE e5d New England On Friday 11 August in Tamworth you will see the start of a new, organic movement of people. It is not a Barnaby movement. It is not a National Party movement. It's not a Greens movement. It's not a Labor movement. It is a movement that is going from Clerk Creek to Gippsland, from the Hunter Valley to the Peel Valley and from Tasmania through to north Queensland. It's a movement that is dealing with transmission lines that are dividing our country, wind factories that are dividing our communities and solar factories that are covering our views. The environment is coming second to overseas power companies and putting power prices through the roof. Power prices are going through the roof, reliability is going through the floor and the money is going overseas to make other people very wealthy from the pain that it is causing us in regional Australia. It's not only regional Australia. It's the western suburbs of Sydney. It's the western suburbs of Brisbane as well. I'm very proud to be one part of this organic movement. I'd like to commend the people, such as James Gooden, Hamilton down in Gippsland and Nikki up in Rockhampton, who are all getting together. They're working their way to Tamworth. They're going to make sure they are heard. I say to people: please listen to them. They're going to make a difference. Cooper Electorate: Mernda Central College Japanese Tea Garden 15 13:31 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Recently I went to Mernda Central College for the opening of the new Japanese tea garden. I saw a fantastic performance by the Takio drummers. The garden has a beautiful design with a fantastic atmosphere that makes you calm and relaxed when you're in there, so I invite the member for New England to come down. It might be good for him! This has been 18 months in the planning with Darryl and Cathy Furze. We were very lucky to have Junji Shimada, the Consul-General of Japan in Melbourne, together with his wife, and my state colleague Lauren Kathage, the member for Yan Yean, at the opening. The school has this innovative Japanese program that allows students to create a deeper understanding of Japanese culture and language. Their partnership with a school in Kyushu in Japan allows visitors from that school to visit and offers Mernda Central students once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for trips to Japan. I want to give a big shout-out to Nick Creed, the assistant principal, and the teachers at Mernda Central College—including the lovely Alannah Currie, who's a very good friend of mine—for their creative vision and innovative learning environment. A big, big thank you has to go to the principal, Anthony Oldmeadow, for the way he leads the school and the way he's encouraging our next generation of leaders to come forward through his great work, his consistency and his absolutely brilliant attitude to being one of our top educators. To the consul-general: Arigatou gozaimasu to you and your wife for coming out and being part of this wonderful event. I have my Mernda Central tie on today, to prove I'm one of the clan. It was a great day. Congratulations to everyone. Renewable Energy 16 13:32 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Regional Queenslanders will be gathering in Brisbane on 22 August at midday to make their voices heard about their concerns on the reckless destruction of the environment for renewable energy. Communities from across Queensland are fighting back against the devastation caused by the rush to renewable energy targets. While Labor scramble to 80 per cent renewables by 2030, they are ignoring the legitimate concerns of residents whose lives and businesses will be directly impacted. The lack of legislative requirements is outrageous and is deeply impacting regional Australians. 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 endangered animal habitats. Regional Queenslanders are witness to the outcomes of poor legislative management with renewable energy projects. The environmental damage that will be caused because the renewable energy sector currently does not have to comply with any current regulations in Queensland, which include tree-clearing guidelines, reef legislation or environmental protocols that have been imposed on every other industry, is shameful. I will be standing side by side with constituents from my electorate of Capricornia and other regional Queenslanders to rally against reckless renewables. Jagajaga Electorate: Volunteer Grants 16 13:34 Ms THWAI 282212 Jagajaga TES () (): One of the things that makes my local community so special is our community spirit, and this is demonstrated best by our passion for volunteering. From parents helping out at their child's sporting club or scouts group, to people taking a pensioner to do their shopping or out for a coffee at a cafe, to volunteers at BANSIC or DVCS helping organise food for people in need, this is just a snapshot of the countless ways people in Jagajaga support each other, strengthen connections and make our area a better place. At every opportunity it can, this government is supporting volunteers and organisations like these to keep doing this important work. That's why I am pleased to confirm that the Jagajaga volunteer grants are back once again. It is a favourite program of local groups in my community, and I know that they will be very pleased at its return. Grants ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 are available. These help local organisations to better support their hardworking volunteers. In the past, in Jagajaga we've had previous rounds that have helped local groups to buy equipment for their volunteers. They've been providing training opportunities and even reimbursing things like fuel costs during volunteers' community service. At a time when we know volunteering is at a premium and the need is at a premium, if you are part of a local community group, I do encourage you to reach out to my office, visit my website or take a look at my social media to find out how these grants can help your group. This is important, and we do want to support it. Fowler Electorate: Chaldean Community, Assyrian Martyrs Day 16 13:35 Ms LE 295676 Fowler As many members in this House know, I love to shine a light on my community of Fowler—a diverse community. I'd like to highlight two significant cultural events that took place this week. The Australian Chaldean community was recently impacted as a direct result of unjust actions in Baghdad. The Eastern Rite Catholic community were rightly upset when their patriarch, Cardinal Louis Sako, was forced to abandon the Iraqi capital following President Rashid's decision to revoke a 2013 presidential decree that recognised the cardinal as the head of the Chaldean Catholics. The decision naturally drew widespread condemnation from Christians in Iraq and abroad, who fear the revocation is part of a longstanding campaign against the dwindling community. To the Australian Chaldean community in Fowler, know that I stand beside you. I support you. I call on the Iraqi government to end this religious persecution. Similarly, my support extends to the Assyrian Australian community in Fowler, who mark their Martyrs Day on 7 August each year, honouring and remembering the 3,000 Assyrians who lost their lives at the hands of Iraqi military soldiers in the 1933 Simele massacre. I attended the Assyrian National Council Martyrs Day on the weekend and marked this important occasion with their president, Hermiz Shahen, and many community leaders as they paid tribute to those who have lost their lives. Thank you for educating our community on this significant date. I'm proud indeed to represent our community of Fowler. Lidcombe Organic Waste Transfer Station 16 13:37 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Lidcombe is a very special suburb with a wonderfully diverse community, but it is often an overlooked and underappreciated suburb. It was this thought that struck me last month when I held a community meeting to speak to residents about a proposed organic waste facility for Church Street in Lidcombe. That development proposal is currently before Cumberland City Council. More than 150 residents came out to share their views with me, the local state MP and councillors. It was a good opportunity for us to hear their views directly from the community. Residents raised a number of things that concerned them, including excessive traffic congestion and noise caused by waste transfer trucks, the risk of unpleasant odours from the site and concerns about the impact on the local environment—all significantly impacting the quality of life for residents. At the meeting, I encouraged residents to make their views heard and to participate in the process, and they did. Cumberland City Council has received more than 2,000 submissions about the development. There will be a public meeting on Sunday, and I will be there to support the local community in their opposition to this waste facility in Lidcombe. I would encourage all affected residents to attend because I believe Lidcombe deserves better. Garma Festival 17 13:38 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Last weekend, I went to the Garma Festival in north-east Arnhem Land. 'Garma' means 'two-way learning'. It's become a place where Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders come together to discuss big issues in a context and style set by Indigenous Australians rather than through our imported institutions. It's a visceral reminder that listening involves more than taking turns speaking. It involves being open to thinking differently. The 13 clans of the Yolngu have been working together, using diplomacy and negotiation, for thousands of generations. Yolngu woman Mayatili Marika spoke powerfully of Garma as the essence of reconciliation: 'Like the mixing of saltwater and freshwater, there are always differences when they meet, but the waters can become clear if we take the time to wait for the stillness.' There is wisdom in this nuanced and open approach to difference that makes the politics around the Voice look very crude. It's easy to get caught up in the pointscoring, the polling and the public discourse that frames the referendum like a sporting event, with a winning side and a losing side. But at Garma I was reminded that the Voice is about pausing to listen, to question our assumptions and to correct our long-term direction. As a country, we are really bad at policy that addresses the effects of colonisation and, when you're bad at something, you seek advice. It is that simple. Northern Territory: Homelessness Services 17 13:40 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon This week is National Homelessness Week. Today, I'd like to pay my respects to those in the Northern Territory who, day in and day out, try to find solutions and give hope to those experiencing homelessness. On any given day in the NT, frontline homelessness services help about 2,600 people who are experiencing homelessness and about 100 seniors who are in hospital because there's nowhere else for them to go. Those working in frontline specialist homelessness services are exposed on a daily basis to some of the most traumatic and heartbreaking experiences, like domestic violence, abuse, children sleeping on the streets, suicide, chronic illness and people who have given up all hope. Trauma has a lasting effect on essential frontline staff, and those working in the homelessness sector are no different. Those working with people and families experiencing homelessness are essential workers who are standing alongside police and nurses to serve the people of the Northern Territory. Today I acknowledge their hard work and their commitment, and I acknowledge their trauma. That trauma is also experienced by the families of these workers. It's that intergenerational and within-family trauma that cannot be shared—it's difficult for those families. I really thank them for the work that they do. We must acknowledge those working on the front line. Gamson, Mr Anthony (Tony) 17 13:41 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I was saddened by the sudden passing of Tony Gamson earlier this year. Tony Gamson and his wife, Meegan, have been mainstays of the Arcadia community, organising the annual community dinner. This Saturday night when that community dinner is held, we'll all be a little sadder for Tony's absence. Tony grew up in our community. His parents owned a house, noted for its parties, that he sold to my in-laws. Tony's name is still on a sticker in the bedroom in which he grew up. Tony's father, David, was the long-serving treasurer of the Barker College council. Like his father, Tony also served the Barker community. As a student, Tony threw himself into the life of the school. In fact, he did this with such gusto that he had to repeat his final year! Tony was a true all-rounder, excelling at basketball, swimming, rugby and drama. Later, he served as the president of the Old Barker Association, as a member of the college council and as chair of the building committee. Tony was a strong supporter of both sports and arts at Barker. He regularly came back to the school to present jerseys and awards to school sports teams, and he rarely missed a drama production. And Tony Gamson was always great fun to be around. Tony's laconic style belied a first-class mind, put to use in investment banking in Sydney, Singapore and Canada. Tony had sound judgement and was always happy to offer encouragement and advice to his local member of parliament! He was a dedicated husband to Meegan and father to Jordan, who gave one of the most spectacular eulogies I think I have ever heard. We all miss Tony Gamson. May Tony Gamson's memory be a blessing. Holt Electorate: Clyde Creek Primary School 18 13:43 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Last Friday, I got to do one of my most favourite and cherished duties as an MP: speaking with students about democracy and government. This time I was blessed to speak with grades 5 and 6 at Clyde Creek Primary School's specialist campus in the suburb of Clyde in my electorate of Holt. I was very happy to revive the 'dynamic duo' for the second time—the wonderful state member for Bass, Jordan Crugnale, and myself. Together, we spoke to students about the duties of state and federal governments and the different things we do for our community. The Q&A we held was certainly more stimulating than some of the questions put forward by the opposition during question time! The questions were considered and interesting; I almost forgot for a moment that I was talking with grades 5 and 6 students. Thank you to the principal, Jodie Bray, for having me, as well as to all the specialist teaching staff who made the morning such a wonderful success. To all of the students who were there: thank you so much for the high-fives and the laughter. I look forward to being back at Clyde Creek Primary School in the future. I thank the House. Victorian Government: Energy, Seeley International 18 13:44 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Yet again I must rise to protect my community from the ways of the Victorian Labor government—actions which are heavy-handed, short in thought and completely devoid of consultation. The announcement to ban gas connections for new homes from next year will load more pressure on household budgets which can least afford it. Gas will remain critical until our nation can fully transition to cleaner and renewable energy. Both pumped hydro and gas are needed for many more years to keep the power grid stable. In Victoria, electricity is almost six times more emissions intensive than gas. Perversely, forcing new builds to be all electric causes households to become largely fuelled by coal. Albury is home to Australia's largest manufacturer of air conditioning and ducted gas heating units. Seeley International is a global leader in developing new energy-efficient cooling and heating appliances, including those run on non-fossil fuels such as hydro-electricity. This gas appliance ban has literally put the wind up them and their buyers. Group Managing Director Jon Seeley tells me there's enormous confusion about how the Victorian decision impacts older homes and repair work. It puts the future of our local workforce of 150 at risk, as well as the plumbing and trade sectors. I urge my Labor colleagues, particularly those who live in Victoria, to provide some educational information to their Premier. Dan's actions, like his latest snap ban on gas, have big consequences. Cassels, Mr Cunningham Norman McIntyre (Jock) 18 13:46 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I've had the privilege of helping Air Force pilot Jock Cassels celebrate his 100th birthday, which falls on 11 August, at RAAF Base Richmond. Ninety seconds isn't enough to capture Cunningham Norman McIntyre Cassels's 37 years of combined RAAF and World War II RAF service. Jock joined up in Glasgow at the age of 18, in 1941. He flew Spitfires out of Italy, but he crashed in May 1944 and was taken prisoner until the end of the war. Given his service there and his post-war work, it's pretty amazing that, at the age of 43, having just retired, he joined the RAAF and moved to Australia, serving in Vietnam in No. 35 Squadron, carrying personnel and supplies. He served in many capacities back in Australia, and his contribution deserves this parliament's recognition. Richmond became his home, along with his wife, Maureen, and his children, Carol, Anne and Charles. We're very lucky that, in his early 90s, Jock wrote down his story. Two Air Forces, it's called. It's available online, and I highly recommend it as a superb insight into an incredible man's life. To be able to mark his 100th at Richmond base, with a big contingent of serving air men and women and the local state MP, Robyn Preston, was a real honour. Happy birthday, Jock. Agriculture Industry, SPC 18 13:47 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls In 1917 a group of fruitgrowers in Victoria's Goulburn Valley decided to form a cooperative, which they named the Shepparton Fruit Preserving Company. It's an iconic business, and SPC is in Canberra today. I welcome Hussein Rifai and Neil Brimacombe from SPC, and I thank the shadow ministers and the ministers who are going meet with this iconic company. SPC is so important to Australia, but it's also so important to the people of the Goulburn Valley. We all have personal connections with the company. In my case, my grandparents worked there in the 1950s and 1960s. For businesses like SPC to continue to thrive into the future, we need to get the economic settings right and we need to get the policy settings right. We need settings that are business friendly and that help agriculture. I spoke in this place last week about us not wanting to have Chinese fresh fruit coming in, and making sure we've got a healthy Australian alternative. The same goes for the preserved product. What would a kids lunch box be without a snack pack of great, healthy Australian peaches? SPC have told me that the most important things they want to talk about are a level playing field with imports to Australia and global competitors, and innovation and investment. We can work together as a parliament to make sure that the Australian economy supports businesses like SPC to thrive. Ukraine 19 13:49 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean On Monday last week, on behalf of Senator Bilyk and Senator Reynolds, I hosted a special parliamentary screening of the documentary Masha & Valentyna. It follows two Ukrainians who've been displaced by Russia's illegal and immoral invasion. In the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, millions of women and children, including 17-year-old Masha and 41-year-old Valentyna, flee to Poland. While news of the horrors of the war in Ukraine drips in regularly, the world rarely hears about what life is like for the refugees who have sought safe haven in countries like Poland. This documentary tells its story, reminding us that war is not just tanks and bombs; it displaces millions of innocent civilians. It's an extraordinary and powerful documentary. We heard from the director of the film, Simon Target, and I'd like to thank Simon for bringing this film to thousands of Australians. Masha & Valentyna is a must-see documentary that is available to watch for free on SBS On Demand. I urge all members of parliament interested in the war in Ukraine to take the time to watch this film. Fiona Stanley Hospital 19 13:50 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to let people in my electorate, in particular the parents, know that Fiona Stanley Hospital now has a seven-day-a-week addiction prevention and treatment service outpatient clinic that includes, at this point, a gaming addiction clinic. It has been reported that over half the clinic's patients have been teenagers, but it has treated children as young as 11. In my experience, this reflects the growing risk of addiction to online gaming amongst our young people, ongoing compulsive gaming that excludes other activities in the young person's life. At four cybersafety sessions in two primary schools I did in recent weeks, I asked a question: 'On weekends, how many of you spend as much time as you like online?' The majority of hands go up in each of those sessions. They're gaming late into the night, often not sleeping enough, further compounding the challenges they face just handling their everyday lives. Online addiction can disrupt the whole family. It can interfere with the children's education; their sleep; their diet; their relationships, as I've mentioned; and can certainly have a major impact on that young person and what they choose to achieve in their life. I encourage parents to get in touch with Fiona Stanley Hospital and to always use the eSafety Commissioner site and its resources. Spence Electorate: Gawler Show 19 13:52 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'd like to provide the House with an update on a major event happening in the very near future in my electorate of Spence, the upcoming Gawler Show. The Gawler Show is run by the Gawler Agricultural, Horticultural & Floricultural Society and will be held over an action packed two days later this month, on 26 and 27 August. The Gawler show has been a fixture in South Australia that originally started in 1854, which is around 20 years after South Australia had been formed as a colony. To this day, the Gawler Show is the largest regional show in South Australia and regularly sees well over 30,000 attendees coming far and wide, from regional South Australia, the northern suburbs and even further abroad, through its gates each year. This year I am proud to be attending the 2023 Gawler Show as one of its patrons. It is a role I was very proud to accept when I was approached by the society's president, Isaiah Tesselaar, a few months ago. I encourage every one of my parliamentary colleagues who find themselves in South Australia to join me at the 166th Gawler Show for a big weekend full of good food, show bags and activities such as medieval fighting, local music, fireworks displays and much more. There is something for everyone, and I'm looking forward to being part of this year's Gawler Show and many more for years to come. Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme 19 13:53 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Labor does not understand regional Australia, doesn't want to and doesn't seek to. Labor's changes to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme are unworkable. The point about this is that it's labour with a U in that particular wording. Labor, this government, this mob, dropped the U out of 'Labour' in 1912, and ever since then they have not supported workers. They once did; they don't now. Indeed, when it comes to the PALM Scheme, farmers and small businesses are telling me that they are considering deserting, walking away from the PALM Scheme, which the coalition government introduced and established to reduce labour shortages in regional Australia, particularly in horticulture, and particularly in agriculture. These changes were made without adequate or any consultation with stakeholders. I say shame on the Labor—without a U—government for doing that. These changes will be detrimental, particularly to agriculture, and particularly to horticulture. Recent figures show there are almost 40,000 PALM Scheme workers in Australia, many of whom are supporting regional businesses. They're the ones who are taking the risks. They're the ones who are at the mercy of the weather. They're the ones who this Labor government should be supporting more. But they're not. I call on Labor to have a look at those changes. I call on Labor to reconsider what they're doing. Ellenbrook Dockers Junior Football Club 20 13:54 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck On a recent cold and rainy Friday night, I braved the elements to attend the Ellenbrook Dockers Junior Football Club's first ever multicultural round in Western Australia, and I'm so glad that I did. It was a joyous and exciting occasion, with dynamic participation on and off the field. The team jerseys for the occasion were designed by Shaun Hughes and were an avowed celebration of the local multicultural community with the motto 'One Club—One Family' written in no less than 19 languages to represent the community languages spoken in Ellenbrook. The newly designed jerseys were worn by the years 7 and 8 girls and year 10 boys teams. Congratulations to all the players for their fair play, integrity and spirit. Apart from the football, there was a sharing of traditional music, dance performance, plenty of selfies, speeches and interviews, including one that I did with Makur Aciek, who shared his story about how the club was breaking down cultural barriers not just on the field but also within the wider community. I also met the inspirational player Evia Aringo, who is also a member of the Ellenbrook multicultural community group and a finalist for the 2023 WA African Community Awards for emerging young leaders and is running for local government. It's fantastic to see young people standing up to represent their communities. The Ellenbrook Dockers aren't just creating great football players; they are creating a greater sense of community and great community leaders of tomorrow. So congratulations to all involved, especially the club president, Jack Versaci, for such a successful event. Russell Island: House Fire 20 13:56 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman In the early hours of Sunday, the tranquillity of Russell Island was interrupted by the horror of an engulfing house fire. Tragically, police have now confirmed the deaths of 11-year-old Zack; 10-year-old Harrison; four-year-old twins, Kyza and Koah, three-year-old Nicky and their father Wayne Godinet. It is simply too awful for words—a disaster that leaves a young mother in unspeakable anguish and a community in the deepest grief. On Russell Island yesterday, I was with locals as we struggled to make sense of such a senseless tragedy. While the community remained shocked and heartbroken, they were full of praise for emergency services. I want to thank the QFES, QAS and Queensland police personnel who've been working around the clock. I'd like to make special mention of the volunteer crew of the Russell Island RFS unit, led by First Officer Larry Hoffman, who battled the flames valiantly for over an hour before urban firies could be brought from the mainland. Over the last few days, Russell Islanders have been finding housing for those affected, providing supplies and support and being there for each other. I'd like to acknowledge the work of SMBI Listeners, the Redland Community Champions, Redland City Council and the Russell Island State School. The search for answers is still ongoing, but we know that no answer will ever be enough. It is simply a reminder of the innate preciousness of human life and how we must cherish every moment we have with those we love. Business Investment 20 13:58 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Boothby is home to many businesses that make up our vibrant local economy, and this government is committed to doing more for business. We know businesses see the benefit of energy transition, so our Small Business Energy Incentive provides a 20 per cent deduction on spending for electrification and energy efficiency. Energy efficiency grants will assist in electrification and installing batteries, and small businesses in South Australia will receive $650 a year in energy bill relief. We've also announced a $20,000 instant asset write-off to aid in cash flow. We also understand the skill shortage challenge, so we're tackling migration reform. We've introduced fee-free TAFE and more university places, and our reforms to parental leave and cheaper child care mean both parents can go back to work earlier if they choose. The National Reconstruction Fund will help Australian industry to move up the value chain, increase productivity, take advantage of the net zero economy and address supply chain issues. Business and industry can count on this government to deliver the short-term and long-term investments they need to thrive. We are good for business, good for the environment and good for the community. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 21 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE FIFA Women's World Cup 21 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The Leader of the Opposition will join me and all members, I'm sure, in congratulating the Matildas on such a magnificent win last night. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the President of the Senate for lighting up Parliament House in green and gold to show the support of everyone in this chamber. It was a magnificent evening, and I'm sure that those people at Stadium Australia could hear people cheering from Canberra last night. 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating the Matildas. It was great honour to be there in Sydney last night to see their success. There was lot of attention and newspaper headlines about Sam Kerr, who had a magnificent run on, and it was great to see her out on the pitch. But there were many other players there who I suspect deserve much of the applause this morning in the newspapers. It's a great next step in their advancement towards the finals—tough game coming up. But the enthusiasm, inspiration and atmosphere at the stadium last night were quite remarkable. MINISTRY 21 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 21 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer will be absent from question time today and for the rest of this week. He's representing Australia at the Pacific Islands Forum Economic Ministers Meeting. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 21 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister only releasing Voice legislation after Australians have voted? Why does the Prime Minister continue to be deceptive and not provide the information that millions of Australians are asking for? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Mr Dutton 00AKI A straight answer would be good. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Yet again, the Leader of the Opposition confirms that those opposite have walked completely away from even pretending they're concerned about cost-of-living issues. As Chris Kenny so eloquently said when speaking about the legislation to do with the Voice—he pointed this out, as I have—'the coalition attack is undermined by its own commitment to legislate a voice.' Undermined—that is their commitment to legislate a voice. They were in government for three terms, and for most of that term they were talking about a voice. Indeed, Ken Wyatt, the former Minister for Indigenous Australians— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance, we're being respectful to the Prime Minister, but, instead of hearing about what everybody else has to say, can the Australian public hear a straight answer from their Prime Minister as to what he thinks— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. On the point of order, the question was about legislation, but it ended with a 'why is' and an allegation about the Prime Minister being deceptive. The Prime Minister is answering that part of the question, but I'm listening carefully to his answer. Mr R36 They need to coordinate their discussions about this, maybe in their tactics committee, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, just a very short period of time ago, on the 23 July, said this about legislation: 'All legislation requires exposure drafts. It requires conversations. It requires debate. It will include all the things that actually produce good legislation at the end of the process, and that's what I want to see.' That's what his deputy said not last year but last month—just a fortnight ago. That's what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to say. They are simply not being fair dinkum. The conspiracy theories are colliding with each other. If they think the Voice is a bad idea, why are they going to legislate it? If they think they have the right idea for the structure of the Voice, why aren't they tabling their legislation—or why didn't they—over all that period? Of course, Ken Wyatt, the former minister for Indigenous Australians and, indeed, the former member of the Liberal Party, had this to say. He said that he took the Calma-Langton work to the cabinet, which the Leader of the Opposition was in, not once but twice, but nothing happened. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition thought that saying sorry would be the end of the world. Now he thinks listening to the people will be the end of democracy. This is an opportunity to lift the country up, and I urge Australians to vote 'yes' in the last quarter of this year. (Time expired) Aged Care 22 14:05 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. The aged-care royal commission placed workforce at the heart of its recommendations to fix an aged-care system broken by a decade of neglect. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting our skilled aged-care workers and building a better future for the sector? 14:05 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Makin for his question and acknowledge the work that he does locally in supporting our aged-care workers to provide for a better future for our older Australians. The Albanese Labor government deeply values our workforce in aged care. For too long aged-care workers were undervalued for the crucial work that they perform, but now, finally, they have a government which has their back. Thanks to the combined advocacy of the aged-care workers, of the unions, of the sector and of the Albanese Labor government, this workforce was awarded a life-changing pay rise from 1 July: 15 per cent on award wage minimums, the largest-ever increase to award wages in a work value case under the Fair Work Act. And we funded this with a historic $11.3 billion investment into the aged-care workforce. Just this morning I visited aged-care workers and residents at Masonic Village in the beautiful suburb of Holt in the member for Fenner's electorate, 20 kilometres from Parliament House. There I met workers, including the always smiling Miko and Nina, who are so passionate about the privilege that they have in caring for our older Australians. Nina is a registered nurse and the care manager of the Masonic Village. When asked about the impact of the 15 per cent aged-care wage rise, she replied: 'It is wonderful. When I saw the pay rise, I said to myself, "Finally we have been rewarded."' Nina has worked in aged care for almost 20 years. The facility manager, Faye, described her as 'an absolute asset to the residents'. Miko has worked in aged care for 15 years, including seven years at the Masonic Village. She said that, when the pay rise began on 1 July, she looked at her pay slip and said, 'Wow, that's great.' Miko said aged-care workers needed to be recognised, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government has done. The general manager, Faye, said that the biggest impact she had seen from the pay advice is that, since July, far more of her younger care workers and nurses want to make a career out of aged care. This wage rise is changing lives. While those opposite wax lyrical about their supposed support for these workers now, they did not care to support this incredible workforce when they were in government for nine long years. They had every option to do so and they chose not to. After a wasted decade under this coalition, the Albanese Labor government is righting the wrongs, supporting these amazing workers and building a better future for aged care. Just you wait. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 22 14:08 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Uluru Statement from the Heart literally fits on one A4 page. Is the Prime Minister aware the statement, as released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency in response to a freedom-of-information request, is actually 26 pages long and pages 23 to 26 call for a makarrata commission to be given all necessary powers to sit above the parliament and executive as an umpire in treaty negotiations? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order on my right! The member for Flynn will pause. I can't hear a word the member for Flynn is saying. Members on my right will not— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Kingsford Smith is warned. I cannot hear the question. Anyone who interrupts during this question will remove themselves under 94(a). The member for Flynn will begin his question again. Mr BOYCE 299498 My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Uluru Statement from the Heart literally fits on one A4 page. Is the Prime Minister aware the statement, as released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency in response to a freedom-of-information request, is actually 26 pages long and pages 23 to 26 call for a makarrata commission to be given all necessary powers to sit above the parliament and executive as an umpire in treaty negotiations? Why does the Prime Minister continue to be deceptive and not provide information millions of Australians are asking for? The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 I ask that leave be given for the member for Flynn to complete all of his question on whatever time it takes, because I do want to answer this. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Flynn's time ran out before he asked the question. The member for Flynn is as relatively new member. I remind all members: it does cut both ways, but the question has to be in before the 30-second mark. Did the Prime Minister hear the full question? Mr Albanese R36 I will give leave for the member to ask the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Flynn can just make sure the question was within the 30 seconds. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. There will be silence. Mr BOYCE 299498 The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Uluru Statement from the Heart literally fits on one A4 page. Is the Prime Minister aware the statement, as released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency in response to a freedom-of-information request, is actually 26 pages long and pages 23 to 26 call for a makarrata commission? Why does the Prime Minister continue to be deceptive and not provide information millions of Australians are asking for? 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Flynn for his question. I do say that, as a new member, he should be wary if no-one up the front will ask a question. That is a conspiracy in search of a theory. It is something that has been out there, like a whole lot of the QAnon theories. We have all sorts of conspiracy stuff out there, but this is a ripper. That is the Uluru Statement from the Heart on an A4 bit of paper. That is it. The first sentence in it is: We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart: The last sentence, or the last para is: In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. Nothing exposes the falseness of the arguments being put by the 'no' campaign than this conspiracy theory and nonsense. They put in an FOI, and what they got were a whole lot of minutes from meetings with a whole lot of verbal statements from whoever to whoever at meetings that were held right around the country. There were over a thousand meetings held around the country, big and small, through a dialogue leading up to the constitutional convention—something that should have been respected. And it came up with what is an eloquent statement from the heart, not only one that fits on an A4 page but one that was signed by the delegates to the constitutional convention, signed by the leaders who were there at Uluru. What we have here are conspiracy theories colliding with each other. They're struggling to get their scares straight. I mean, what role did Marcia Langton play in the faking of the moon landing? What was the role of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in that? This is absolutely nonsense. There's a whole lot of projection going on here—more projection than at a film festival—and it's coming from those opposite, who do not want to debate the facts and take what is in the Uluru statement, an eloquent request from Indigenous Australians to come together as a nation. This is something where— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Deakin! Mr ALBANESE R36 after the statement occurred, they established committees to look at the detail. This is absolute nonsense and conspiracy. (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There is far too much noise. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Industry and Science will cease interjecting, particularly when I'm speaking. And there is far too much noise on my left. The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left continue to interject, and I'm looking at the member for Deakin, who has lodged the MPI today. There will be no more interjections. Prime Minister? Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I table the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the one A4 page. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will also cease interjecting or will be warned. Pensions and Benefits 24 14:16 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real cost-of-living relief to almost two million Australians under the government's Strengthening the Safety Net plan? What approaches has the government rejected? 14:16 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Macarthur for his question and also his advocacy for everyone in his electorate, including those who are most vulnerable. I am pleased that on 20 September many people who rely on our social security system will receive real cost-of-living relief as a result of our government's 'strengthening the safety net' bill, because it has passed the parliament. It is this Labor government that is making responsible and targeted cost-of-living relief plans and bringing them to the parliament—plans such as our energy bill relief, our cheaper medicines, our cheaper child care and of course our extra support through our safety net measures. From 20 September we will see cost-of-living relief flow through to many who rely on our social security system, benefiting around 800,000 people on JobSeeker, 286,000 people on student and youth payments, 1.1 million households who receive rent assistance and more than 57,000 single parents. With indexation, this means an extra $56 a fortnight to those on working-age payments, and for those older Australians, facing more barriers, it will be an extra $109 a fortnight. And those on rent assistance will receive the largest increase in rent assistance in over 30 years. Our package has been widely welcomed across the community, with Terese Edwards from the National Council of Single Mothers saying she was 'ecstatic' that the bill passed the Senate. And Jessica from Woodcroft said that after deciding to go back to study nursing as a mature-age student the increase to Austudy has meant that she can stress less. She said, 'Every dollar counts, and this increase will mean that I don't have to worry about how I'm going to pay my bills.' Of course, not everyone in this place was concerned about people like Jessica. Those opposite wanted to deny this much-needed relief to so many. They tried to block the $40 increase—but of course we shouldn't be surprised. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Deakin! Ms RISHWORTH HWA We shouldn't be surprised, because this is a trend from those opposite—their cruel approach to those doing it toughest. This is the party that created robodebt, where ministers bragged that they would be a 'tough cop on the beat'—an illegal scheme that threatened people that they would go to prison. Unlike those opposite, we reject the cruel approach. We want to support all Australians, including those doing it toughest, and we will continue working for a better country. (Time expired) Climate Change 24 14:19 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah To the Prime Minister: methane emissions are 80 times more potent in trapping heat than CO2 in the first 20 years. Methane has been documented to leak or be actively vented into the air at every stage of gas extraction and distribution in Australia. The IEA has estimated Australia's under-reporting methane by up to 60 per cent. This invalidates all commitments, including the safeguard mechanism cap. Will you legislate to properly measure and stop the leaking and venting of methane? 14:20 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question, and we 100 per cent agree that methane is a very important issue. The honourable member is correct that it is a more difficult pollutant, over a period of time, than carbon is itself. That is 100 per cent correct. That is why we are engaging fully in the process of ensuring that our measurement of methane is accurate. It's not a simple matter, but we agree that there is a matter to be looked at. We've signed the methane pledge, which is about countries working together to see methane emissions come down globally, but we also are looking at the particular matter of methane measurement to ensure it's accurate. I've sent references to various bodies, including the Climate Change Authority, the NGER process, to ensure that methane measurement is as accurate as possible. That is a genuine process, which is well underway, and I will update the House further when I have received further advice. Economy 24 14:21 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Treasurer. What have been the results of the Albanese Labor government's responsible budget management and how does this compare to previous approaches? 14:21 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I'm much more likely to get a question about the economy from the wonderful member for Macquarie than from the shadow Treasurer opposite. In the spirit of the Prime Minister a moment ago quoting Chris Kenny, I thought I might start by quoting the member for Hume. The member for Hume said this. The week before the budget he said: 'The test for this budget will be to balance the budget.' Next month we will hand down the final budget outcome and it will be better than balanced for the past year. We expect it to show a surplus just north of $20 billion. This is set to be the biggest nominal improvement in the fiscal position in the history of this Commonwealth, from a $78 billion deficit to a $20 billion or so surplus—a turnaround in the order of $100 billion in the first year of this Albanese government. A stronger budget is not an end in itself. It hasn't come at the cost of helping people who need our help, as the minister went through a moment ago. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 In fact, it's our responsible budget management which underpins the cost-of-living relief that we've been able to provide, whether it's the help with Commonwealth grant assistance, bulk-billing or cheaper medicines or taking some of the edge off electricity bills. This type of responsible economic management would be completely and utterly unrecognisable to the member for Hume and his colleagues over there. We wouldn't be within cooee of a surplus if we had continued down their path. We're returning 87 per cent of revenue upgrades, across our two budgets, compared to 40 per cent under them. We found $40 billion in savings in two budgets— Mr Taylor 231027 Hey Jimmy, no-one believes you—the doctor of spin. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting for the remainder of the answer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 compared to zero savings in their last budget. And our responsible management is leading the first surplus in 15 years and smaller deficits over the forwards as well. That means that the Australian people save on debt interest costs in the budget. If those opposite didn't like the first time I quoted the member for Hume, let me try again. On 2 May he said this: … we need to see a surplus this year … we need to see the government focussing on balancing the budget because that will help Australian businesses and households to balance their budgets, taking pressure off inflation, taking pressure off interest rates. I couldn't have said it better myself. And the final budget outcome will make that very clear. Those opposite—they had the slogans, they had the photo ops, they were flogging those dodgy mugs on the Liberal Party website. They did everything associated with delivering a surplus except to actually deliver a surplus. The contrast couldn't be clearer. This government's responsible economic management is providing cost-of-living relief, taking pressure off inflation and investing in a better future while we clean up the mess that they left behind. (Time expired) Makarrata Commission 25 14:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Internal talking points produced by the National Indigenous Australians Agency, released under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that $21.9 million has been provisioned in the contingency reserve for the Makarrata Commission. Why has the government allocated $21.9 million in funding in contingency reserve for the Makarrata Commission? Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 Order! The member for Hume has asked his question. The Treasurer will not respond to those interjections so I can hear from the Minister. Mr Taylor 231027 You're hopeless, Jimmy! The SPEAKER 53517 I'll give a tip to the member for Hume: if I have mentioned you not to be interjecting, don't interject. Otherwise, I can't hear anyone. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has the call. 14:25 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for Hume for his question. I'm very pleased you've raised the issue of money. As I have said, funding has been committed to a makarrata in line with the policy that we took to the last election. You might have noticed that. But our priority is Constitutional recognition through a Voice. That's what the referendum is about, because not all governments in the past have listened to the needs of Indigenous Australians. On the weekend, I was in Arnhem Land and I sat down and listened to locals. They told me that under the last government the community at Nhulunbuy missed out on funding for CCTV and safety lighting despite being deemed the 26th most worthy project out of 2,011—a program administered by the now Leader of the Opposition. I think The Age summed it up: 'Dutton bypassed Indigenous community safety for grants in coalition seats.' Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, member for Fisher! When the House comes to order I'll hear from the member for Bean. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 26 14:27 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for Government Services. How will the royal commission into robodebt improve the Public Service, and how does the minister respond to associated commentary about this? 14:27 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Concerning the robodebt royal commission, aside from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cook has been short on defenders in recent weeks. But fear not! The cavalry has come. It came yesterday in no other form than the member for Bradfield. Channelling his well-known spell as the minister for arts, he put all his creative juices into a speech criticising the royal commission. It's a masterpiece! He said: A clear risk of this royal commission is that it will make the Public Service … more risk adverse and less likely to think creatively and ambitiously … High-performing organisations in the private and public sectors encourage their people to generate ideas and to take risks. Under the member for Bradfield we could enter a new creative revolution for the Public Service and let a thousand unlawful robodebt schemes bloom. But seriously, it is a false binary to argues that on one hand creativity, ambition, risk-taking and idea-generation are jeopardised by obeying the law, listening to the victims and not treating welfare recipients as second-class citizens. It was an intellectually dishonest and flaccid proposition to promote the argument that the royal commission is discredited because you sacrifice a creative Public Service by having a royal commission into a shameful chapter of public administration. It is dishonest to say that you either have a creative, innovative Public Service or you have an honest Public Service not doing robodebt for its cabinet masters. But he did say that he found something deeply regrettable—not the lives ruined, not the people's reputations trashed and not the laws broken, but he thinks it's deeply regrettable that the government wants to hold the perpetrators to account. The royal commission's findings are not a threat to innovation and creativity, but they are an overdue call to arms to re-instil ethics in the Public Service. The member for Bradfield continued. He said, 'We should emulate best practice in the private sector,' but every self-respecting board member knows that you don't take risks with other people's lives, and if it did, a self-respecting board in the private sector would have resigned in shame because of robodebt—not that you did. The tone from the top, especially promoting ethics—old-fashioned ethics—is crucial. The royal commission revealed a sick culture in the former government, a culture of 'don't ask, don't tell; because we don't care'. Just how dumb does the coalition think the Australian people are that they would swallow the argument that you either have a creative public service or an honest public service? Under Labor, you can have both. The coalition show no lessons have been learnt. There has been no learning from the robodebt lessons at all. Makarrata Commission 26 14:31 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The minister has previously said that the makarrata commission's work is 'really code for treaty without saying it'. Can the minister explain this statement? Ms Plibersek 83M Is that really the biggest issue? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting. 14:31 Ms BURNE 8GH Barton Y (—) (): I thank the member for Farrer for her question. What I have to say is difficult to listen to. We support the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We support constitutional recognition through a voice. We support makarrata, and funding has been allocated in line with our election commitment. The reason that we need a voice is that for far too long governments have made policy for Indigenous Australians not with Indigenous Australians, and the Voice can change that. We need a voice because there is a life expectancy gap of eight years between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Ms Ley 00AMN On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question didn't mention the Voice. The question asked you, with respect, to explain your previous statement that the makarrata commission is really code for treaty. So, with respect, the answer needs— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. On the point of order, Chief Government Whip? Ms Ryan 249224 Could the Speaker remind the member to address her questions through you. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind all that standing orders are not to reflect on the chair. The minister was asked a question to explain her comments and her statements. It's up to her to answer that way if she sees fit. I'm listening carefully to her. She has mentioned makarrata. I'll give her the call, but I will listen carefully to make sure her answer is relevant. Ms BURNEY 8GH Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have certainly mentioned makarrata and funding allocated to makarrata. I was speaking about life expectancy. We need a voice because the suicide rate for our people is twice as high. We need the Voice for people like Kaya, Betty and Adele Sandy, who lived at Doomadgee in north-west Queensland. All three women had been diagnosed and lived with rheumatic heart disease four years. Tragically, all three women died from complications of rheumatic heart disease in 2019 and 2020. It is a disease that has all but disappeared from non-Indigenous communities. Ms Sandy was 37 and the mother of four children. I know their loss is still felt in Doomadgee, and I extend my sympathies to their families and the entire community. The SPEAKER 53517 I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I seek leave for the minister to table the document from which she was reading. It can't be confidential, Mr Speaker, because she read from it word for word. Mr Burke DYW For reasons I don't understand, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition framed that as seeking leave, so, therefore, leave is denied. The SPEAKER 53517 We'll just move to the next question. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 27 14:35 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice assist future governments to develop policies to close the gap in health outcomes for First Nations people? 14:35 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend the member for Robertson for his question. As he knows, later this year Australians will get the chance to vote to change our Constitution to recognise the place of First Nations Australians, more than 30 years after the High Court first swept aside that longstanding fiction that this was somehow vacant land when Europeans first arrived. They'll get the chance to vote, also, to give shape to that recognition through a voice to the parliament, listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to get better results. I can't think of an area of policy where that voice will be more important and more valuable than in the area of health. Let's be honest, with the best of intentions and substantial investment from both sides of the parliament, the current approach simply isn't working. Year after year in this place, we hear the same reports of the yawning gap in health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As the minister just said, they have eight fewer years of life on this earth. Diseases are known to non-Indigenous Australians, like rheumatic heart disease, as the minister said. This disease of grinding poverty was eradicated in developed countries 50 or even 60 years ago, but it still strikes remote Aboriginal communities at rates higher than anywhere else on the planet—including sub-Saharan Africa—killing kids and creating lifelong disability, as the minister just said. Young Indigenous Australians are twice as likely to die by suicide. Later in life, Indigenous Australians are seven times as likely to die from kidney disease. The gap in cancer death rates has grown substantially. Mr BUTLER HWK I know that, in spite of the interjections, this isn't news to anyone in this place. We've heard report after report. I know that we all care deeply about closing the gap, but we need a new approach. We all know that a good doctor listens carefully to their patients, but, in Indigenous health, there just hasn't been enough careful deep listening. Last week, Georgia Corrie, who is a longstanding remote-area Aboriginal nurse in the Northern Territory, wrote about her work as a health professional working in Indigenous health. She said: At times it feels as though I am walking between two different worlds that do not talk to each other, do not listen to each other. This is an opportunity to bring these worlds closer … to use this dialogue to create solutions that work for Indigenous communities. I could not agree more. A voice to the parliament and, frankly, to the health minister, whether they're Labor or Liberal, is a chance to turn a new page in our national efforts to close the gap. Makarrata Commission 27 14:38 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Prime Minister. In August 2021, the now Prime Minister promised that Labor in government would, as a matter of priority, establish a makarrata commission to develop a framework for federal treaty-making because 'the Uluru statement called for a national process of treaty' and that 'there can be no reconciliation without treaty'. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? 14:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. The issue of treaty-making is something that has been around for a long period of time—since the Barunga Statement, which was one of the things that was mentioned on the weekend at Garma—and, of course, Bob Hawke gave a commitment to advance treaty-making. Since then, there have been various issues done. One of those, of course, is in Western Australia. Probably the most significant one is the agreement that was done between Premier Barnett and the Noongar people that covered south-western Western Australia. At the moment in Queensland there's a process with the LNP and the ALP government. To quote the leader of the Queensland LNP, 'I rise to support the Path to Treaty Bill 2023,' which passed the parliament there in May. In Victoria there is also a process. There the leader of the Victorian National Party, Peter Walsh, said, 'The Liberals and Nationals are committed to advancing the Treaty process in Victoria'. The 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 In Tasmania there's a process. Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier, said, 'I am also deeply committed to delivering a pathway to Treaty and Truth-Telling'. People outside the process as well—Warren Mundine, a former Liberal candidate— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI The question couldn't have been any clearer. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to answer just one question with a straight answer? Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty? Can you answer a question honestly? The SPEAKER 53517 Under the standing orders, the answer must be relevant to the question. The Prime Minister, as I am listening, is talking about treaty process. The SPEAKER 53517 I hadn't finished what I was about to say, but I will listen to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I seek clarification from you as to whether your ruling is that the Prime Minister is in order and that his answer is relevant to the question asked. The SPEAKER 53517 As I was explaining to the Leader of the Opposition before he took another point of order, the Prime Minister was asked about makarrata and whether he remains committed to treaty as called for in the Uluru statement. Under the standing orders, he is talking about treaty. He may be talking about another form of treaty— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Let me finish. I'm going to listen to his answer to make sure he is being relevant to the question. He's halfway through his answer. I will ask him to return to the question to make sure he is being relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 I am, absolutely. We know that we have the great privilege of sharing this vast island continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth. There 400 Indigenous nations around this country. What we have seen is that things work the best when people come together. The concept of makarrata is coming together. It's a Yolngu word for coming together after conflict. That is precisely what has occurred with native title. It's what has occurred with the Mabo decision. It's what has occurred with all of that— Ms Ley 00AMN How can this be in order? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not interject. Mr ALBANESE R36 Indeed, Warren Mundine— The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I ask that you rule on whether the Prime Minister is in order and whether he is relevant to the question asked. The question is: does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty? Not some other treaty; the national treaty. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to it? I ask that you rule in this matter. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, in the first instance, points of order on relevance can only be raised once. If the earlier point of order was on anything else, it was out of order because that's clearly the issue that was being raised. Secondly, the standing orders require that the answer is relevant to those terms in the question, and all the terms the Leader of the Opposition has just referred to are being referred to in the answer—all of them. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. The standing orders clearly state that answers have to be directly relevant. That is not the same as a direct answer. That is not in the standing orders. I know that may be frustrating for members opposite, but that is the standing orders. If you wish to change that, the standing orders will have to change. As they stand now, the Prime Minister is talking about the subject matter, so he is being relevant. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence for the remainder of the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 In May 2017 Warren Mundine said this about the government of which this member opposite was a member: I've always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations. …   …   … I've proposed the government offer each First Nation a treaty recognising them as traditional owners of their land and sea and concluding any native title claims over those areas. That was Warren Mundine talking about the advice he gave to the former coalition government. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the member for Page, who is seeking leave. Mr Hogan 218019 I thank the Prime Minister for earlier tabling page 1 of the document, Uluru Statement from the Heart. I seek leave to table the full 26-page document, Uluru Statement from the Heart. The SPEAKER 53517 Is leave granted? Mr Burke DYW Leave is not granted. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will put away his prop. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 29 14:46 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How will an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice help to deliver better skills outcomes for First Nations Australians? 14:46 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Boothby for her question. It was great to be at Tonsley TAFE in her electorate recently. She's doing a magnificent job and she's quite right to ask this question. Establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament is about giving the world's oldest continuing culture a legitimate stake in the policies that directly affect their communities. In particular there's no doubt—and I think everyone, if they were genuine, would agree—that if you engage with communities you get better results. That is the truth. It's fair to say that never has it been more true than when it comes to education and training. Because of its transformative power, education actually changes individuals and communities. That is why state and territory skills ministers, as a part of the negotiation of the National Skills Agreement, will ensure that we aim to close the gap in educational attainment under that National Skills Agreement. It's also true to say that we have had some positive progress. I'm asked: are we doing things already? We've got 4,000 fee-free TAFE places with Indigenous Australians enrolled in those courses, but there's more to be done. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is warned. Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 That's what the other side doesn't seem to understand. There's more to be done, but it's fair to say that First Nations people continue to face barriers to skills, with tertiary education attainment significantly lower than other Australians. That's the truth of it. To take one example, 47 per cent of First Nations people aged between 25 and 34 have attained a tertiary qualification. It is 76 per cent for all other Australians. There's a 30 per cent gap between the educational attainments, and we need to do much more. It's also estimated that 40 per cent of First Nations adults have minimal English literacy. It's why the government is fundamentally reforming the way the Commonwealth delivers foundation skills. Last month in Darwin during NAIDOC week, accompanied by the member for Solomon and Senator McCarthy, I announced a specific Indigenous stream which will engage local communities supporting 2,000 First Nations people. There's also a very good pilot run by Literacy for Life Foundation at Tennant Creek which I visited with the member for Lingiari. The reason why it works is that it engages directly with First Nations people. These are good but piecemeal initiatives. We need an engagement that's deeper and broader and that will be provided if we have a voice—something those opposite genuinely understand but refuse to support. Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 29 14:49 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is for the Prime Minister. The doctors are in the House: 85 of them are in this chamber right now. Today 2,500 health professionals warned of the dire health consequences should the Middle Arm project—the gas project—and fracking of the Beetaloo Basin go ahead. Will your government follow doctors' advice, and will it withhold the $1.5 billion in fossil fuel subsidies that you have allocated to the Middle Arm project? 14:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question, but I say, with respect, it's just not right, if the member is aware of what Middle Arm is actually about. One of the projects there potentially is, yes, associated with fossil fuels, but five of the six proponents are hydrogen, critical minerals, green ammonia and solar companies, including, of course, the Sun Cable project, which is one of the things that will need Middle Arm in order to proceed. This will be the largest solar project in the world. In terms of the Northern Territory government, I'd encourage the member to have a look at what the Chief Minister, Natasha Fyles, had to say at the National Press Club last week, where she comprehensively put forward her case. Our investment is equity in public, common-use marine infrastructure at Middle Arm—that's what it is—to develop clean energy industries to get to net zero. That's what our investment is about. Our investment in infrastructure projects, of course, should concentrate on nation-building projects: ones that facilitate private sector activities and ones that have a multiplier effect. Frankly, I say—as someone who, along with the member for Kooyong, cares about climate change and the need for us to get to net zero—it is important that we stick to facts in this debate, because otherwise what people will do is walk away from the support which is there. The Australian government's proposed investment—to be very clear—is not for any company. It's not for any product. It's for public infrastructure. That's what our investment is proposed to be. That is why the government made that commitment going forward. It is just not true that it is for any company or any private sector activity. So the idea that you just assert that that's the case undermines, frankly, the very good public case across the board for action to get to net zero. International Development Assistance 30 14:53 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening relationships with countries across the Indo-Pacific through Australia's international development program? What actions have been necessary, and why has it been important to update the government's policy settings? 14:53 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for Fremantle for his question and his ongoing advocacy for a strong international development policy. Later today, Senator Wong and I will be releasing the New International Development Policy, the first one in almost a decade. It will place international development at the heart of our statecraft, complementing our policing support in the region and complementing defence cooperation and the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, to secure Australia as the partner of choice in our region. Twenty-two of our 26 closest neighbours are developing nations, and it's in our national interest to have a stable, prosperous and peaceful region. This update is necessary because of the incompetence of those opposite when they were in power. They slashed $11.8 billion from our foreign aid budget, creating a vacuum filled by other nations in the region at a time of great geostrategic competition. We're rebuilding the aid budget and driving our policy based on our values and the priorities of our region. That includes prioritising local economic involvement so that when we fund infrastructure projects in the region they use local labour, in contrast to other countries. We're establishing a $250 million Australian development investments fund to stimulate private sector impact investment in our region. We're matching this with unprecedented transparency and evaluation mechanisms, to give confidence to our taxpayers that their funds are being invested wisely. And we're requiring 80 per cent of our programs to have gender and climate change objectives in their design. And, on climate change: this is incredibly important because, for the Pacific, climate change is the No. 1 existential threat and their No. 1 priority. The truth is that this is necessary because the last government undermined our position in the region by not taking climate change seriously, including the now Leader of the Opposition making jokes about rising sea levels. I'm ashamed to say that we still need to push back on these attitudes from those opposite, and that's why this policy is so necessary. Senator Canavan, today, in response to our foreign aid announcement, said that talking about climate change was a Western eccentricity—a Western obsession. This undermines our position in the region, it creates a vacuum for other countries to fill and it shows that those opposite are not serious about governing. By contrast, our international development program supports our national interests, supports our efforts to be the partner of choice for our region and contributes to our national security. Uluru Statement from the Heart 30 14:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? 14:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, the scare campaign is running out of steam. It's like a deflated whoopee cushion! It has made a loud noise and it's a bit uncomfortable, but then they've just moved on and on from one thing to the other. We've had a range of them. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Voice will re-racialise our nation. He's seemingly unaware of the racial provisions that are in the current Constitution—seemingly unaware. The former Deputy Prime Minister went one further, and said this— Mr McCormack 219646 Which one? Mr ALBANESE R36 And there have been a few! But there's only one of them who would have said this because, you know the old saying— Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 This is what he said: 'The Voice will be a delineation of people and their rights. The Civil Service Act of Germany in 1933— Ms Catherine King 00AMR Who exactly are we— Mr ALBANESE R36 That was the member for New England— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England is also seeking the call, but I'll hear from the member for Wannon first of all. Mr Joyce e5d Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for New England, I'll just do one at a time. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. Mr Tehan 210911 Thanks, Speaker. The question was very clear. It was about a national treaty: do you stand by your commitment for a national treaty or not? The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat, you haven't stated what the point of order is. Mr Tehan 210911 It's relevance— Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 Resume your seat. We got there in the end! Is the member for New England still— Mr Joyce e5d Speaker, I'll do it after question time. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about the Prime Minister's commitment to a national treaty, called for in the Uluru statement. As I reminded members in the last question, the Prime Minister needs to make his remarks directly relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Uluru statement— Ms Ley 00AMN Why don't you fight for what you believe in instead of reading all these stupid quotes? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had some time out yesterday. I'm sure she wants to stay for the remainder of question time today. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Uluru statement, on the one page, says: We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history. Well, we're in the post-truth world over there. Indeed, Senator Cash tried to up the Barnaby Joyce comment and said, 'if we put the voice into the Constitution … we're effectively announcing an apartheid type state'. That is what they have had to say. The deputy leader said that the Voice can take a view on everything, from submarines to parking tickets. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. We've had one point of order on relevance. I'll hear from the leader of—sorry, the member for New England. Mr Joyce e5d You flatter me, Mr Speaker! At the very least he could use the proper term. I'm the member for New England. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm sure the Prime Minister will ensure that he uses the correct titles at all times. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Leader of the Opposition—this might go to why he's objecting here—said this to justify his opposition: 'It's not just the Voice. It's about truth-telling.' That got them worried over there. Senator Hanson said that it would turn the Northern Territory into an Aboriginal black state. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister will pause. The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting as well. There is far too much noise today. I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, my question is to you, as to whether you will rule this particular contribution out of order. It is clearly out of order, Mr Speaker, and it is defying your earlier remarks. I haven't finished— The SPEAKER 53517 The leader will pause. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, for the benefit of the House, the question was this: Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty, as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? It was nothing beyond that. Can this Prime Minister answer a question honestly or not? Mr Speaker, can you please provide a ruling as to whether he is in order or not? The 53517 I give the call to the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I simply draw your attention to the fact that a point of order on direct relevance can only be raised once. The Leader of the Opposition knew that and decided to use a point of order for the purpose of making a speech, which he knew was out of order. Mr Howarth 247742 That's not correct. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie would like a go as well! You'll need to state the point of order, not give a commentary or a statement. Mr 247742 Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House is incorrect. The opposition leader was asking you to rule on a point of order. It wasn't on relevance at all. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie can resume his seat and not take any more points of order for the rest of the week. I give the call to the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I simply also raise a point for the Speaker. This is something that doesn't happen during question time, but if questions to the Speaker are asked they're asked at the end of question time and on administrative matters. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has 30 seconds remaining for his answer. I'm just going to say that I need him to be relevant to the question. If he is not relevant to the question I will call him to order. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition in his statement made reference to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was in the question. The member for New England actually said in May that this might be the last budget we have if this craziness got up; there are not going to be any budgets. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might want to think about this statement: … the Prime Minister's obsession with the Voice means that he's taken his eye off the ball when it comes to economic policy … There are no economic questions in here. We know who's obsessed—just them. (Time expired) Migration 32 15:05 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to stamp out migrant worker exploitation after a decade of inaction? 15:05 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank my friend the member for Werriwa for this question and acknowledge her keen interest in dealing with this scourge. She knows, as all of us on the side of the House know, that there is a crisis in exploitation of migrant workers in this country. Too many workers have been forced to confront vulnerabilities that are created or exacerbated by failings in our visa system. Unscrupulous employers and facilitators in the labour market have misused visa rules to exploit workers. According to the Grattan Institute, up to one in six recent migrants are being paid less than the minimum wage. Of course, this didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen all by itself. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible he oversaw a complicated, slow and unplanned mess when it came to how people enter this country. Also on his watch, despite all the tough talk, immigration compliance disappeared. It licensed an exploitation that's hurting every Australian, including businesses doing the right thing and Australian workers, whose wages and conditions are being undermined. It's also a handbrake on productivity growth and economic growth more broadly. This is a problem that those opposite ignored for years. The Report of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce was handed to the former government in 2019. When the then immigration minister finally introduced a bill to respond to the recommendations of the report, it was never brought on for a vote. In this government, we are doing things differently. We are working each and every day to undo a decade of neglect when it comes to protecting migrant workers from exploitation. Right now, we are taking immediate action while looking ahead with my friend the Minister for Home Affairs for future reform to engineer this out of our system. Border Force have just completed an operational blitz in inspecting 300 businesses, repaying the investment of $50 million in enforcement. We've introduced the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill into the House to target dodgy employers and help migrant workers speak up. This will implement the key recommendations of the Migrant Workers Taskforce. Yesterday, the shadow minister acknowledged that the bill has broad support, and so the opposition has given in-principle support. I hope that they will stick to their principles on this, because we know the shadow minister has a record of flip-flopping when it comes to his principles when it comes to migration. He can't decide whether we should have more or fewer skilled migrants—depending on the audience he's speaking to, of course. A month ago, he said, 'We should be doing everything we can to support skilled workers to make their homes in Wannon,' but this week he's telling migrant workers to go home. Yesterday, he said, 'You come in, you fill skill shortages and then you go home.' It seems he's got one set of principles when it comes to his electorate and another for the rest of the country. Let's see whether he can stick to his principles when it comes to a vote. (Time expired) Housing 33 15:08 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. National polling shows that 74 per cent of Australians support the federal government to work with National Cabinet to coordinate rent caps, while 80 housing, legal and welfare organisations, including Marrickville Legal Centre in your electorate, have signed a letter calling for national renters' rights and rent caps. With rents now rising at their fastest rate in 35 years, will you finally take responsibility, listen to experts and the majority of Australians and coordinate national caps on rents and stronger renters' rights with National Cabinet? 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Griffith for his question, which goes to his blocking of the Housing Australia Future Fund and the reason he puts up for that. In this chamber, of course, he speaks about renters, but what he puts in writing is more straightforward. He speaks about the need to continue a national doorknocking campaign. He says: … this parliamentary conflict helps create the space for a broader campaign in civil society. He also says— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Griffith on a point of order? Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 I asked about renters, not the Prime Minister reading my Jacobin articles. The point of order is on relevance. We don't need to hear the Prime Minister's talk about my Jacobin articles. We need to hear— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I just ask all members: if you're using that as a point of order, do not give commentary. Just go straight to the point of order. I'm listening carefully to the Prime Minister in continuation. Mr ALBANESE R36 For the member for Griffith, I'll give him a big tip: don't put it in writing in an essay if you don't want people to read it and quote it back to you! He went on to say" Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society … That's what he speaks about—all a political campaign. Now, I understand that renters are doing it tough, but I also understand that, in Australia's federation, the Commonwealth does not control rents. The Commonwealth does not have the capacity, either, to abolish the private rental market. The key to fixing up these issues is supply. That is what we are dealing with, including with $2 billion of additional money we put into social housing, including the measures we put in the budget that will result in between 150,000 and 250,000 additional private rental dwellings being built, including the $2 billion that we have allocated for additional community housing, including the $1.6 billion for the one-year extension of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. Commonwealth and state ministers will have a national cabinet meeting next Wednesday. On the agenda next Wednesday is the issue of renters' rights, but what is there is in the context of a practical move— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Griffith has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 We won't be nationalising private housing in this country. We won't be doing things that make it more difficult rather than less difficult, which is what the member opposite would do if he had his way. I say to the member: if he is at all fair dinkum, break up this no-alition over there between the Liberals, Nationals, One Nation and the Greens in the other chamber and vote for additional housing. I understand that you never do it in your own local electorate or local community, but at least do it nationally. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 34 15:12 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the role of political leaders in advancing reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Member for Aston for her question and for the extraordinary work that she's done in her short time here in this chamber as the best member for Aston in a very long period of time. I attended the Garma Festival on the weekend. That is the major celebration of Indigenous culture held anywhere in this country. It's not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, some narrow fest. Indeed, the member for Berowra was there, as was the member for Calare. A number of crossbench members from the Greens and Independent members were there as well. It was an opportunity to listen to what Indigenous Australians were saying about these issues. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about those places: Palm Island, Leonora, Laverton, East Arnhem Land and Alice Springs. He said that he's consulted Indigenous Australians. Well, this is what they have said about that. James Calyun, a Martu man from Meekatharra who was there in Leonora, said, 'No-one has actually spoken about the voice to us in those visits from Peter Dutton.' Geraldine Hogarth, the local leader, said: 'He said, "Geraldine, I advise you to go for it. Say yes because you might have to wait for the next 100-plus years for another referendum."' That's what Geraldine says the Leader of the Opposition said to her. Peter Craig, the Mayor of Leonora, said, 'Peter Dutton wasn't there to talk about the voice.' In Central Australia, Matthew Palmer, the Chair of the Central Land Council, said, 'I will campaign for a big "yes" vote in the referendum because, when we are being heard, we will achieve positive change on the ground in Alice Springs and in the bush.' That's what he had to say. In Katherine, Samuel Bush-Blanasi, the Chair of the Northern Land Council, said: We say listen to us and we will help make thing better so we can close the gap. We say listen to us before making policies that affect us. Please stop ignoring us. He visited Palm Island, and this is what Elizabeth Clay, one of the elders, had to say: All I knew about the visit of Peter Dutton and Phil Thompson was a half an hour before they were about to board a bloody plane … He should [support the Voice] but we don't expect him to. He'll oppose everything. The Mayor of Palm Island, Mislam Sam, said, 'I definitely support the Voice and going ahead.' East Arnhem Regional Council supports the policy position for the constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and a direct First Nations voice to the federal parliament. They won't listen to Ken Wyatt. They haven't listened to or consulted Indigenous Australians. They are attempting political advantage at their expense. (Time expired) On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 34 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 34 15:16 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I seek leave to make a brief statement. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to be misrepresented? Mr JOYCE e5d Most grievously. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr JOYCE e5d During question time today, the Prime Minister gave an insinuation that was fully deceitful because it's only half the truth. The Prime Minister did not put forward a full quote, which has led to the House being misled as to what I actually said. In reference to the constitutional change proposed by the Prime Minister, I said: It's not the same. It's vastly less, vastly less noxious, but the Civil Service Act of Germany in 1933 also delineated people's rights on the premise of their race … I went on to say that it's a bad premise. This is not what the Prime Minister said. He tells half-truths to avoid the facts, and he is making a bad habit of it. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 34 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Question Time 34 15:17 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I was wondering whether I could get a ruling from you overnight, Mr Speaker, around the answer that the Prime Minister gave to question 6. The question was 'Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty'—and I said 'national treaty' twice, just to emphasise that's what the question was about—'as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart?' As far as I could hear—there was a lot of noise—the Prime Minister did not mention 'national treaty' once. I just don't know how, then, his answer could be in any way relevant to the question that was asked. I would ask that you consider that overnight and come back to us. 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I can let the member know now. Under the standing orders, as long as the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question—that means to be talking about the subject matter, the topic of the question, not other things. He may not be directly answering the question, which the member was seeking, but under the standing orders he was being relevant. Mr 210911 The question was about a national treaty, and he didn't mention a national treaty once. The SPEAKER 53517 The question also involved the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Mr Tehan 210911 That was what it was called for; the question was about the national treaty. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, but if you're mentioning things in the question he can do that. I'm happy to talk to the member for Wannon after question time to go through the standing orders with him. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:19 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. COMMITTEES 35 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 35 Government Response to Report 35 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I present the Australian government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 35 15:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:    The housing crisis facing Australians and this Government's failure to respond effectively. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:19 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin In the litany of failures of this government, the biggest failure and the biggest area of neglect and misunderstanding is in relation to housing. The government has no agenda in housing. If you want to be generous and say that their failed Housing Australia Future Fund, the Ponzi scheme money-go-round, is an agenda, then that agenda is in absolute tatters. The hapless housing minister gets up and tries to say that, somehow, housing has improved under the Labor government. I think it's pretty clear to Australians that that's not the truth. If you look at every single measure since this government has been in office, housing has gone backwards for Australians. New home starts between the March quarter of 2022 and 2023 are down by nearly seven per cent. New home approvals are down by nearly 16 per cent compared to this time last year. New home sales are down by nearly 40 per cent. First home buyers are at their lowest levels since the Gillard government, and, of course, people who are renting are paying on average 11½ per cent more this year than last year. On every single measure for ordinary Australians, housing is going backwards. What do we hear from the government? As I said, if we want to be generous and call their Ponzi scheme money-go-round, the Housing Australia Future Fund, an agenda, they only want to discuss the fact that they want to build 30,000 homes over five years. There are a couple of caveats to that promise from the government. Firstly, if you look at the fund, they're saying that they can build each house for $83,000—$83,000 per home—so 30,000 homes at the princely sum of $83,000 a home. I will go to my electorate and I can assure members opposite that people in my electorate would say, 'We would love one of those'—an $83,000 home. Secondly, even if we accept this promise of 30,000 homes over five years—that's 6,000 homes a year; it's hardly an agenda that would get too many people excited; it certainly hasn't got the Senate very excited—over that same period, the government wants to bring in 1½ million. Do you remember Kevin Rudd's 'big Australia'? Well, Kevin Rudd's 'big Australia' is back, and it's real under this government. Their great answer to their 'big Australia' is: 'Don't fear Australians that 1½ million people are coming. We've got a plan to house them. We're going to build 30,000 homes for those 1½ million people.' It is quite comical that, if you want to call it an agenda, that is the housing agenda of this government. For renters out there who are paying 11½ per cent on average more—it's 12.9 per cent for people in Sydney; it's 13 per cent for people in my home city of Melbourne; it's 16 per cent for people in Perth—they don't laugh. They see those additional 1½ million migrants, with no plan to build more housing, as further increases in their rent. The other thing we don't hear from this government is anything about first home buyers. You do not hear a word out of this hapless housing minister about first home buyers. There's no surprise that first home buyers are now down to levels we have not seen since the Gillard government. New home purchases are down nearly 40 per cent. So the sad thing for Australians is that, because new home starts and new home purchases are down, we haven't actually seen the worst of it. The Prime Minister has the gall to talk about supply at that despatch box, and yet supply is dropping. Supply has dropped off the edge of a cliff and we're seeing nothing from this government—no action whatsoever! It would be remiss of us to have an MPI on housing and not discuss what I think are the forgotten Australians at the moment. The forgotten Australians are people with a mortgage. Under this government, people with a mortgage are paying nearly $1,900 a month more in interest repayments. An opposition member: How much? Mr SUKKAR 242515 Nearly $1,900 a month more in interest repayments. The Prime Minister promised before the election that he would deliver cheaper mortgages. Where are those cheaper mortgages? Who's got one of those cheaper mortgages? Do any of the members opposite have one of those cheaper mortgages that they could tell us about? I invite those members of the government who are going to speak on this MPI to outline who on earth has one of those cheaper mortgages that the Prime Minister promised before the election. When I say there's no agenda from this government, unless you want to be very generous and call the Ponzi-scheme money-go-round an agenda, I'm probably being a bit hard, because the government did promise before the election their help-to-buy scheme. I can't say I was particularly excited about it, and I don't think many Australians were excited at the prospect of having the Australian government owning a portion of their home and having the Prime Minister, figuratively, at the kitchen table with them. But they did take it to an election. I'm looking at my phone now; it's 8 August. It was promised that the help-to-buy scheme would start on 1 January 2023. Every time the Prime Minister is asked about his so-called promise around cheaper mortgages, he says, 'Well, no, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about our help-to-buy scheme.' Where is it? It's eight months late. What on earth has this Minister for Housing been doing? This hapless housing minister can't even show up in the chamber for this MPI and defend her woeful legacy. I can understand why the minister wouldn't want to show her face in this chamber, with the record she's got, but she should at least front up and try and put up some sort of paltry defence. What we see from this government is priorities that are not aligned with Australians. I can assure the House and the members of the government that we are absolutely committed to making sure that every single Australian has a realistic prospect of owning their own home. The government has waved the white flag. The government has given up. The government has said, 'We'll build 6,000 homes over five years while we bring in 1.5 million people,' as their great answer. We on this side of the House are saying to every single Australian: we will be doing everything we possibly can to give you the greatest opportunity to own your home. We cannot, as a generation, accept younger Australians looking forward to their career and their life and getting married and having children but giving up on the opportunity that every generation before them has had to own a home. This government has sold you out. This government has forgotten about you. But I assure those Australians that the Liberal and National parties are just as committed to homeownership now as we ever have been. The help-to-buy scheme was supposed to start on 1 July. I want to give the government some credit. In recent times they have tried to take some credit for the coalition's Home Guarantee Scheme. Congratulations for continuing the vastly successful Home Guarantee Scheme, which helps people buy a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. It helps single parents, 85 per cent of whom are single mothers, to purchase a home with a two per cent deposit. But guess what. You can't run off the fumes of the former government forever. You've got to come up with some policy and deal with the challenges in front of Australians. If you're renting, you're worse off. If you're saving for a new home, you're worse off. If you've got a mortgage now, you're worse off. Every single Australian is suffering because of the neglect and lack of planning from this government. I can assure those Australians that the Liberal and National parties have not given up on you. 15:30 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The member for Deakin mentioned 'comical', and you could not get a more comical topic— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I ask those members opposite to leave the chamber quietly. You were heard in silence. I appreciate the same favour being returned. Mr KEOGH 249147 Quietly because they are in disgrace! You couldn't get a more comical topic for an MPI than the one that we have just heard today. This week is Homelessness Week. The theme for homelessness week this year is 'It's time to end homelessness'. We reintroduced last week, the week before Homelessness Week, our Housing Australia Future Fund Bill and its related housing bills into the House of Representatives. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a $10 billion commitment to provide the safe and affordable housing that Australians need. It's for victims of family and domestic violence. It's for First Nations communities. It's for veterans. Reintroducing these bills demonstrates our government's commitment to using every process available for this important legislation, which will ensure that we can build tens of thousands of new homes for Australians, because we are actually committed to this task, unlike those opposite. The reintroduction, of course, provides the opportunity, after the speech we've just heard, for the coalition and the Greens to stop playing politics and to support our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. This isn't about politics; it's about putting roofs over people's heads. Our government is committed to making sure that Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home—those Australians that are fleeing family and domestic violence or need transitional housing, and those frontline workers that helped us so much during the pandemic, like our police and our nurses. We are committed to improving and repairing housing in remote Aboriginal communities. And, of course, $30 million is to come from this fund to support veterans that are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. In addition to this, we've already announced the new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. The member for Deakin likes to make fun of the Help to Buy Scheme, yet we see that the state equivalents of this scheme, like that operating in Western Australia through Keystart, have been wildly successful in getting tens of thousands of people into a home that they would never dream of being able to become an owner of, because of the situation they find themselves in. Government support like this Help to Buy Scheme is what is enabling that to occur. As part of last year's budget we expanded the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, with a $46.2 million investment that not only supports our serving personnel but our ex-serving personnel to get access to buying their own home as well. We committed to and are delivering $3.6 million for the Scott Palmer Services Centre in Darwin to support our veterans that find themselves homeless in the Top End, because we have an obligation to support our veterans. Too many veterans across this country are experiencing homelessness. Combating veteran homelessness is a key priority for the Albanese government. Nearly 6,000 contemporary veterans can experience homelessness in any one year. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has worked with the community housing sector, including through a partnership with the Community Housing Industry Association and ex-service organisations, to develop veteran-specific resources to assist community housing providers in supporting veterans who are experiencing homelessness. These resources also include an industry standard for providing housing services to veterans. On census night, more than 1,500 Australian veterans were homeless. In addition to those veterans who were homeless on census night, we also know there were many who were experiencing marginal housing, that are at risk of homelessness: those who are couch surfing, staying with family or friends, in temporary accommodation or in a caravan park. Many veterans are at risk of homelessness in these circumstances. So, I say to any veterans who may be listening or watching today that if you find yourself homeless or at risk of homelessness, please contact the Department of Veterans' Affairs, on 1800838372 or Open Arms on 1800011046. Yesterday I convened the first of a number of consultation sessions that will contribute towards the development of our new Defence and Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Housing is a fundamental prerequisite in helping veterans who suffer from mental ill health. The risk of suicide in the Australian population is double if someone does not have access to safe and secure housing. So we know that, in trying to tackle the issues that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide is grappling with, housing is going to be fundamental to that effort. We also know that one of the issues that many veterans grapple with when they leave service is social connection, which is fundamental to wellbeing. It's very hard to grow social connection if you don't have secure housing in a location where you can grow those networks and build community. So I find it interesting that we have seen members of the opposition meeting with organisations like the RAAF Association in Western Australia that have proposals on the table right now for how they could support our veterans who are experiencing homelessness and would really love to have the opportunity to apply to the government to access the funds that we want to make available through the Housing Australia Future Fund and that senators from the Liberal Party are championing, like Senator Matt O'Sullivan. I'm glad to see him supporting that, but why doesn't he then vote for the legislation to enable the Housing Australia Future Fund? Instead of having silly debates like this one on the topic that has been put forward by the opposition today, they could be actually supporting the legislation that we were trying to get through the Senate and that we've now had to reintroduce into the House. I've been very pleased to meet with Vasey RSL Care from Victoria with the member for Jagajaga, who brought to my attention the important work they are trying to do in establishing new services to support veterans experiencing homelessness. They also want to be able to come forward and apply for funds from government, but we can't enable that right now, because the Housing Australia Future Fund is being blocked by the coalition and the Greens. We are serious about trying to resolve this homelessness issue that Australia confronts. We're serious about resolving it for all Australians. We are trying to improve this situation for people who are fleeing family and domestic violence, for our remote Aboriginal communities, for our frontline workers and for our veterans. Housing All Australians' report was handed down in May this year, called Give me shelter: leave no veteran behind. The report says: Australia is in a housing crisis. We don't have enough social, affordable and public housing for the people who need it most, including our veterans and other key workers. This has long-term implications for Australian society as we know it today. Doing nothing is just not an option. Let those words ring throughout the chambers of our parliament. And RSL Australia says, 'The time for action is now.' So many housing services, whether they are veteran-specific or otherwise, who wish to support our veterans, wish to support our broader community and wish to work with government in providing better housing options and opportunities for Australians are being thwarted because of the opposition coming from the coalition and the Greens. Instead of seeing the opportunity to get on with the job of providing this much-needed funding and support for housing in Australia, we have an opposition that is trying to politicise these issues for its own political purposes, instead of standing with women and children fleeing domestic violence, standing with our First Nations communities, standing with our frontline workers and standing with our veterans. So, in this Homelessness Week, it is time to end homelessness, and it's time for those opposite to get on with supporting the HAFF. 15:39 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Our housing crisis deepens day after day and will continue to do so under this Labor government. In my home state of Queensland the housing crisis is set to worsen to a worrying 20,000-home shortfall by 2027 unless swift and decisive action is taken. Rockhampton's vacancy rate is one of the lowest in Australia, sitting at a tight 0.9 per cent. This has left dozens of locals battling against each other to secure a roof over their head. At a recent Homeless Connect program held in Rockhampton, over 300 attendees presented for help. The actual number of those sleeping rough is much higher. Over 1,200 locals in the Rockhampton region are registered with the Department of Housing seeking accommodation. Unfortunately, experts in the field of housing believe the figure for those sleeping rough is double this amount. One attendee to the Homelessness Connect day, a young mum sleeping rough in her car with her 20-month-old, eagerly awaits the day she receives a call to say they will have a place to call home after months living in her car. Rental prices throughout Capricornia are on the climb, with the average rental asking price increasing right across Central Queensland. An increase by $53 or 12.6 per cent was seen this quarter compared to this time last year in Rockhampton, with locals in the suburb of West Rockhampton now paying an average of $420 a week. On the Capricorn Coast, renting a house in Taranganba has jumped to an eye-watering $585 per week. In comparison, the cost was $500 last year. First home buyers are now at the lowest levels. Only 7,646 first home buyers took out a loan in December last year. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported first home buyer loans were at a record five-year low this year. New house starts dropped by 6.6 per cent and new house approvals saw a drop of about 13 per cent compared to this time last year. The last time such loan commitments were this low was in June 2017, where it hit only 7,642 loans. This government is treading water while standing by a housing policy that provides no certainty that their investment of $10 billion will secure returns and no guaranteed revenue stream. The $10 billion borrowed will cost the government approximately $400 million per annum in interest, servicing costs on the debt at the current rate of four per cent. I am a numbers person, and the numbers just do not add up. Had the Housing Australia Future Fund been established last financial year, the Commonwealth would have lost approximately $370 million in addition to around $400 million in interest on what was borrowed. This brings a total combined loss of $740 million, and means not one dollar would have been available for social or affordable housing projects. After over a year in government, Labor's housing policies are falling to pieces. The minister for housing has walked away from Labor's key election commitment of building 30,000 social and affordable homes over the next five years, and will instead make a minimum of 1,200 dwellings available in each state and territory in the same period. This is significantly less housing in the same period to what was promised. Following the government's failed budget, a brash decision was called to pour $2 billion dollars into the states and territories coffers for social housing. The hurried nature of this announcement means there are no details of which new housing projects will be supported by this funding. Where was the detail of where these houses will be located, when they will be built and who will build them? This $2 billion splash of cash was smoke and mirrors to attempt to distract the Greens from the Housing Australia Future Fund. In stark contrast, the coalition had a strong record for supporting over 300,000 Australians achieve the great Australian dream by assisting them to get their own home, while more than 21,000 social and affordable homes were built through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. The NHFIC unlocked $2.9 billion in low-cost loans to assist community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings. The former coalition government's commitment to Australians in crisis is one of a strong track record, with policies that were proven to lift up those in need. 15:43 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton A little bit of housekeeping for those people listening in: this is what is called a matter of public importance, which occurs after question time. Normally, we sit here for question time and it goes for about an hour, or an hour and a half. After question time some of us duck out to refresh ourselves and get a drink, or something like that. I went out, and when I came back I thought I had walked into a meeting of hypocrites anonymous. I heard those opposite trying to lecture this side about housing. We saw the member for Deakin—I really thought I was in a surreal, bizarro world—trying to lecture us, saying it was a matter of public importance. But they forgot to mention the 10 years of neglect under them. We all remember that 'I don't hold a hose' prime minister. The member for Deakin misread it. He thought it was 'I don't hold a house,' so he followed suit. I've seen some crazy things in my decade and a half in politics, but I've never seen a minister run from his own portfolio so often and so hard as the member for Deakin did when he was the housing minister. He was the housing minister and he turned housing matters into on-water matters, so he wouldn't talk about it. Thankfully, the Albanese government, with its long history of cleaning up the mess left by the coalition, is taking immediate action. The member for Deakin did actually mention something that he is doing about housing. He's blocking our Housing Australia Future Fund. Getting into bed with the Greens and One Nation to stop people who are fleeing domestic violence and veterans from looking for housing—that's what the member for Deakin is proud of doing. What did we do? We have taken immediate action with the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator program, delivering new social rental homes across the country. We increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, and it was not mentioned by any of them. It was the largest increase in 30 years, and it was not mentioned by the member for Deakin. We supported that extra $2 billion in financing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation because we do take it seriously. I've an 18-year-old son and a 14-year-old son. I talk to them about the possibility of them and their friends getting into housing, and unless it's through the bank of mum and dad they almost have no chance. We are failing that generation. That's why we need to do more. That's why I cannot believe that the Liberal Party and the National Party would get into bed with the Greens on something as crucial as housing—something that puts jobs back into the regions, an area that seems to be forgotten by the Nationals. I remember when the Nationals were represented by farmers and spoke up for the bush. What are they now? Bankers, accountants and economists. They don't have any farmers anymore and they've forgotten about the bush. Obviously our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which we've reintroduced to the House, is something we care passionately about. All sensible Australians would. Anyone with children would know that we have to give that next generation a chance. We know that growth in our economy is linked to being a growing economy by having people come from overseas. I note they got the old dog trumpet out again. It's not enough to go with the Voice; they've also got the 'foreigners coming over the hill' line. They trotted that out again today in this MPI. We know that Australia grows when we have people come from overseas. So much of our economic growth is linked to that. So we do need to do more, and that's why I thought the sensible people in the coalition would get on board with that. There is a guy in the electorate next to me who flies down to Canberra to talk about housing and then blocks it when he's in his electorate. He campaigns against housing in his own electorate. But that's coming from the Greens political party. I know we've got the ridiculous Senator Hanson and her party. They're never a party of government; they're a party of objecting to everything. But I thought parties of government like the Liberal Party and the National Party would get on board with pumping some money into housing on this occasion. That's what we need to do. It's not about campaigning on something for clickbait for Facebook or whatever it is. We need to actually help people. I joined the Labor Party to help people. 15:48 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Housing and the shortage of housing is a matter of public importance, and I'm happy to rise to speak about it today. The cost of houses has doubled in my electorate over the past couple of years, as has rent. As we approach National Homelessness Week, most of us would see that there are more people on the streets and more people living in cars than there were two or three years ago. I note the Social Housing Accelerator Fund of $2 billion that Labor have announced. Whilst well-intended, it doesn't tether any of the states or territories to any outcomes. I think most in this place would be surprised—and I don't care what colour the state government is— Ms Lawrence 299150 All red, or mauve. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 I'll take the interjection, that it's all red, because over the past three years Queensland have sold hundreds of social and affordable houses. In New South Wales, they've sold $3.5 billion worth over the past decade, which equates to about 4,000 social and affordable homes. Victoria, to their credit, built 74 homes in two years. South Australia has sold 20,000 social and affordable homes over the past 20 years. That's a thousand homes a year. The Western Australian government sold off more than they built, and Tasmania sold off $50 million between 2014 and 2018. We're asking ourselves why there is a shortage of homes and why there is a 10-year waiting list. If I could ask the Labor government to do anything it would be to tether that money, to have outcomes that the states and territories must follow and, if they don't, cut their funding. We cannot continue to make the same mistake time and time again, where we're pushing money out the door—$5 billion a year to the states and territories plus another $1.5 billion for rental assistance—when the states and territories aren't using the money that we are giving them for the purpose of building homes. It is simply not good enough. I said that I didn't care what colour that government, state or territory was—and I don't. They should be held to account. Regarding the HAFF, I have to agree that it is a Ponzi scheme. It is $10 billion with the expectation that investment into equities will achieve a profit. There's always a risk. It was forecast that the interest alone in the first year would cost over $300 million. If we're going to make a difference to housing then we need to work together on all levels: local, state and federal. I'll give two examples in my electorate over the past term. The first one was in Kempsey. The local government worked with me and the state member then, Melinda Pavey, to convert a disused ambulance station into 26 one- and two-bedroom units for people facing domestic and family violence. That is currently being built. It was that collaboration between local, state and federal governments that made that happen. In Bellingen, with the Freemason society, the local government and the state government converted an old aged-care facility into 48 units for women over 55, a group that we know are the most vulnerable to homelessness. Those small steps, working together, are how we solve housing crisis. But we have to do it together and we have to do it now. 15:53 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I heard the sincerity in the member for Cowper's voice. He wants to be a part of a better option. I heard his sincerity in caring about housing and caring about his community, who are clearly struggling. The member for Cowper would be so much more credible if he came into this place and actually supported, with his vote, the facilitation and construction of not only more housing each and every year but also a fund that will be there long into the future to construct thousands and thousands of homes. If you go and speak to any of the community housing organisations that the member for Cowper was referring to, you know that they are pulling their hair out because the model that they have asked for—to give them certainty around long-term investments to get projects started in areas like Macnamara as well as in areas like Cowper—is here before the parliament. Those opposite come into this place and pretend that they have no ability to make change. Well, they do. They can come into this place and vote for a bill that will literally construct thousands of homes right across the country, and they can do it today. Instead, what they're doing is coming in here and complaining about the state of housing across the country, complaining about the fact that we're not building enough homes. Yet they're the ones working with the Greens and Pauline Hanson in order to block the facilitation of a government bill that literally legislates a fund to go each and every year into construction of social homes. Historically in this country it has been Labor governments who have used the federal government to invest in social housing, and the coalition have used every single opportunity that they have been in government to turn their back on the construction of social housing. In government it has been their ideological bent to prevent the federal government from investing in federal social housing programs. That is to the detriment of our country. Yet we come into this place offering them an opportunity, saying that we are in an unprecedented situation where we need to build more homes, and they turn their back on the Australians who need a home—Australians who are fleeing domestic violence as well as veterans. For goodness sake. I was in my electorate with an organisation called South Port Community Housing, an organisation that does great work. They're based in South Melbourne, an area where there is a really high percentage of social housing. I am so proud to be the representative of an area like South Melbourne, which does have a very large social and public housing community. They are great people. For many of them, South Melbourne has been their home for a generation; their families have been there. It is really important that they maintain their connection with our local community. South Port Community Housing have a number of places. The particular one I visited is a building that they own, but it is not fit for purpose. It needs an upgrade; it needs to be redeveloped. The Housing Australia Future Fund is exactly the mechanism that South Port Housing need in order to get their finances right to turn this into a major new social housing hub in my electorate. It is in an amazing location, right next to public transport, right next to infrastructure, right in the heart of Melbourne—exactly where housing and social housing should be, integrated with our local community. Yet the people opposite come in here and complain that we're not doing enough. It's ridiculous. You can't come in here and not vote for the construction of social housing and then complain that the government's not doing enough. Why don't they turn around and actually do something constructive, instead of making it a political issue at each and every opportunity? It's exactly the same as what they're doing in energy. They come in here and complain about the cost of energy facing the people we represent, and then they go and literally vote for higher energy prices. It's absurd. They come in here and complain about the cost of living, yet each and every time we try to make industrial relations changes or try to lift the wages of hardworking Australians they oppose it. Instead of just looking for the baseline political issue, those opposite could come into this place and actually vote for the construction of housing. They could vote for lower energy bills. They could vote for an increase in the wages of hardworking people. Then of course there's the Greens, who are calling for the federal government to legislate on rent caps. Well, even if we did, it wouldn't have an effect. We don't have the constitutional power to do so. What we do have the constitutional power to do is invest in the construction of social housing homes. That's what we can do. That's the power that we do have. And the Greens are choosing to deny the construction of social housing homes because they want us to do something that we don't have the power to do. Instead of these political games by this merry gang of coalition over there, why don't we come in here and actually make the change that the Australian people deserve and the Australian people are asking us to make? 15:59 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders As the usually delightful member for Macnamara has just demonstrated, this is a government that likes to talk a lot about all the help it's providing to Australians, but when push comes to shove they haven't got much to show when it comes to addressing Australia's housing crisis. In Flinders we have hundreds if not thousands of people who live rough along our foreshore. In 2021 the Salvation Army's Social Justice Stocktake suggested that some 2,600 people are homeless. I meet pretty regularly now with those who provide emergency accommodation for the homeless in my electorate. I single out for commendation and gratitude two of the most extraordinary and tireless community leaders, Ben Smith of the Mornington Community Support Centre and Jeremy Maxwell of the Southern Peninsula Community Support and Information Centre, who, together with their teams, do the most amazing job looking after those in need and especially those sleeping rough in our foreshore precincts. They tell me that the peninsula is now the sixth-largest rough sleeping area in the state of Victoria. Emergency, public and low-cost housing is desperately needed in my electorate, now more than ever. Funding for emergency relief is also needed more than ever, yet this Labor government has reduced funding to CISVic, resulting in a 20 per cent cut in funding to these two services while they face a 50 per cent increase in demand for help. The peninsula is also in desperate need of affordable worker accommodation. My shire recently told me that the median rent for a home on the peninsula surpassed the median rent for Greater Melbourne last year. For those who work in our hospitals, schools, the local TAFE, aged care, restaurants and hotels, affordable accommodation is almost impossible to find. During the break in sittings, I convened an aged-care and retirement-living roundtable, and the representatives of The Bays in Mornington, Western Port Bay Care Community and Village Glen told me that roughly a third of their workforce now come from beyond our LGA boundaries. At the same time, we have many dependent on benefits. More than 22,000 of my constituents are pensioners. Some are being forced from their low-rent homes because the landlord has to find extra cash to pay the mortgage, the land tax and surging rates. Over the weekend, the evening news reported that around 30 per cent of properties up for auction that weekend in Victoria were investor owned. Why would investors providing much-needed rental stock be selling out? I can tell you why. It's nine to 10 per cent interest rates. Investor interest only rates today are at 9.39 per cent with CommBank and 9.32 per cent with the NAB. This is smashing landlords and renters alike and has caused immense financial pain on the peninsula. Back in 2016, it cost $330 a week to rent an entry-level house, and the median house price on the peninsula was $380 a week. In the 12 months to December 2022, an entry-level house cost $480 to rent, and the median house rental was $575 a week. Those who have already got into the market to own their own homes are also doing it tough. A third of the dwellings in my electorate are mortgaged. At the last census, 15 per cent of them were already spending more than 30 per cent of their income on their interest repayments. But today the average Australian family mortgage is $750,000. It's now costing them about $1,800 or $1,900 more each month. That's roughly $22,000 extra a year after tax. That's the price of a new Hyundai Venue or Toyota Yaris. They've got to come up with the money for a new car just in interest repayments every year. Why is this happening? It's happening because Labor can't tame inflation and doesn't have a plan to address it, leaving all the heavy lifting to the RBA. We still have one of the highest core inflation rates amongst advanced economies—higher than France, Germany, Italy, the USA, Japan and Canada. Our economic growth is half the OECD average. We have seen a record collapse in labour productivity, flatlining GDP per capita, the highest collapse in real wages on record and, to top it off, $185 in new spending to keep stoking the inflation fire. What is the result of this mismanagement of the Australian economy? A further degradation in confidence and investment, further constraining the supply in housing. Building approvals have halved in Mornington, from over 260 in the 2016-17 year to 130 last year. Building approvals are down by a third in Rosebud, Capel Sound and McCrae. In Somerville, one of the fastest growing areas in my electorate, building approvals are down by 40 per cent. Labor has concocted the most bizarre plan to address the housing crisis: a giant Ponzi scheme to create new homes on the never-never. It's so bad that even the Greens hate it, and they're hardly fine friends of good policy. This government is reintroducing its failed housing bill, which would have it borrow $10 billion on the nation's credit card to put in a fund with no certain return, no guaranteed revenue, no brick laid and no door hung. 16:04 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck There are a lot of people around the country right now with football fever. The Matildas have captured the imagination of the nation, and we are right behind them in their quest for glory at the FIFA Women's World Cup. It is brilliant, it is exciting, and I am loving the passion and enthusiasm for women's sport. Yet here we have the coalition with two right feet and kicking their own goal. This MPI from the member for Deakin is the football equivalent of forgetting which way you're going on the field, tearing the wrong way down the wing, sending a sweet cross into the box and slotting a divine header right past your own keeper. If it weren't such a serious national issue, it might actually be funny. Housing is a very important issue in Hasluck, and my electorate in Western Australia has 53 per cent of householders paying a mortgage and a further 18 per cent renting. In some parts of the electorate, the percentage is much higher. The suburbs of Brabham and Henley Brook are Perth's most mortgaged suburbs, with over 73 per cent of residents paying off their homes. Hasluck changed hands at the election last year, and one of the reasons that Hasluck changed hands was housing. Mortgage and rental stress are real. Social and affordable housing is a real issue. People are concerned to see that everyone has a roof over their head. When voters went to the polls in Hasluck on 21 May last year, they went to the polls knowing that the Albanese government would be making serious investments in housing. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a significant part of that package of housing affordability measures. This morning, Senator David Pocock hosted a briefing by Everybody's Home. Everybody's Home is backed by organisations across a wide range of housing support interests. They presented their report Brutal reality: the human cost of Australia's housing crisis. The report is essential reading, and members here who read that report and understand the stress that people are under must surely vote for any and every measure the Minister for Housing brings before this parliament. Senator Pocock is on the record as saying that he wants more, but he's also smart enough to know that the bill is a great start. He's backing the Housing Australia Future Fund. Likewise, the Jacqui Lambie Network is supporting passage of the bill, and I commend Senators Lambie and Tyrrell for their support. There's a housing crisis, and those senators are doing the right thing. The last time the bill came before the parliament, we had the Greens and the coalition in bed with each other on this bill—tossing and turning I bet. It's got to be an uncomfortable relationship. I wonder what they think when they roll over during the night and their eyes lock. What do their constituents think? We heard earlier from the member for Capricornia. She spoke of 1,200 residents attending a town hall in Rockhampton, talking about housing affordability. Double that number, she reports, are potentially sleeping rough. There are rent increases of 12.6 per cent. The average rent is $585 per week. Clearly, she is not talking to those deeply concerned and stressed individuals, so I will. To those residents of Rockhampton, know this: the Albanese Labor government is delivering immediate action through the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, which will deliver new social rental homes across the country, in partnership with the states and territories, including in your town. We're working with the states and territories. We're working to create action for renters by expanding opportunities for home ownership and bolstering frontline homelessness services. For those experiencing that 12.6 per cent increase in your rent: if you are eligible, you'll be a beneficiary of the increase in the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. This was the largest increase in more than 30 years. We are hearing you, we are responding and we are acting, but we can do more. We can do more with the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is a $10 billion commitment. But we need you to get onto your phone and contact your local members, like the member for Capricornia, and ask her to support this bill. The Greens have to stop pretending that they have a mandate and pass the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. The Liberals and the Nationals, who have opposed this legislation, have to come forward, listen to what you're telling them and pass this bill because every housing body in this— (Time expired) 16:09 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I don't doubt for a second the intentions of Labor in addressing housing. There's not a single person I've spoken to under the age of 35 who doesn't raise this as an issue. It wasn't that long ago—there are several members of the Economics Committee here—that we heard from the heads of the banks that the most vulnerable people in this current economic environment are 25- to 29-year-olds. Their disposable income is absolutely gone on rent, their ability to save is almost zero, and the banks don't want to know them. Their opportunity to get onto the housing ladder is disappearing fast. We saw a report recently saying that if you're not on the property ladder by the age of 34, you're unlikely to get onto it after that age. So we've got a whole generation stuck at the moment. Addressing how they get into housing is a huge issue. When you jump on social media you see this great promise from the Greens about rent caps and how they're going to solve everything. They don't say how. We can dismiss it. We can laugh at it. It's not a credible solution. The member for Macnamara asked us to come here and work and provide credible evidence that we're willing to talk about this. I'm going to try and do that because I think it's important that we do hold the government to account. I want to talk about the Housing Australia Future Fund and be really clear: when we're addressing this, when we're criticising this, it's worth interrogating what that fund actually is. This is $10 billion that is borrowed, and there's a cost to that borrowing. It's then invested, and the difference between the returns on the investment and the costs will go into housing; it's not $10 billion. Last year we would have a been behind by $300 million in repayments before we got to the point of trying to get a return. This is not a strong, credible economic position to be starting from. I know the Treasurer has been at pains to try to establish the economic credibility for his new government, but that is exactly what this fund is. It is not a credible fund. Let's go further into some details— Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON 291387 I do like interjections. That's what fills me up with a bit of joy at the end of a long MPI. We have a commitment from the government of $500 million a year to build 6,000 houses. Forgive me, but the engineer in me does love to hear these sorts of numbers every now and then. The member for Deakin was right; that's about $83,000 a home. Let's get a view as to what the great Australian dream looks like under this housing fund, at $83,000 a home. At $4,000 a square metre, which is the going rate at the moment, that's a house four by five metres wide—just a little bit bigger than a single bay shed. That is the great Australian dream being pushed forward by this Labor government under this commitment. It is laughable. It is laughable and not defensible. It has no economic credibility whatsoever. That is what you are selling to the Greens and to the people they're talking to—and you wonder why the Greens aren't with you on this one! Not even the Greens want to live in these tiny homes. Not even the Greens support this. What you have put on the table does not work—neither the mechanism nor the outcomes. They are laughable. That is why Australia is turning its back on this. That is why the Libs and the Nats are standing together. Under any scrutiny whatsoever, this falls apart like wet cake on a turntable. There is nothing to it that holds up. We've heard it described over and again as a Ponzi scheme, and the criticism sticks. This does not work. The idea that you're going to borrow money and that the great economic brains trust that we see before us is going to work out how to invest that money and get a greater return than what it's paying is laughable. If someone emailed that to you like a Nigerian prince saying, 'I've got a great way to invest,' you would delete it and hopefully report it. That's the level of scam this is. This is not a credible solution, and it deserves scrutiny. You opposite have all been arguing for it without thinking it through and without acknowledging that those are exactly the details you're putting in place. At best, if you are able to confirm $500 million a year, what you're providing for Australians is 30,000 homes that are four metres by five metres wide. What a fantastic solution you're putting on the table for those 25- to 29-year-olds. No wonder they are turning to the Greens! At least their idea is fanciful; yours is without any economic credibility. It deserves to be rejected outright, and I will continue to do so with every breath I have in this House, because that's our job—to hold you to account. 16:14 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Housing shouldn't be about politics; it's about people—people who need a roof over their heads, people who need the comfort of shelter and all that it can provide. Centacare Evolve is a housing provider in Tasmania. They have a campaign for Homelessness Week, with artist David Adams, called Portraits of Centacare Evolve Housing, of tenants, that's Homes for All. It articulates some of the real stories of real people. Di says, 'Having a home means everything to me. I feel safe, cherished and so very grateful. I'm almost 80 years old and I feel 25. A home has done that for me.' Brian says, 'A home means a lot to me. I love the peace and quiet and a place to call my own.' I encourage all members to get onto the Centacare Evolve Facebook page and have a look at this wonderful campaign. What the government has been doing already is a $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. We have Commonwealth rent assistance going up by 15 per cent—a record in 30 years. We have another $2 billion in financing through the National Housing Finance and Investments Corporation. We have new incentives with build to rent. We're expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme. We have a $67.5 million boost to homelessness funding. We have $1.7 billion going to a national housing and homelessness agreement with the states. We have a $10 billion fund before the parliament, right now, that will no doubt go through this chamber with the support of this side and most of the crossbench—clearly, perhaps, at this stage, not the Greens and certainly not the opposition—which will then go to the Senate. It will be up to the senators to decide whether they pass this Housing Australia Future Fund. This is a Housing Australia Future Fund that has been called for by just about every single housing and homelessness agency in the country—National Shelter, Mission Australia, Homelessness Australia, Community Housing Industry Association, Everybody's Home. We even have the Liberal housing minister in Tasmania calling for the passage of this legislation. We had the Liberal member for Bass, Ms Bridget Archer, calling for the passage of this legislation, because she understands, in her electorate up there in Launceston, in northern Tasmania, how dire and diabolical the situation for homelessness is in northern Tasmania. So we are doing a lot. We are being stymied by the Greens and the coalition. We can't expect much from those opposite, but the Greens we expect more from. We expect them to get behind people who need a roof over their head. The housing spokesperson for the Greens has belled the cat with his article in that magazine, where he has said, in writing, that he regards the Greens' opposition to the HAFF as a great doorknocking campaign opportunity to mobilise their base. It's not about the people who need a roof over their head; it's about the Greens increasing their vote in the inner cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. It's a disgraceful proposition. They are holding vulnerable people—women and children escaping domestic violence, veterans, people who need a roof over their head—hostage to this letterboxing campaign by the Greens. I urge them to get behind this legislation when it goes before the Senate. And we have the housing shadow minister—who was a hopeless housing minister. He never met with homelessness groups when he was minister. He was a housing and homelessness minister who refused to meet with the homeless. He said that the homelessness situation wasn't his job, that it was up to the states. That's a position we reject. We are in Homelessness Week right now. We have 122,500 Australians tonight who won't have somewhere to sleep other than maybe couch surfing with a mate, sleeping in a car or sleeping under a bridge somewhere. It's not good enough and we are desperate to attend to this. We have plans before the parliament. We know the shadow minister's not interested. We are. We have Tasmanian figures. We have 4½ thousand people on our housing waiting list, which we want to bring down. Six thousand homes will be built in Tasmania over the next five years, if the HAFF goes ahead, and 30,000 homes across the country over the next five years. It will be a perpetual fund that will build homes, each and every year, into perpetuity. What this MPI is really all about is a dog whistle to mortgage holders. What we know is that interest rates and inflation started going up under those opposite, and they refused to do anything about it in their last budget. They had the chance to bring down the pressure on inflation and interest rates. They didn't do it. Only this government is posting budget surpluses and can provide the careful economic management that's needed to increase supply in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion is now concluded. BILLS 44 BILLS Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 44

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 44 16:19 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle In accordance with standing order 133, the question will now be put on the motion moved on the second reading speech for the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter before the House is the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. The question is that the bill be read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 53517 As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resulted in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 45 16:26 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 45

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 45 16:27 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 45

Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 45 Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 46

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

Second Reading 46 16:28 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth When this legislation was first introduced, I think many stakeholders breathed a huge sigh of relief. The government's consultation for country-by-country reporting and changes to the thin capitalisation rules have caused concern for the impact they would have on entirely legitimate business activities. To its credit, the government accepted feedback from stakeholders and made sweeping changes to its proposal to both be workable and address the integrity issues that the government is legitimately pursuing. But that relief was short lived. It has now become apparent that there are new rules that have been inserted after the consultation, the debt deduction creation rules, that would, once again, have a significant impact on legitimate business activities. The rules would impact multinationals which loan money to a subsidiary in order to purchase assets from another subsidiary. The borrowing subsidiary is entitled to claim a tax deduction with regard to the interest expense. Each element of this is routine. Conglomerates often provide loans to subsidiaries, as it is cheaper than external finance, and related parties often acquire assets from each other. The integrity concern is that the parent entity may set an excessively high interest rate on the loan and allow profits from Australian businesses to be siphoned offshore. This is a legitimate concern, and I support the government's actions in terms of ensuring that we prevent this. The debt deduction creation rules, the DDCRs, are intended to deal with this concern appropriately. It seems that the stakeholders I've spoken to are broadly supportive of the integrity principle that the government is trying to pursue. However, they have serious concerns with how broadly these rules have been drafted. They're likely to capture legitimate business activities, denying a tax deduction for those activities and thereby creating undue distortion in the market. These rules are likely to force some businesses to seek external financing when internal financing is available, or to acquire assets from third parties when they are already available internally. They will also create an inconsistency when the same activity incurs different tax treatment for different business types. These changes, as far as I can tell, are not the intent of the legislation. They will increase the complexity and cost of certain business activities in Australia but serve no public benefit. There is no real justification I've seen for these changes, and, from my conversations with stakeholders and their submissions to the Senate inquiry, it is clear that they're unworkable. I'm certain that the government understands that the changes are unworkable and do not believe there is any chance of them passing into law in the present state. Given this, I'm not clear why the House is considering the bill. The legislation should be deferred until these concerns are resolved or discharged from the Notice Paper. I'd also like to share concerns with the consultation process. I think it's absolutely critical in this House that we engage with stakeholders to understand the impact that legislation will have and ensure changes are well targeted with minimal unintended consequences. There were two rounds of consultation on this bill, which is appropriate. However, I do find it concerning that the problematic parts of the bill, these ones that I'm talking on right now, were not consulted on. It is hardly surprising that problems emerge when policies are produced without the input on those important parts from those who are affected. The government does sometimes do better in this, and certainly can do better on this, and I think the government should, in the case of this particular bill, try again. Given all of this, I'm actually alarmed that the government is nevertheless asking the House to agree to this bill. When Labor were in opposition they were extremely critical of how the coalition governed, and promised Australians they would govern responsibly. I have to say that that is difficult to square with the claim on this bill. I also think that it is inappropriate for the government to try and pass legislation in this House which it surely knows is unworkable. Even if they are going to consult and defer consideration to the other place, I think the bill will then return to the House completely transformed for us to consider once again. I would like to ask the government to consider whether this process is the best use of the government's time. Perhaps it would be better to defer consideration by the House until the government can consult with stakeholders and prepare amendments. This is the point of my second reading amendment, which I now move: That the following words be added after paragraph (5): "(6) that parts of the Bill have not been subject to consultation but will have significant unintended impacts on businesses, which ought to have had an opportunity to review the proposal and provide constructive feedback prior to the Bill's introduction; (7) that the Government has an ethical and practical obligation to undertake consultation and engagement with stakeholders on all significant changes across all portfolios; and (8) it calls on the Government to: (a) defer further consideration of the parts of this bill not yet subject to consultation until concerns about unintended impacts have been resolved; and (b) establish an independent Tax Reform Commission, which could undertake genuine consultation on changes to Australia's tax laws and provide neutral, expert advice to the Government and Parliament". This amendment makes the point that businesses ought to have had the opportunity to provide feedback on the changes that affect them before the legislation was introduced, and it calls on the government to defer consideration until those concerns have been resolved. It also calls on the government to establish an independent Tax Reform Commission. There is a serious problem with our tax policy making institutions when a government can propose three tax measures—multinational reporting, thin capitalisation and debt creation rules—with each of them being problematic. An independent commission could provide the government and the parliament advice on how tax policy issues could be resolved based on expert advice and broad effective consultation. It could be based on the Australian Law Reform Commission, a Whitlam innovation that was built on by the Howard government and enjoys strong bipartisan support today. This would be a significant improvement to existing processes and would provide the community with more confidence in the proposals put before the parliament. It would be an important and valuable change to the policymaking process, and one that I encourage the government to consider. Today I'm also moving my consideration in detail amendments, which would simply remove the unworkable provisions from the bill. This would allow for the timely passage of the rest of the bill while the government undertakes proper consultation and resolves concern with the debt creation rules. This would be a sensible way for the parliament to proceed with this legislation. I hope the government will recognise it is simply not appropriate to ask the House to support legislation which the government has no intention of implementing in its current form. Finally, I'd like to make a comment on tax reform more broadly. This is a bill around tax reform. I have been very vocal in the House and externally in my support of tax reform. But I urge the government, when it is looking at these tax reforms, to develop an institute such as a tax reform commission and to use it to help develop detailed policies that would help improve the tax situation and the tax laws in this country. I believe that if we have that support for micro-reforms and for small-scale and technical but very important reforms, we will also help build the muscle for broader reforms for the tax system, which are absolutely critical for our ongoing prosperity, for equity in our communities and for other important social and economic objectives such as housing and climate action. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? If the amendment is not seconded, then the amendment will lapse, and we will go back to the original amendment which the member for Hume has moved. 16:36 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill, which will deliver on our government's commitment to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. This is good policy. It's an important reform and, more than that, it reflects something that I know is important to a lot of Australians, including many people in my community who have brought up this issue with me and who want to see multinationals paying their fair share of tax. This goes to one of those core values that we like to think we hold as Australians—that idea of fairness. Whether you're an individual or a big business, everyone who can play their part and pay their fair share should do so. We know there's work to do in holding companies to account, and we know that this bill won't fix all the loopholes and problems that are there, but it certainly is a good start. It will level the playing field for Australian businesses and it will increase transparency. It will help ensure that large corporate groups can't avoid being upfront with the public on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Australia is not the only country trying to bring in reforms of this kind. In fact, we are in a way playing global catch-up. There is global momentum towards ensuring that firms do pay their fair share of tax. It is in our interests as a nation to do this reform. It is the interests of shareholders in this country that they have more information. It is also in the interests of these companies, who want the social licence to operate in our country, to have these rules in place and abide by these rules. This government knows there is more to be done on multinational taxation. Two-fifths of multinational profits are currently booked through tax havens. That's $100 billion of Australian money in places like Panama and the Bahamas, where the tax rates are very low. Estimates suggest 80 per cent of the money in those tax havens is money that is in breach of other countries' tax laws. These are tax avoidance mechanisms, but they are also places where we know the consequences of that avoidance can be dire. Terrorists, kidnappers, crime syndicates and drug lords all store their money in these types of places. They are not places that Australian businesses should be transferring their money to. Tax havens are an issue for us here in Australia, but they are also a global issue. As I said, it is a problem that the global community is trying to tackle, and it is something that Australia should be part of cracking down on. I know there have been consequences from this type of tax avoidance and issues with multinationals not doing the right thing. In my home state of Victoria, we had a case a few years ago of a tyre dump that had been transferred to a company in Panama, all in order to avoid their obligations. There were nine million tyres sitting at that dump and, by shifting the ownership off to Panama, the owners were attempting to avoid liabilities that they would otherwise have been held to. That is not acceptable. Our communities do not want that to be the type of business environment that this country allows. It is the sort of issue the government is hoping to address through this bill and through its work on multinational taxation. In the face of what we know about the avoidance that is happening in Australia and globally, it is remarkable that those opposite have criticised this government for taking action on this issue. The member for Deakin and Senator Hume from the other place put out a media release that criticised the Prime Minister for wanting to do more on multinational taxation. That is so out of step with community sentiment. It is so out of step with where our business community should be in terms of the social licence to operate, in terms of making sure that they are upholding the standards that our community expects of them and in terms of making sure that they are holding fast to that ideal of fairness. While those opposite were in government, they tinkered around the edges. They nibbled at the edges. They pretended they wanted to take action but, in fact, their inaction made it clear: they weren't on the side of Australians; they were on the side of the multinationals. In the lead-up to the election last year, the coalition told Australians not to support anyone proposing to raise taxes on multinational tax dodgers. Just contemplate that for a minute. They said to the Australian people: 'Don't support a party proposing to make sure that companies in this country don't avoid their tax obligations by sending money overseas.' It really is almost incomprehensible, even from those on the other side. When Labor were last in office, the coalition voted against our multinational taxation measures, including a measure that recently saw Chevron paying an additional $300 million in tax. Those opposite abandoned multiple multinational tax measures which were ready to go. They took things down a few gears. They put things on the go-slow. They made it clear, once again, that they are not on the side of the Australian community. They are not on the side of Australian individuals who do the right thing—who file and pay their taxes. They are on the side of multinationals who choose to not face and not meet their tax responsibilities. In 2021 a group of countries from right across the world came together to reach a deal on taxation that is an important step in the right direction on multinational taxation. More than 100 countries were part of this important deal. Australia is playing its part under that. This government is working to see the measures that were part of that implemented. Do you know who isn't playing their part in that global framework and joining with like-minded countries to say tax avoidance isn't acceptable? Those opposite. They are walking away from the issue of multinational taxation. They are at odds with the reality that this problem is deeply unfair to many Australian firms, who are left battling an unequal playing field. If you're a new startup business in Australia, you are very unlikely to be banking in the Bahamas. You will not be out there finding an accounting trick that takes you through the Cayman Islands. You don't have an army of lawyers, accountants and consultants sitting in a conference room working to find every possible loophole they can. Instead, you are working hard to come up with a business model for your company. There is enough for you to do without having to face the inequity of big multinational firms and tax dodgers who are tipping the scales in their own favour and using tax havens to cheat Australian businesses who are doing the right thing out of competition and business they should have. Our government wants to level the playing field. We know that that is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do for Australian businesses who want to do the right thing and who want to be competing on a level playing field. This bill contains two schedules. Both are important to the aims this government is pursuing in taking action on multinational taxation. The first targets listed and unlisted Australian public companies to disclose their subsidiaries and where they are located. This will help in holding companies to account, particularly large corporate groups, requiring them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and about whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements. For example, this would apply if they were using a subsidiary located in a low-tax jurisdiction. The information revealed by these changes will help inform us as to whether tax laws are operating as intended in collecting the right level of revenue. It will give us the opportunity to conduct a better economic analysis. As part of a company's annual financial report, we will see this information in line with international approaches such as those already underway in the United Kingdom. It's an approach that aims to reduce the compliance burdens many businesses may face. From the time our government included these plans for reform in 2022, as we looked towards the election, through to now, we have been conducting valuable consultations to ensure that stakeholders have been heard and had their concerns understood in the work that is being done. So there has been consultation around these measures and how they will apply. The second schedule is a measure aimed at revenue raising. It targets a known tax planning arrangement to ensure that those utilising them are paying their fair share of tax. That's what this bill is about: making sure that people are paying their fair share of tax. It will limit multinationals' debt deductions. It will help to level the playing field for Australian businesses. The reforms will strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules and, as I said, will align Australia's approach with those of many other countries around the world—the United States, the United Kingdom and most of the European Union—in implementing earnings based interest limitation rules. There are real differences between the approach our government is taking—and, in fact, the work on multinational taxation that was done under the previous Labor government—and the approach we have seen from those opposite. Labor have a track record, and we plan to build on it. We will keep a focus on this issue. It is something we promised before the last election. It is something that I know people in my community want to see implemented. It is something that they continue to talk to me about. We are following through on that commitment. We know that it is an important commitment for the Australian community, Australian businesses and our country more broadly that we have these rules in place and that we make sure this key issue of fairness is being addressed through our laws, through the system, through the way we say businesses should be operating in this country. It is that idea of fairness that we all sign up to as Australians, the idea of making sure that the rules don't rig it for those who have an army of lawyers on speed dial, that the rules don't rig it for those who can make these kinds of complex arrangements and avoid their tax liabilities. We are supporting those who play by the rules. We are supporting those who are trying to start new businesses in this country. We are supporting those who are trying to do the right thing. We are making sure that those Australian individuals who do the right thing when they pay their tax on time know that there isn't one rule for them and another rule for that big multinational around the corner. That is a fundamental, simple thing that should really be at the heart of what we do in this place but has been ignored for too long. Those opposite have criticised the approach this government is now bringing to this place. That is disappointing. I say to those opposite: now might be an ideal time to reconsider that approach and the decision you've taken on this legislation. Have a chat to your communities and see if they're really saying: 'Yes, absolutely. It's time to stand up for multinational tax avoiders. That's what we sent you to Canberra to do. Please make sure you get on your feet in the House and say that's what you're there for.' That's certainly not what I'm here for and it's certainly not what this government is here for. We don't like it when someone gets an unfair advantage, when they find the loopholes to work their way around the rules that are there for a reason. We don't like it when someone doesn't pay their fair share. Australian businesses shouldn't be disadvantaged by going up against multinational firms and the tax havens they're running their profits through. It's not fair. Our government is taking action on it, and we will continue to do the work that needs to be done to fix it. 16:49 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I also rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill and to recognise the work of my good Canberra colleague the member for Fenner in bringing it to the House. I also want to recognise another champion for fair taxation in the House, the member for Fraser, and the contribution just made by the member for Jagajaga. In Australia, we have a situation where we have two-fifths of multinational profits currently going to tax havens. This equates to some $100 billion of Australian money sitting in tax havens, in places like the Bahamas and Panama, where there are very low tax rates and where, in one estimate, four-fifths of the money is there in breach of other countries' tax laws. These aren't just tax avoidance mechanisms. These are also the places where terrorist, kidnappers, crime syndicates and drug lords store their money. We have a moral responsibility to crack down on tax havens because they are a blight on the global tax system. It's laughable that the member for Deakin and Senator Hume, just a little while ago, put out a press release criticising the Prime Minister for wanting to do more on multinational taxation—laughable—particularly when, in their home state of Victoria, we had the incident a couple of years ago of the Stawell tyre dump being transferred to a company in Panama to avoid their clean-up obligations. Some nine million tyres were sitting at that dump. The owners attempted to shift its ownership off to Panama, to a tax haven, thereby avoiding their liabilities. We probably shouldn't be surprised by this approach to recycling, but this avoidance of responsibility is the sort of problem that this government wants to address. Over nearly a decade in government, the coalition tinkered around the edges. They made tweaks here and there, but throughout their term, they very clearly showed which side they were on—not the side of working Australians, but on the side of multinational tax dodgers. What a side to choose! And before the 2022 election, they told Australians not to support anyone that proposed to raise taxes on multinational tax dodging. Just think about that for a moment. It was the view from Labor in opposition that, when the international community came together in 2021 to strike a deal on global taxation, it was a step in the right direction in what needed to be done. Now, as the Australian government, we're working to see those measures implemented. During the 2022 election campaign, the Albanese government committed to ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax. That's why we are moving forward with this comprehensive legislation. The purpose of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 is to amend taxation incorporation laws to introduce new rules to protect the integrity of the Australian tax system and improve tax transparency. The OECD released its report titled Addressing Base Erosionand Profit Shifting. Subsequently, the OECD and G20 countries adopted the base erosion and profit-shifting action plan, which identified 15 clearly defined actions for implementation aimed at improving international tax cooperation and tax transparency. This plan was designed in response to a growing global perception that the domestic and international rules on the taxation of cross-border profits are now broken and that taxes are only paid by the naïve—a perception that must change. This government's approach is split into two schedules. Schedule 1 is designed to enhance multinational tax transparency, specifically the disclosure of subsidiaries. The measure in schedule 1 targets Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, to disclose their subsidiaries and where they are located, which is something that should be pretty desirable for those interested in transparency. This will hold companies to account, particularly the large corporate groups, requiring them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements, such as those through subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions. This information will support better economic analysis and help to inform whether tax laws are operating as intended in collecting the right amount of revenue. This amendment is part of the government's broader regulatory mix to improve corporate disclosures. Ensuring this information is in the public domain will facilitate an informed discussion on tax compliance, helping to build trust in the integrity of the tax system. Companies will disclose this information as part of their annual financial report, helping to reduce compliance burdens. This is in line with international approaches. For example, the United Kingdom has a similar measure already in place. This measure was informed by stakeholder feedback in August 2022 and April 2023. This is aimed at ensuring increased tax transparency. It complements the ongoing work to implement a beneficial ownership register and public country-by-country reporting, which the government is continuing to engage with stakeholders on. The intent is that increased public disclosure will lead to enhanced scrutiny on companies' arrangements, including on how they structure their subsidiaries and operate in different jurisdictions, including for tax purposes. From a tax perspective, the expectation is that more information in the public domain will help to encourage behavioural change in terms of how companies view their tax obligations, including their approach to tax governance practices, decision-making around aggressive tax planning strategies and potential simplification of group structures. Schedule 2 of this bill addresses issues around thin capitalisation. Thin capitalisation may be described as the process of financing subsidiaries with more debt, in comparison with equity, than would be normal in an arms-length funding arrangement. Such a process may be carried out for tax related reasons. Schedule 2 is a revenue-raising measure. It targets a known tax planning arrangement by limiting a multinational's debt deductions, ensuring they pay their fair share of tax in Australia, and helps to level the playing field for Australian businesses. This measure limits a multinational's debt deductions by strengthening Australia's thin capitalisation rules. By strengthening Australia's thin capitalisation rules, we can combat multinational profit shifting and tax avoidance by ensuring that debt and interest deductions are linked to an entity's economic activity and taxable income in Australia. This legislation has its objectives. You simply don't make too many friends when making multinationals pay their fair share. Some naysayers will argue that these amendments put Australia at a competitive disadvantage to other countries. Of course, they're not speaking in their own self-interest. But the system will not be a global outlier. Reporting of subsidiary information is in line with other international approaches—for example, the United Kingdom's listing rules introduced around 2016. Anecdotal feedback from some industry groups was that this change resulted in some companies simplifying their corporate structures. The reality is that the new rules bring Australia in line with other comparable jurisdictions around the world. Most OECD countries have adopted the '30 per cent of earnings' benchmark ratio, including the UK, the US, Canada and most EU countries. Each country has their own nuanced version of the rules. The final legislation has been designed to balance tax integrity with broader considerations, such as continuing to ensure Australia is an attractive destination for investment. Some will argue that this legislation needs transitional rules given the suddenness of the changes, but these changes are not sudden. This has been Labor policy for a long time. The amendments were first announced in April 2022 as part of the government's election commitment platform. They have since been subject to extensive stakeholder consultation, and the final legislative approach reflects this stakeholder feedback to accommodate genuine commercial arrangements as much as possible, noting that this is a tax integrity measure. These critics also want to know why there are no carve-outs from these amendments. The amendments adopt the existing exemptions within the existing thin capitalisation rules. This excludes smaller entities with less than $2 million in debt deductions and entities whose assets are mostly Australian. However, there are no sectoral specific exemptions. The use of third-party and related party interest is one of the simplest profit-shifting techniques available in international tax planning. This is a technique available to entities in all sectors. Excessive interest deductions or debt deductions are a risk to Australia's domestic tax base and are commonly used by multinationals as a base erosion and profit-shifting tax avoidance strategy. Representatives in the property and infrastructure sectors have sought an exemption on the basis that the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada provide some form of exemption. However, the Australian approach introduces an Australia-specific rule expected to be used by the property and infrastructure sectors, to allow genuine third-party commercial financing arrangements, such as with greenfield construction projects, to be deducted with no link to earnings, subject to some eligibility rules. These amendments will hold companies, particularly large corporate groups, to account on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, it's in the public interest that shareholders and the community have more information of this kind. This legislation represents the Albanese Labor government getting on with our election commitments and joining a global fight to stop companies shifting profits to tax havens. We on this side of the House believe that, if you make money in Australia, you should pay tax in Australia. It should come as no surprise to the House that it's up to Labor to fix this. Only one party in this parliament has the record in promising and delivering tax reform to ensure multinationals pay their fair share, and you only need to look back at history in this space. But, when the previous government came to office, they abandoned multiple multinational tax measures which were ready to go, and they've been on the go-slow on multinational taxation ever since. Labor has a track record here. We'll continue to focus on that issue in government because we believe it's fundamentally one of fairness. Australian business shouldn't be disadvantaged by going up against multinational firms that are channelling their profits through tax havens. If you're a new start-up business, you're not banking your money in the Bahamas, you're not looking for an accounting lurk to run through the Cayman Islands and you don't have an army of lawyers and accountants to seek out every loophole. Instead, you're working hard to try and come up with a new business model. But, right now, you face the potential of being cheated by multinational firms and tax dodgers who are using tax havens. We still have a lot more to do to level the playing field and support those Australian businesses, but this is a huge step in the right direction. I commend the work of the minister and the assistant minister, and I commend this bill to the House. 17:03 Ms 248353 Dobell McBRIDE (—) (): I'm pleased to rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. This bill will level the playing field for Australian businesses and increase transparency of large corporate groups, and I'm pleased to follow the contribution of the member for Bean. This legislation is important for all Australians as it will make a fairer Australian tax system that will benefit the millions of individuals and businesses who pay their fair share and make their contribution. At last year's election, we were clear—we could not have been plainer—that a Labor government would make sure multinationals paid their fair share of taxes. That's just what we're doing. This bill is split into two schedules. Schedule 1 of this bill will hold multinational companies to account, increase transparency and shine a light on the use of subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions—important work. Having companies disclose their subsidiaries and where they are located will also help reduce compliance burdens. This disclosure will allow the Australian Taxation Office to ensure companies are doing the right thing and paying their fair share. This, as other speakers on this side of the House have mentioned, is in line with other international approaches, with the United Kingdom having similar measures in place. Listed Australian companies will be required to disclose information on all of their subsidiaries within their annual financial statements, making things transparent, making them accountable. In practice, the disclosure of subsidiaries will mostly impact large multinational companies with complex corporate structures. Small Australian companies that do not have any subsidiaries would only have to disclose a nil statement, limiting any additional reporting burdens for many smaller companies. Schedule 2 of this bill targets known tax planning arrangements by limiting multinational corporations' debt deductions, making sure that they are paying their fair share of tax in Australia. This legislation is a key step in creating a fairer Australian taxation system and follows the lead of other OECD nations. It builds on efforts to ensure large multinationals are paying their way, paying their fair share and doing the right thing. Schedule 2 follows on from what international jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and many countries within the European Union, have already implemented. Like schedule 1, schedule 2 will help level the playing field for Australian businesses, including businesses in my electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast of New South Wales—contributing businesses, good corporate citizens. This will be done by limiting debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits. This is a new earnings-based test, and it will replace the safe harbour test currently in place. The current safe harbour test allows companies to deduct debt up to a threshold of 60 per cent of assets. It is estimated that, by the end of 2025-26, schedule 2 will raise $720 million in revenue. This change will help improve tax integrity while continuing to make sure that Australia is an attractive place for investment. It is a priority for our government, the Albanese government, to make our tax system fairer for all Australians—for individuals and for Australian businesses. Schedule 2 amends the already existing thin capitalisation rules. The amendment will not change the existing exclusions for smaller entities and entities with mostly Australian assets, which is important. This ultimately benefits small Australian businesses and helps limit the continuing tax avoidance of some multinational companies. Every Australian wants multinationals to pay their fair share, and now we're making them do it. This bill will help make the Australian taxation system fairer, levelling the playing field for Australian businesses—businesses that are doing the right thing and contributing, businesses in the outer suburbs, in the regions and right around Australia, including those on the Central Coast of New South Wales, the area which I represent. I have the opportunity, day to day, to listen to local business people, to understand the challenges that they face, and to listen to the solutions that they suggest. Businesses in my community want to make sure that multinationals are paying their fair share. They want a level playing field so that, whether they're a start-up or a more mature business, they have a fair go and multinationals don't have an unfair advantage. This bill, at its heart, is about fairness. I know that the small businesses in Wyong, Toukley, the Entrance and many other areas of the coast don't have subsidiaries set up overseas to shift profits made in Australia. I know they pay their fair share, and I know they want to contribute to our local community and economy. They're good corporate citizens. This morning I spoke to leaders from Central Coast Industry Connect. It's a not-for-profit limited organisation genuinely committed to developing a vibrant, connected and innovative manufacturing sector that provides strong employment in our region. I've had the chance to work with Central Coast Industry Connect since I was elected, and I had a good conversation with the leaders of the company this morning. They wanted to acknowledge that we've got some large multinational organisations on the coast that are doing the right thing—good corporate citizens that exercise sound corporate social responsibility—but they want to make sure that every large corporate does that. It's important that we strike the right balance. They told me that if those organisations are not paying appropriate tax or their fair share then it clearly disadvantages local manufacturers. The food and beverage industry is one of the biggest industries on the Central Coast. Whether it's Eastcoast Beverages, who are now available in the parliament, or companies who are just starting out, we want to make sure that small businesses, more-mature businesses—Australian businesses—have a fair go. That's a level playing field, and that's what this legislation intends to create. Central Coast Industry Connect and other business leaders on the Central Coast who I have spoken to have told me that those organisations aren't paying their fair share. If they're not paying the appropriate tax then that's clearly a disadvantage for our local businesses and manufacturers. There are no two ways about it—it's simply not fair. That's why this bill is important to me as a local person and as a local MP whose first job was making coffees in her family's small business in what was then Wyong Plaza. This bill will level the playing field and benefit Australian companies right around the nation, in every town, suburb and city and on the Central Coast, which I represent. Our government is genuinely committed to making the tax system fairer for every Australian, wherever their business is run. In the cost-of-living crisis, with many Australians doing it tough, including business owners, multinational corporations must be paying their fair share. This tax avoidance by multinational companies is not a victimless crime. When companies avoid tax through loopholes, the tax revenue that would be used to fund a range of critical investments in healthcare, education, infrastructure and aged care is short-changed. Making listed and unlisted companies within Australia disclose their subsidiaries and strengthening Australia's thin capitalisation rules will not only increase fairness, but benefit society as a whole. By requiring large multinationals to disclose all their subsidiaries, we can follow the lead of our international counterparts and deter multinationals from shifting profits made in Australia to overseas. We know times are tough. Many Australians are doing it tough. I also know that these Australians will benefit from this bill. 17:12 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I'm very pleased to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. I want to start by talking about an average household in my electorate of Paterson. The husband works in the mines. He's a local, and he follows generations of men and now women who've worked in that industry. The work is hard and dirty, but he gets paid pretty well. He knows that there are risks, and he's conscious of getting home every day to his wife and kids. He works 12-hour shifts and occasional overtime to ramp up the income. The overtime makes a huge difference to their life. It's a good, secure job, thanks to him getting a permanent shirt now that the same job, same pay legislation introduced by the Albanese Labor government is coming through. And the conditions are good, thanks to his Mining and Energy Union membership. The overtime kits out the kids for local sport and their extracurricular activities to give them every opportunity. He can ensure that they have the technology and the gear that give them the best chance of doing well at school. He provides a safe and secure roof over their heads, and for that he's very proud. He's underground for half the day and asleep for an average of about six. After an hour's drive each way to the pit and a few chores, he probably spends about three or four hours of quality time a day with his family. The wife is a nurse at the local GP practice and she too is working long hours, simply because there's a shortage of skilled medical workers in the region. She balances the workload and her family pretty well, but she probably feels, most of the time, that she's not there as much for her family as she'd like to be. She has an obligation to her employer and her community to work full time, and she knows that she's a valued member of both. She also knows that full-time work insures that her family have the means to live as well as possible. She takes great pride in her home and family and is grateful that cheaper child care is available to her family. It ensures that her kids are well looked after, and they are getting the tutoring that will ensure that they are well adjusted and good social beings. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Uluru Statement from the Heart 54 17:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to add to an answer that I gave earlier today. During question time, I said: Senator Cash tried to up the Barnaby Joyce comment and said, 'if we put the voice into the Constitution … we're effectively announcing an apartheid type state'. Those words were said by another, and Senator Cash agreed with them, but the order of the conversation was as follows. Senator Cash was a guest on the Sky News Bernardi program, hosted by former Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, on 30 April 2023, where Mr Bernardi said: … if we put the voice into the Constitution … we're effectively announcing an apartheid type state … In response to the monologue in which Mr Bernardi made that statement, Senator Cash said, amongst other comments: Cory you summed it up in one, Mr Albanese is asking the Australian people to put in place a constitutional right to make representations for a very small group of people in Australia, less than 4% of the population, to make representations to the Parliament and to the executive on any matter that concerns them. And this is a right that no other Australian will have. She went on to say, later, in the interview: … what is more offensive is asking Australians to divide each other on the basis of race. BILLS 54 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 54

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

Second Reading 54 17:17 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I was talking about a nurse in a typical family in my electorate of Paterson. She knows that full-time work ensures that her family have the means to live as well as possible. She takes great pride in her home and her family and she is grateful that cheaper child care is available to her. It ensures that her kids are well looked after and they are getting the education that will ensure that they are well-adjusted and prospering human beings. They socialise with like-minded and similar families. They have a good network of neighbours and parents, and their common goal is to ensure that their children are better off than they are. They worry, and they worry a lot. They have a big mortgage. They have a loan on their good car. The second one is old, and one day that's going to have to be replaced. Where they live, two cars is not a luxury, because there's no public transport and everywhere is far. Their credit card is under control but they do lose a bit of sleep over it from time to time. They are managing. But if one of them got sick or lost their job or major repairs were needed or—God forbid—one of them died, then balancing their good life would be absolutely shattered. They pay a lot of tax—at least 30 per cent of their income, in fact. They don't mind. They know that there's nothing surer than death and taxes, and they're happy to pay their fair share of tax. But they find it unfathomable that multinationals are bucking and cheating the system. They talk with their friends about their meagre tax deductions. That might put a couple of hundred to maybe a thousand or so bucks in the coffers. They talk about how unfair and how unreasonable the tax system is, when they see headlines of the big-business multinationals making millions in profit but paying next to nothing in tax. They just cannot understand it. They are bewildered—how unfair it is. Meanwhile, they are burning the candle at both ends, trying to make those ends meet, working as hard as they can—in the mines, at the local GP surgery—and trying to get the kids to day care, trying to get them to school and sport and all the other things. They're paying their taxes. They're doing the right things. They're good citizens. They donate when something goes wrong for a work colleague who needs a hand. They donate to the Salvos if they're at the pub on a Friday night. They're good, decent Australians, paying their tax. They think it's just not fair. They blame the government—and rightly so. For nearly a decade, those opposite, when they were in government, made some simple little gestures to appease the masses, but they actually didn't do very much at all to level out the playing field, to be frank. They quite simply didn't seem to want to. The Liberal-Nationals coalition backed in the multinationals. They wined them, they dined them—and they did nothing. They chose not to address the situation. They ignored their constituencies. They didn't listen to their local businesses or households. They worked for the multinationals, the conglomerates—intimidated by their power, fearful of their withdrawal, and mute on any sort of new ideas for how to bring them into a taxation system. I've spent the past seven years listening to the people in my electorate, whether they're workers like the two I described earlier or whether they're small businesses—or even bigger businesses. The Albanese Labor government listens to Australia, and we've listened to the international community as well. The whole global community has had enough of these multinational companies who just don't pay their fair share in tax. More than 100 countries came together in 2021 to strike a deal on global taxation. This is important, not only for Australians but for our standing in the global community. We want to be on the good side of the ledger and on the right side of history when it comes to cracking down on tax avoidance in our world. During the 2022 election campaign the Albanese the Labor team committed to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share in tax. The reforms in this legislation will hold those companies to account on their corporate structures and on their tax arrangements. All the hundreds and thousands of dollars spent on corporate lawyers and accountants, creating subsidiaries and the like to hide and minimise exposure to tax, will be disclosed. The game is up. Currently there is approximately $100 billion sitting in tax havens—Australians' money. It is sitting in places like the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and Panama. If that sound dodgy, it's because it is. But the rot stops now, and we are cracking down on it. It's just that simple. Over the past several years only 10 Australian companies have paid one-third of the entire corporate tax bill. This is extraordinary. And it must be noted that they are all domestic companies—good local companies, doing the right thing, paying their fair share of tax, if not more. Foreign companies represent one-third of companies that pay no tax. It is just incredible. This is why the laws must be tightened so that everyone pays their fair share. Efforts to avoid and minimise tax will be monitored, managed and limited. Tricky tax planning efforts by multinational corporations, such as debt related deductions, will be addressed. This legislation helps level the playing field for Australian owned businesses, and it increases transparency. Companies will have to demonstrate that they are paying the right amount of tax as the taxation system intended. Disclosing information is paramount to open and honest taxation revenue. Most OECD countries, such as the US, the UK and most of the EU, have already implemented earnings-based interest limitation rules. These amendments will bring Australia into line with these major economic machines—and that's a good thing. Let me also be very clear: there will be fewer than 500 companies affected by these changes. And when I say 'large companies' I mean entities with $250 million on average in revenue. All companies should be aware of their corporate structures and subsidiaries that operate through them. This is not new information that needs to be collected. It's not going to be more onerous on any of these companies. The large conglomerates already disclose this information to some degree. This amendment enhances this disclosure to capture all of the entity's subsidiaries. A wise person once said to me, 'Be proud of your work.' Good local companies and good family businesses and PAYE taxpayers declare and contribute—it is just that simple. We all have to contribute to society via the taxation system. The local roads we drive on, the highways we need, the airport that opens the world up to us, the netball courts our kids play on, the soccer fields that more and more of our kids are going to be wanting to play on after this magnificent FIFA Women's World Cup, the water we drink, the habitat we're trying to protect—taxes pay for these things. Taxes pay for our hospitals and for our emergency services. Taxes pay for Medicare and pharmaceutical rebates. Taxes contribute to the energy we produce and use. All of these services are provided by various levels of government and are paid for with taxes. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Government. I am proud that we made this commitment at the last election. I am proud that we're delivering on this commitment as a government. We said that multinationals would pay their fair share in tax, and this legislation is delivering on that election commitment. I'm delighted to speak on this legislation. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering. I'm proud to know that all of our taxes are going to be spent making Australia a better place for everyone. 17:27 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I'm very pleased to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. There are many attributes that aptly describe the Australian way, and one of those is the sense of fairness. We are an egalitarian society. We believe that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Surveys have found that more than 90 per cent of Australians believe a fair go is important. The term 'fair go' is one of the most pervasive and enduring expressions in Australian cultural and political discourse. Academics suggest the expression first emerged around the 1860s and has evolved, as we have as a nation, to embody the values that we all hold dear. But what exactly is a fair go? While its uses are many and varied and dependent on circumstance and context, the Cambridge dictionary defines and describes the exclamation as something you say when you want someone to act in a reasonable way. It is in this context that I refer to this bill that's before us. This bill seeks to simply direct companies to act in a reasonable way, because many have not and continue to behave in a way that is not reasonable. So, in good Australian vernacular, I say to all those multinational companies that are not paying their fair share of tax: fair go! Some of the biggest multinational companies do not pay any tax in Australia—zero tax! Vodafone, with an income of around $3 billion, paid zero tax. IKEA, with a total income of around $1 billion, paid zero tax. Facebook, with an income of $528 million, paid only 2.6 per cent tax. As many as 80 companies have paid zero tax in Australia for six years straight. There is something fundamentally wrong when a teacher, a police officer or an ambulance officer is paying a higher marginal tax rate than these companies. That is fundamentally wrong. In November 2022, the Australian Tax Office released its annual tax transparency report. The report revealed that, of the 2,468 large and medium corporate entities, 782—32 per cent or a third—paid no tax at all in the financial year, down from a high of 36 per cent in the 2015-16 financial year. The report also reveals that Australia has some of the world's highest levels of tax compliance. Large businesses had a tax compliance rate of 93 per cent for tax paid voluntarily. After compliance activities by the ATO, this figure rose to 96 per cent. This tells us that companies are mostly complying with our laws. It also tells us that our laws are woefully inadequate, and national companies know this and actively exploit it. Companies use various schemes to avoid paying taxes through debt shifting, registering intangible assets such as copyright or trademarks in tax, known as 'strategic transfer pricing' and debt shifting. This isn't just a problem in Australia; it is an unfortunate defining feature of a global financial system. It is estimated that, in 2019, close to US$1 trillion in profits earned were shifted from home countries to tax havens or countries with very low tax rates. Every dollar of foregone tax is $1 that we don't have to provide for services to Australians. We have crises in aged care, health, cost of living, energy prices and poverty. I could go on. If companies paid their fair share of tax, we could go part way to fixing some of the systemic problems facing our nation. Requiring companies to disclose information about their subsidiaries and annual financial reports and aligning our laws with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development by addressing the use of interest debts for base erosion and profit-shifting purposes, as proposed here, is appropriate and welcomed. I support this bill, and I look forward to multinational companies finally being bound by laws that give a fair go to all. 17:32 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon During the 2022 election campaign, the Albanese government committed to ensuring that multinationals would pay their fair share in tax. This legislation levels the playing field for Australian businesses and increases transparency. These reforms will hold companies to account on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum towards ensuring firms pay their fair share of tax, it is in the public interest that shareholders have more information of this kind. The measure in schedule 1 of the bill targets Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, to disclose their subsidiaries and where they are located. This will hold companies to account, particularly the large corporate groups, requiring them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and about whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements, such as through subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions. Companies will disclose this information as part of their annual financial report, helping to reduce compliance burdens. This is in line with international approaches. For example, in the UK, they have a similar measure already in place. Schedule 2 of this bill is a revenue-raising measure. It targets a known tax-planning arrangement by limiting multinational enterprises' debt deductions, ensuring they pay their fair share of tax in Australia and helping level the playing field for Australian businesses. Because debt is tax deductible, multinationals can adjust their debt levels and use related borrowings to minimise the amount of tax they pay. The increasing occurrence of this tax avoidance practice has resulted in international efforts, led by the OECD, to address tax integrity risk and directly limit debt related deductions. Most OECD countries, such as the UK, the US and most of the European Union, have already implemented earnings based interest limitation rules. The proposed thin capitalisation amendments in this bill will bring Australia in line with these jurisdictions. We have to do a lot more on multinational taxation. We have two-fifths of multinational profits currently booked through tax havens, which is an incredible amount. We've got some $100 billion of Australian money sitting in tax havens, places like the Bahamas and Panama, where there are very low tax rates and where, on one estimate, four-fifths of the money is there in breach of other countries' tax laws. These aren't just tax avoidance mechanisms, these are also the places where terrorists, kidnappers, crime syndicates and drug lords store their money. We have to crack down on those tax havens because they're a cancer on the global tax system. In Victoria, we had the incident a couple of years ago of the Stawell tyre dump being transferred to a company in Panama in order to avoid their clean-up obligations. Some nine million tyres were sitting at that dump, and the owners attempted to shift ownership offshore to Panama—to a tax haven—and thereby avoid their liabilities. It's the sort of problem that Labor wants to address—not only this sort of corporate behaviour but also, as an aside, to introduce a circular economy, where an owner of nine million tyres would see them as a great asset to be recycled and used as crumbed rubber to make our national regional and rural road system more resilient. But I digress. Over nearly a decade in government, the coalition tinkered around the edges. They made tweaks here and there, but throughout their term they very clearly showed which side they were on. When I think back, there might have even been a prime minister in the past, and other members of former coalition governments—I can't quite recall the details, but there was certainly use of tax havens. It has certainly been clear to us, and to a lot of Australians, that over the last 10 years we've seen that those sitting opposite were sitting there partially because they weren't on the side of Australians. They were on the side of multinational tax dodgers. Before the 2022 election, they told Australians not to support anyone who proposed to raise taxes on multinational tax dodging. Just think about that for a second. Labor takes the view, however, that the international group of more than 100 countries that came together in 2021 to strike a deal on global taxation has made a step in the right direction. As the Australian government, we're now working to see those measures implemented. The coalition have been walking away from the issue of multinational taxation despite this being deeply unfair to Australian firms. If you're a new start-up business, you're not banking your money in the Bahamas, you're not looking for an accounting lurk to run through the Cayman Islands and you don't have an army of lawyers and accountants to seek out every loophole. Instead, you're working hard every day to try and come up with a new business model so that your business can survive and thrive. But right now, you face the potential of being cheated by multinational firms and tax dodgers who are using tax havens. So we have a lot more to do to level the playing field and support those Australian businesses. You just need to look back at the history in this space. The coalition voted against our multinational tax measures when we were in office last time—including one measure which saw Chevron paying an additional $300 million in tax. I'm sure all local members can think of great ways that they could use hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for Australians in their electorates. When those opposite came to office, they abandoned multiple multinational tax measures which were ready to go, and they were on the go-slow—a very go-slow—on multinational taxation while in office, which was for 10 years. Labor has a strong track record in this space. The last leap forward on transparency was introduced by the Gillard government in 2012. Then Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, put in place the legislation that has ensured public transparency of tax payable by large corporate entities. The landmark changes allowed for the publication of the tax liabilities of large corporate entities, including multinational corporations. Then we had almost a decade of inertia on transparency and the on-again off-again approach to multinational tax integrity by those opposite. In the nine years from 2013 to 2022 leaders around the globe stepped up efforts to crack down on international tax avoidance by large companies and high-net-worth individuals. We had the Panama papers, the Lux leaks and the Paradise papers all reveal the deliberate sophisticated tactics global companies had been using to shift profits around the world in order to pay less tax. The problem of multinational profit-shifting is a massive one. Globally around $600 billion of profits are estimated to be shifted to tax havens. That's almost 40 per cent of all multinational profits. Yet the first thing the coalition did when they came into government was to hollow out the tax office, sacking 4,700 staff—fewer people to be looking into these sorts of behaviours. Two years into government they realised how much that was costing them and they set up a task force to plug the hole. They claimed the task force would restore billions in revenue, but that claim just highlighted how much the cuts they'd made to the tax office had cost Australian taxpayers. It had not occurred to them that depleting the workforce that were meant to be policing the tax affairs of global multinationals would come at a huge cost to the Australian tax base, so they announced a bold new tax avoidance taskforce and hoped no-one would notice they were just fixing the problem caused by their own cuts to the tax office. Funding that task force remained their go-to on multinational tax integrity even up until the 2022 election. It was their only idea, and it was generated out of the own goal they scored when they first cut back tax office staff. In 2012 the coalition even voted against the Labor government's laws to close a multinational tax avoidance loophole. They said it was retrospective and they couldn't support it. Was it retrospective? No, it wasn't. They were wrong again. But they still cast their votes against closing that multinational tax avoidance loophole. Then in 2017, with the coalition in government, that very same law was used to secure a $340 million judgement against Chevron—another mistake, but no contrition. They just patted themselves on the back. We even had the spectacle of former prime minister Morrison, the then Treasurer—he didn't have any other ministries at that stage, I don't think—claiming credit for a court outcome based on laws he actually voted against. (Quorum formed) I was reflecting on the spectacle of former prime minister Morrison, who was the then Treasurer, claiming credit for a court outcome based on laws that he actually voted against. In 2013 the Labor government introduced the biggest ever package to crack down on multinational tax avoidance. What did the coalition do? They voted against it. Labor introduced changes that increased tax transparency by allowing for the annual release of corporate tax transparency data from our largest and wealthiest firms, and the coalition voted against that too. The coalition have taken a meandering path on tax transparency, but they never end up taking us forward. In 2016 they were committed to a register of beneficial ownership to tackle the problem of Australia's unusually opaque share registry, but nothing ever happened. In 2019 the coalition had to admit close to the election that, actually, they'd killed off the idea. Those opposite might be sitting there thinking, 'Oh, that's Labor going back over what we did in 10 years or'—more to the point—'didn't do in 10 years,' but it is important to reflect on not only what we're doing on making sure that multinationals pay their fair share but what those opposite didn't do over 10 years. 17:47 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I think what people hate most about multinational tax avoidance is that, if you're a small business, it feels like the playing field is completely skewed, and it's not skewed your way. It's skewed towards the big guys, the multinationals who can shift money around, shift profit, pay themselves in a different country and create all sorts of schemes that allow them to avoid paying tax, things that small businesses generally not only can't access but, even if they can, don't do. I speak from experience on this. I had 25 years in small business before coming to this place. Going through a period of extraordinary growth in the late 1990s, I had an accountant who suggested to my business partner and me that we were paying way too much tax—it's because we were making a lot of profit—and that there were ways around it. We looked at him blankly and said, 'What are you talking about?' He suggested the Bahamas, I think it was. I could be wrong; I am not sure what the preferred tax haven of that era was. We were appalled at the suggestion, and it didn't take us long to find a different accountant. The ethics that went with that advice did not sit well with us. Now, multinationals don't seem to have the same sense of morality or ethics around them when it comes to making those decisions. These things in many places are not illegal, but we're saying very clearly that they are no longer part of how you do business in Australia. We're very clearly stepping out and saying that this is not good enough. If you want to do business in Australia, you will do it fairly and we will make you do it fairly. We're not talking about a small amount of revenue that is lost to us here in this place. It is lost to the Australian taxpayer, to the people who depend on the things that taxes pay for—the people who drive on our roads, the people who are in our hospitals, the kids in our schools. That's what this is really about. There is around $100 billion of Australian money sitting in tax havens, in places like the Bahamas and Panama, where there are very low tax rates and where, on one estimate, four-fifths of the money is there in breach of another country's tax laws. There are around two-fifths of multinational profits currently booked through these tax havens. This isn't just tax avoidance. Let's be clear. These are the places where terrorists, kidnappers, syndicates and drug lords actually shift their money through. There's a whole spectrum of things that we're talking about when we talk about multinational profits and the creation of these things. We have to crackdown on them wherever we can. Today is a significant step in ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share, just as the bill is named. They undermine confidence in the entire tax system. If we can ensure that multinationals operating in Australia pay their fair share of tax, we're not only going to lift revenues but we're going to increase confidence. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it will increase the accountability that people expect from all corporations. These are really significant changes we are bringing in for the broad consequences they will have, as well as for the specifics and for the businesses that they will directly affect. During nearly a decade in government, those opposite just tinkered around the edges and made a few tweaks here and there. They did not take any significant steps to stop and prevent multinational tax dodging happening. Before the 2022 election they told Australians not to support anyone who proposed raising taxes on multinational tax dodging. They said: 'Don't support the bunch who want to tackle the tax dodging that happens by multinationals.' In 2021 there was a group of more than a hundred countries which came together and were involved in a discussion. They came together to strike a deal on global taxation. We took the view that that was important to be part of—that were we to be in government, we would be standing with those hundred nations and that it would be a significant step in the right direction. We are doing what we said we'd do. As the Australian government, we are now working to see those measures implemented. Those opposite have been walking away from the issue of multinational taxation whenever they can. In spite of their proclamations that they care about small business—in spite of the things they say—their actions demonstrate they really don't give a toss about small businesses and are happy to have the playing field so uneven. Wherever that happens you are disadvantaging small business. Small business is already working really hard. We see that this is not only a sensible measure to tackle the tax dodging that some multinationals engage in but also a vote of confidence in good, honest, ethical Australian businesses. Let's look at some of the details that we're talking about. We talked about committing to ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax. That is a really broad, sweeping statement, so I think it's worth looking at the details. The pathway we've taken is: levelling the playing field and increasing transparency for Australian businesses. We have a firm belief that shining a light on things is the best way to increase accountability. These reforms will hold companies to account, particularly large corporate groups. It will hold them to account on their corporate structure. It will show whether they're operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. To paint a really simple picture, what we're talking about is company A that operates in Australia but has a head office perhaps somewhere in Asia. It might have another major office in Europe, but it might also have an office where it pays money to itself for a transfer of intellectual property or some other sort of service. That money, generated in Australia, will leave our country to be paid to another arm of the company. That is how money sees its way out of Australia without having a fair share of tax paid on it. Given the global momentum towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, including in the country in which that income is generated, it's in the public interest for shareholders to have information around this transparency. That's why schedule 1 of this bill targets Australian public companies that are listed and unlisted to disclose their subsidiaries and where they're located, because you might be shocked to know that that information is not always readily available. It isn't always easy to work out where their subsidiaries are, because they are Australian public companies. This will hold companies to account, particularly the large corporate groups, requiring them to be so much more transparent. I note that we're talking about companies whose subsidiaries or sister companies might be located in a lower-tax jurisdiction. The information will support better economic analysis and help to inform whether tax laws are actually operating as intended in collecting the right amount of revenue—a fair share of the revenue that is generated by Australian consumers. Companies will disclose this information as part of their annual financial report, helping to reduce compliance burdens. This is in line with international approaches. For example, the UK has a really similar measure already in place. Company reports already include financial statements, notes to the financial statements and directors' reports, and this will be an additional report that is required at the same time. It's the fourth element of a company's annual financial reporting. For most companies, the financial statement will already include some information on their subsidiaries. This disclosure will improve the information flow by requiring information on all subsidiaries. We obviously went and talked to companies about this. We went and had discussions last year from August through April, and it's a step change. We're not talking about throwing out the book and starting again. We're talking about an extra step to ensure increased tax transparency. The feedback is that it does complement the ongoing work to implement a beneficial ownership register and public country-by-country reporting, and we're continuing to engage with stakeholders on those matters. If you're wondering who will be impacted by this measure, in practice the disclosure is only likely to apply to large corporate groups which operate through these complex corporate structures. There are approximately 470 large corporate groups, and by that we mean entities that have more than $250 million of turnover a year. That revenue is a pretty high bar. If we're looking at the raw numbers, there are about 8,000 entities who might in some way need to make the disclosure. However, many of these will be smaller companies with no subsidiaries, and they will simply disclose a 'nil' on their statement. So, if it doesn't apply to you, you don't have to do it. This measure starts for this reporting year, assuming that we get the support we need to get this through the parliament. This is a necessary step. It's another step along the road. It's not the only part of this bill, but it does bring us in line with the United Kingdom, for instance. The second part of it is around thin capitalisation. I have to say that this wasn't something that necessarily rolled off my tongue—'thin capitalisation'—but it is something I'm familiar with. The thin capitalisation rules are really there to prevent multinational enterprises from shifting profits out of Australia by funding their Australian operations with large levels of debt in order to reduce their taxable income. They're laying on the debt. That reduces their debt-to-equity gearing, and therefore their tax payment is lower. There are tax deductions for interest expenses, and their borrowing costs may be limited. Businesses affected by this can be Australian entities that operate internationally, and some of their associates, Australian entities that are foreign controlled and foreign entities that operate here in Australia. Let's talk about what that means for schedule 2. Schedule 2 is a revenue-raising measure. It targets a known tax planning arrangement by limiting multinational enterprises' debt deductions so that we make sure they pay a fair share of tax in Australia. Again, that is levelling the playing field for every other business operating in this nation. The measure limits an MNE's deductions by strengthening the rules. For instance, it limits an entity's debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits. Rather than—pick any other number—we're saying 30 per cent is it. Another example of how it works is that it retains an arms-length debt test as a substitute test, which will apply only to third-party debt, so we're disallowing deductions for related-party debt under this test. These are some of the complex things that companies do to load their Australian arm up with debt. It's an earnings-based approach to debt deductions, and it ensures that any deductions that are paid are directly tied to an entity's economic activity and therefore its earnings in this country. This is a robust approach to addressing tax planning practices that some multinationals use. In the last few minutes I have, I want to remind people why this matters. It matters because we need a level playing field and we need everyone to know that the system is fair. When you have one part of the system that is profoundly unfair, it undermines the integrity of the rest of the system. We are tackling this. We're not saying, 'It's too hard.' We're getting in there and making changes, and over time we will ensure that there is absolute fairness throughout these systems. We're undoing the mess we've been left. 18:02 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Australia is the country of a fair go, not the country of 'anything goes'. When we see the lists, posted each year, of very wealthy companies that have not paid any tax at all, or paid only a pittance, the hackles quite naturally start to go up. A few years ago an Australian Treasurer, Hon. Joe Hockey, managed to simplify his party's policies for everyone by suggesting that there were two types of people: leaners and lifters. It was the sort of ugly, divisive world view that explains why we still see policies like robodebt. The coalition are the masters of piling onto people who are already doing it tough. When we turn the gaze to the other side of town, however, we can quite legitimately ask whether a wealthy corporate citizen is also a good corporate citizen. If they are making a million bucks or a billion bucks and not paying their fair share of tax—not funding schools and hospitals, not doing their bit for the very community they're making money from—then I think we can well identify them as leaners, can't we? This applies regardless of whether a company is domestic or international, but somehow it rankles with me even more when it's a multinational not doing its fair share, not pulling its weight. It's like someone you don't even know showing up at your house and helping themselves to the roses in your front yard. But we do know who the multinationals are—the large ones, at least. Technology companies, like Amazon, Apple and Google, operate all over the world, as do many mining and manufacturing companies. We know a lot about these companies. We know how much they are valued at, what their assets are and, to a great extent, their annual revenue, and that annual revenue is sometimes quite large. For example, in the case of the advertising revenue of Google and Facebook in Australia last year, the Financial Review noted that Google reported $8.4 billion in revenue but only $1.95 billion in Australian revenue, after naming the rest in its reseller arrangements with its international parent company. It paid $92.6 million in income tax. If there's anyone else who is paying 1.1 per cent in tax, please step forward. Facebook made $1.62 billion, but only $224.6 million in Australian revenue locally after accounting for its own reseller expenses. Facebook paid $42.8 million in tax. That's 3.4 per cent. These are ballpark figures, but you get the idea. They are great tax rates if you can get them. It's not the case, however, that the tax missed out on by the ATO and the Australian community somehow shows up on the ledger of another country. Rather, multinational companies shop around and station themselves in places where they can simply make the most money. The other side of the coin is that communities—not just Australian communities but communities all over the world—miss out on the tax revenue that they need. Some of these countries are desperately poor. There, the motivation to fix this issue is not so much a question of the fair go but, rather, is rooted in a severe need for predictable food, water, housing and social services. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 is our response to the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Australia is one of over 135 countries and jurisdictions that are implementing 15 actions to tackle tax avoidance. That list of countries includes China, the USA, Russia, the UK, most EU countries and many poor countries, which need their tax base to be firm and not eroded. The OECD notes in its action plan that globalisation has had many good effects. It has boosted trade and investment, supported growth, created jobs and lifted millions of people out of poverty. The OECD also notes that over the decades there has been a trend towards the evasion of just tax payments by multinationals and that, as a result, governments are harmed, individual taxpayers are harmed and businesses are harmed. This legislation also acts to improve the competition and dynamism in our economy. How can a new local player enter a realm of business where there is a dominant multinational in place that is hardly paying any tax at all? The new domestic player isn't suddenly going to have a headquarters overseas. They are here and are expected to pay tax here. It is hard enough for a new entrant in technology, in manufacturing or in whatever field of commerce, without having to compete on price with a dominant player whose tax burden is tiny compared with theirs. As the member for Paterson remarked earlier in this debate, Australians expect everyone to pay their fair share. An economy where new entrants are welcome is a more dynamic, more competitive and fairer economy. These changes will have useful effects, not just for the revenue base but in assisting the economy as a whole. The legislation does a couple of useful and reasonable things. Schedule 1 requires public companies to provide information about subsidiaries in their annual financial reports—completely reasonable. Schedule 2 amends the thin capitalisation rules by replacing the current asset base test with an earnings based test, as recommended by the OECD—totally reasonable. We have for many years simply put up with a worsening situation whereby corporations have been allowed the fiction of moving profits to locations where they have little or no actual activity and, conversely, failing to pay tax where their activity is in fact occurring, such as right here at home. This legislation is in the public interest, not just here but across the world. It is, as my friend the member for Bean said, a step in the right direction. Will it result in an act that remains unamended for the next 20 years? I sincerely doubt that. Should we wait until we're sure it is perfect? Absolutely not. We enact this legislation knowing that it is a start to creating a fairer Australian tax system and that there is more work to be done. Some corporations will do the right thing and respond constructively to these parallel and similar legislative changes in many like-minded countries across the world. Others will slide about the globe like pieces of soap, and that will require further action. This legislation was part of the Albanese government's platform going to the election last year. The Australian people voted for this legislation. We have a mandate and a duty to act, and we begin now. 18:10 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Multinational corporations who operate and generate profit on Australian shores should pay the appropriate rate of tax for that privilege. It's not an incredibly complex concept, it is the absolute expectation of the Australian people, it's a matter we took to the election and it is entirely consistent with international practice. I'll say it again: multinational corporations who operate and generate profit on Australian shores should pay the appropriate rate of tax for that privilege. These corporations operate in a robust and effective market—that's our market, the Australian people's market—provided by stable physical, economic and social infrastructure, all of which is either directly or indirectly supported by public funding. There is therefore not just a moral imperative but also an economic justification for these corporations to contribute back to the maintenance and development of the environment in which they operate. We cannot allow multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share by using undisclosed foreign subsidiaries and inflated internal debts owed to associated offshore companies that just magically happen to exist in low-tax jurisdictions. In the lead-up to the last election the Albanese Labor government made a commitment to ensure multinationals would pay their fair share of tax here in Australia—that those multinationals would fairly contribute to the society from which they generate their profits. This legislation represents our fulfilment of that commitment. We understand that maintaining a sustainable and equitable tax base is essential to maintaining a strong economy and that this is ultimately jeopardised when multinationals use these insidious strategies to avoid paying their fair share. When this happens, and it's happening now, a disproportionate tax burden is placed on Australian individuals and Australian domestic businesses. These are everyday Australians picking up the slack of these multinational dodgers. They are the teachers in our schools, the nurses in our hospitals and the tradies building our houses and our infrastructure. Whether they are employees or business owners, they are paying the price for a tax system which does not effectively hold multinationals to account and enforce the fundamental principle of our taxation system—indeed, of our society in general—that everyone pay their fair share. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, addresses the shortcomings of our corporate taxation system in relation to multinationals in two ways. Schedule 1 of this bill is about increasing transparency surrounding the tax-advantageous corporate structures employed by multinationals here in Australia. It will require them to disclose information about subsidiaries in their annual financial reports, essentially in doing so revealing whether or not they are profit-shifting to low-tax jurisdictions. Revealing this information will not only apply pressure on these multinationals and empower consumers to make more informed choices but also support more detailed analysis of the effectiveness of our taxation system. It will enable us to gather the data and better understand whether we are collecting an appropriate amount of tax from multinational corporations. It will also allow us to design modifications and amendments that ensure that our tax system continues to serve its purpose into the future. These measures are not extreme or unprecedented—nor do they place a significant burden on multinationals. They were informed by a stakeholder feedback process, and this represents the first step we're taking on increasing tax transparency overall. This is a cause that the Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to, and we're continuing to work on further measures, including a beneficial ownership registry, as well as country-by-country reporting. The second component of this bill is more direct in its approach. It's about limiting the capacity of multinationals to use debt instruments to shift profits offshore. Too often, large corporate groups use intercompany loans, sometimes with inflated interest rates, to reduce reported profits of their Australian subsidiary—or their Australian company—and subsequently reduce their tax owed within the Australian jurisdiction. This isn't to say that intercompany loans are inherently dodgy. However, because we often have very little information about how the terms were formulated and, indeed, the identity of the lending company, it is very difficult to determine whether the loans are legitimate or simply constructed to avoid paying tax in the first place. While schedule 1 will go some way to increasing transparency, schedule 2 will limit an entity's debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits. Currently, this is limited to 60 per cent of the entity's assets, and, in most cases, the new threshold will of course be lower. Tethering this limit to earnings rather than assets ensures that the limit is actually tied to the company's true economic activity in Australia. In order to ensure that legitimate business practices aren't unintentionally captured by this measure, interest expenses incurred above this threshold will be able to be carried forward for up to 15 years. This provides due flexibility to entities with significant volatility in their earnings. Australian companies are part of a worldwide group who will also be able to exceed this threshold if the worldwide group's net interest expense exceeds 30 per cent of earnings, which would indicate that their debt instruments are not designed solely to shift profit. The misuse of interest deductions as a profit-shifting mechanism poses a significant threat to both Australia's domestic tax base and the competitiveness of our domestic marketplace. Australian companies that don't have offshore subsidiaries or that aren't part of an international group can't shift their profits to tax havens and avoid tax like this—nor should they be able to. However, when multinationals operating in Australia reduce their tax liability, they damage the ability of our domestic companies, our homegrown businesses, to compete. In 2020-21 Australia's biggest corporate taxpayers were all Australian companies. Resources companies and the big banks made up the top 10, with supermarket retailers not far behind. While well-known Australian companies like BHP and Rio Tinto paid billions of dollars in tax, many of their competitors in the resources space were able to pay none. Chevron, for example, reported an income of $9.1 billion and a taxable income of over $100 million: however, they were able to pay a measly $30 of corporate income tax to the Australian government. That's $30 of corporate income tax from a taxable income of $100 million. I want to clarify that I am not trying to say that our domestic resources companies have it tough. I think BHP and Rio Tinto are probably doing relatively well—just fine, even. I am, however, trying to illustrate the scale of inequity that multinational tax avoidance can cause. Chevron is just one example in one industry of a competitive advantage gained by a multinational at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. In an increasingly globalised market, we must ensure that we adequately safeguard our economy and support domestic productivity, innovation and jobs by levelling the playing field on which these companies compete. Enforcing a fairer corporate tax system serves just that purpose. I note that while the opposition are supporting this bill today, it is clear that they have been dragged kicking and screaming to that position. The shadow Treasurer moved an amendment that notes they think they tried really hard when they were in office to curb multinational tax avoidance. The Australian people don't agree. Given that they left us with $1 trillion of Liberal debt—we inherited $1 trillion of Liberal debt without any significant economic dividend to show for it—I certainly wish that they had tried a little bit harder to address this issue. While they were racking up $1 trillion of Liberal debt, they were also tinkering around the edges of multinational tax reform, but utterly failing to make any substantial changes. They demonstrated that, rather than make multinationals pay their fair share, they would prefer to plunge our nation further and further into their debt spiral. Despite what they say, it is absolutely clear to anyone paying attention that only a Labor government will protect individual and domestic corporate taxpayers from the scourge of multinational tax avoidance. The Albanese Labor government is not alone on the global stage in taking significant steps towards combating multinational tax avoidance. In fact, following the 2013 release of the OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting—a snappy name if ever I heard one—the OECD and G20 countries adopted a 15-point plan to improve international tax cooperation and transparency. Since then most OECD countries, including peers such as the UK, the United States and much of the EU, have already adopted rules that limit interest deductions based on earnings. The changes in this bill will simply bring Australia up to speed, fulfilling our commitment to the global effort to stop multinationals from unfairly reducing their tax bills. Again, this is not extreme. These measures are not extreme—they simply bring us into line with international standards while at the same time improving the sustainability of our tax system and creating better competition dynamics for Australian businesses and—importantly—Australian workers. This bill alone will not solve the multinational tax avoidance problem that Australia, like much of the world, faces. Undoubtedly, we will need to do more as the problem continues to evolve. However, it is an important step forward. It will increase transparency surrounding the tax structure of multinationals and allow us to better measure whether our taxation system is working efficiently and effectively. It will also reduce the amount of interest expenses that companies can deduct, from 60 per cent of assets to 30 per cent of profits. More simply, this bill is about making our taxation system fairer and more equitable. It's about providing a level playing field for businesses and ensuring Australian companies are not disadvantaged along the way. It's about ensuring that multinationals shoulder their fair share of the tax burden and do not leave it to Australian workers to carry the can for them. 18:25 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill is inherently about fixing some unfairness in our tax system and restoring integrity to the way the system works. Most Australian workers work very hard. They go to work and pay their PAYG tax on a regular basis. They can't transfer assets or transfer income to other entities to avoid paying tax, and they don't seek to. They do the right thing. They pay their fair share of tax. Hardworking Australians who are feeling the pinch from cost-of-living increases and inflation and interest rate rises understandably get angry when they see large, multibillion-dollar, multinational corporations being able to transfer income from one jurisdiction to another as an internal loan or other payment to avoid paying tax here in Australia or in another country. It's simply not fair. That's why workers get angry about the tax system and the inherent unfairness in it. This amendment seeks to rectify some of that unfairness and to restore some integrity and ethics to the way our tax system operates to ensure that all Australians, including companies, pay their fair share of tax. This legislation will hopefully level the playing field a bit and boost a bit of transparency around how much tax big corporations are paying. It will hold them accountable for their corporate structures and their opaque tax arrangements. There is global momentum building for this transparency and accountability, and, understandably, shareholders and shareholder groups want more transparency and deserve more information about the tax practices of the companies that they invest in. We need to address multinational taxation. Two-fifths of multinational profits are booked through tax havens. That's about $100 billion of Australian money in tax havens, like the Bahamas and Panama, where lower tax rates apply and an estimate suggests that four-fifths breach other companies' tax laws. These places are not only for tax avoidance; they also harbour funds from terrorists, crime syndicates, drug lords and undermine the integrity of the global taxation system. For nearly a decade, the former coalition government made some minor changes, but they really were a light touch. Their heart wasn't in it when it came to tackling multinational tax avoidance. Before the 2022 election, they advised Australians against supporting tax hikes for multinational tax evasion. There's been an international movement for greater taxation and a minimum rate of tax for multinationals, for greater transparency for large corporations, particularly when it comes to internal transactions around funds, and for a greater international agreement when it comes to the global taxation regime. There are over 100 companies that have signed up to that transparency measure, and that's a positive step. We're in the process of implementing those measures that Australia has signed up to through this bill. It's unfortunate that the previous government didn't take this action, because this movement has been around for a long time. Australia, as a signatory to these international agreements, should be at the forefront of taking this action to improve the transparency and accountability of our taxation system. These reforms will level the playing field not only for Australian workers and taxpayers but for Australian businesses as well. Australian businesses shouldn't face a disadvantage against multinationals directing profits to tax havens. This bill amends Australia's thin capitalisation rules, limiting the amount of interest expenses that entities can deduct for taxation purposes from 1 July 2023. That measure is estimated to result in a gain to receipts of $720 million over the forward estimates from 2022-23. The amendments introduce earnings based interest-limitation rules for general class investors, replacing the existing asset based rules and introduce a new third-party debt test. The current safe harbour test allows an entity to deduct all their interest expenses when their total debt amount does not exceed 60 per cent of their total asset value. Under the new default fixed ratio test, all interest expenses can be deducted when the net interest expenses don't surpass 30 per cent of profits. This aligns with the government's priority to bolster the thin capitalisation rules, preventing excessive debt deductions and ensuring deductions correspond to genuine economic activity. The bill incorporates several technical changes proposed by industry to harmonise with commercial arrangements, including those for trust structures. Also, the bill mandates new reporting requirements for Australian public companies, both listed and unlisted. From 1 July this year, these companies must disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports. This transparency measure ensures companies are clear about how they structure their subsidiaries, including for tax considerations. The measures within this bill underwent multiple rounds of public consultation. The aim was to maintain the integrity of our tax system to support genuine commercial activity and to be cognisant of compliance costs. It's important that those consultations were undertaken so that we got the balance right and weren't deterring businesses from establishing here in Australia and employing Australians. Treasury will continue its collaboration with industry and stakeholders to ensure the new rules function as planned. All multinationals must pay their fair share. When taxes are evaded, it's the average Australian who feels the pinch, and it creates anger and resentment around the way the tax system operates and the integrity of the tax system. Unfortunately, on an annual basis after reporting season, we all see those stories in our newspapers about large multinational corporations—many of them, unfortunately, in the resources sector—who are able to exploit Australian resources that are technically owned by the Australian people for their profit by being able to use tax structures and shift profits to other jurisdictions where there are lower tax rates to avoid paying tax here in Australia. That makes Australians understandably angry. It shouldn't be on, because it undermines the integrity of the tax system and it reduces tax receipts, which ultimately means that government has less revenue to fund the services that Australians rely on to ensure they have a quality of life. Such tax evasion depletes the funds that we rely on for our schools, our health care, the NDIS, our aged-care services and other services that Australians rely upon on a daily basis. It's also detrimental to local businesses, who face unfair competition from often larger businesses that have economies of scale they can't replicate and that are able to exploit tax loopholes that the average small to medium sized enterprise can't access, because they simply don't have the resource base. So this bill is our proactive response to those challenges. Finally the Australian government is hearing the pleas of the Australian worker, who has been saying for some years: 'Hey, this system isn't working properly. It's unfair. We're getting ripped off. How about you make some of those big companies pay their fair share of tax?' The previous government didn't do enough. They paid lip service, and they were a light touch. We're not going to be a light touch; we're going to make sure that we do the right thing by the average Australian worker or small to medium sized enterprise and make these corporations pay their fair share of tax. That is what this bill will do. It helps ensure that multinationals contribute equitably and helps to safeguard revenue for essential services that all Australians rely on. That's why this bill should be passed by the House. 18:36 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Tonight, we discuss one of the most important areas of taxation policy and, indeed, I think many would say, one of the most important areas of policy, full stop. What we're discussing tonight goes to the very heart of the sustainability and integrity of our tax system, which in turn goes to the capacity of government to fund services that are so important for our society. Multinational taxation is an issue that has been becoming more and more important over recent decades for a range of factors that I'll touch on before going to the specific issues of this bill. We are coming out of a period where, as the previous speaker mentioned, not enough has been done. That's why this step forward—this significant step forward—that we see tonight is so important. Why is multinational taxation becoming more and more of an issue? One obvious factor is that we're living in a more and more globalised world. More and more economic activity, more and more innovation, and more and more value-add are being undertaken by companies that straddle the globe. What that means is that those companies have the capability of shifting their profits to whichever jurisdiction they wish. That has serious consequences for the ability of individual jurisdictions to maintain taxation at a level that is needed for services to be provided. Another issue is that not only are we seeing a significant proportion of economic activity being undertaken by multinationals but an increasing proportion of economic activity is being undertaken in the digitised world. What that means is that it's less and less obvious where the transaction that is taxable occurs. Does it occur at the point where the person presses the button? Does it occur at the point where the company that is managing the transaction is incorporated? Does it occur at the point where the good is sent from or the service is provided? There are so many complications, depending on the specifics, but the digitised world is a much more difficult one to tax. It's more difficult to figure out how it should be taxed, and, of course, on top of that, it's more difficult to actually undertake the taxation as well. I would argue there are other trends as well. For example, over the recent decades, there has been the rise of a lot of forms of asset in the corporate world, like intellectual property or the value of an algorithm. These are very difficult to place in a geographic or physical sense, and yet these aspects of a corporation have real value. These aspects of a corporation are invested in—their intellectual property, their brand and, as I said, a lot of IT aspects. So, from a taxation point of view, it makes it very difficult to tax a lot of these multinationals in a way that makes sense. Finally, we see borrowing. Borrowing has always been there, but the rise of debt around the world has added to the difficulties of multinational taxation because the interest, as a result of internal borrowings within corporate structures, can be shifted in such a way as to shift corporate profits to jurisdictions with the lowest tax rates. I want to make the point that, in addition to all of these complexities with taxation, in OECD and G20 countries we see rising needs for taxation, because we see, and rightly so, increasing calls from the public for strong public services, for social services that are sophisticated, that provide a strong social safety net. We see pressures on those social services because of an ageing society. We see pressures on those social services because the cost of providing many of those services is increasing faster than inflation. So, on the one hand, we have an erosion of the tax base and, on the other hand, we have ever greater needs for solid reliable tax revenue to provide the services that people rightly expect. As the previous speaker mentioned, governments will rely upon forms of taxation, such as income taxation, that often fall very heavily on people who aren't in as good a position to pay, towards the tax system, as compared with, say, multinational corporations. So it provides a tension point, and many question the fairness of the system quite apart from its effectiveness. What we see today is a series of measures that go to making a fairer and more effective tax system, a more sound system, in terms of its policy basis. For those two core reasons, what we see tonight is a very significant step forward. What we're seeing tonight is a step being taken by the Australian government that is very much aligned with the OECD G20 base erosion profit-shifting initiative, the BEPS initiative, which has formed a very important alignment across all of the major economies of the world over the last decade. It's very important that this initiative form part of this government's moves to continue Australia's moving forward on a range of multinational tax issues in alignment with other major economies. The BEPS package is an OECD G20 initiative. That covers a significant proportion of world GDP. One of the core policy rationales is that taxation should be restored or at least aligned, to some degree, to the place where the economic activities and value creation occur. Why is this important? I think it's very important from a fairness perspective but also from a policy soundness perspective. Firstly, from a policy soundness perspective, it makes more sense for the taxation revenue to be aligned, as far as possible, to where the economic activity is occurring rather than according to tax minimisation or tax avoidance. If it's aligned with where the economic activity is occurring, it is aligned with where the economic inputs are being joined together to create the economic value-add, where the capital, the labour, the land and the know-how are being added together to create what the consumer is wanting, what the consumer is paying for. It's where the profits are being created. If that is not what we are trying to align our tax system towards, we will almost inevitably find ourselves aligning the taxation of activities with where they can be shifted to the lowest possible tax rate, which does not make any policy sense. I would argue that there is also a very important fairness principle here. It is important that taxation occurs where the economic value-add occurs, because that is where the multinational corporation is receiving so much social and public support. Multinationals depend on roads and transport infrastructure. Multinationals depend on the skills training for their workers that is provided, by and large, by the public sector. Multinationals' workers rely on the social safety net and, indirectly, multinationals do. So multinationals don't act in a vacuum. The value-add of multinationals is very much built upon the fact that they are operating in an orderly society, with rule of law and all of the other benefits that accrue from the institutions that occur in the kind of society that Australia provides. In addition to that, multinationals benefit, as does the broader society, from all of the kinds of other social and economic infrastructure that they directly and indirectly benefit from. So it's entirely sensible and fair that the taxation system aligns to where the value-add, the economic activity, occurs for that reason also. The second broad policy objective of the BEPS program is closing loopholes so that there is a sensible, sound taxation of economic activities, not one based upon contrived accounting arrangements which have no bearing on the actual sources of profit. Finally, there should also be an increase in transparency. I believe this bill is a step forward on all of these three key measures. It definitely aligns the taxation revenue more closely with where the economic activity and economic value-add occurs. It will definitely close off loopholes where there are contrived arrangements, where thin capitalisation is used as a means by which profit is shifted from one jurisdiction to a lower tax jurisdiction, where it doesn't actually relate to the underlying economic meaning or grounding of the transaction itself. Finally, it's a significant step forward when it comes to transparency. It is critical, as I mentioned before, that this is a part of the broader BEPS initiative, because this is a global phenomenon. It is very important that Australia design its multinational tax initiatives so that they are broadly aligned with the initiatives that the OECD and G20 are taking up. If we don't have alignment, if we have countries trying to move on their own and acting unilaterally, we find there is a significant pressure towards a race to the bottom. That is why it is so important that this bill is aligned with that broader initiative. The BEPS initiative contains 15 actions, which have been grouped across four themes. Three relate to the broad theme of coherence, six relate to substantive efforts to adjust the taxation sources, five relate to transparency and two relate to the horizontal issues of digitisation and multinational instruments. As I mentioned, digitisation in particular has been driving challenges to the ability of individual governments to tax economic value-add right across the economy. This bill contains two very important measures that go to the heart of transparency. The first, schedule 1, relates to multinational tax transparency. It will hold companies to account, particularly large corporate groups, requiring them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements. This information will be inherently good, because sunshine is the best disinfectant. More transparency is a sensible thing. It will also enable better economic analysis. It is so critical, in this very complicated area, for governments to be in a better position to decide whether their multinational tax arrangements are fit for purpose. Companies will be required to disclose this additional information as part of their annual financial report, which of course they have to prepare anyway. The additional information required will create very little additional red tape or compliance burden, and this is in line with other major jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom. On the issue of transparency, schedule 1 is a significant step forward. As I mentioned, the other schedule relates to thin capitalisation. I won't go through all of the details, but this relates to a number of well-known tax planning arrangements whereby some multinationals set up debt arrangements between different parts of their organisational structure so as to contrive interest payments that might be high in one jurisdiction, with income then flowing to another jurisdiction in such a way that overall taxes across the group are minimised. This bill has been designed with a considerable amount of consultation. It is designed in such a way that there is flexibility and that it won't unintentionally capture arrangements which are designed to reflect genuine intragroup borrowings. There are a number of arrangements. For example, thin capitalisation rules will be adjusted to limit an entity's debt-related deductions to 30 per cent of profits using EBITDA. This new earnings-based test will replace the current safe harbour test. It will allow debt deductions denied under the entity-level EBITDA test to be carried forward and claimed in a subsequent income year, and it will retain an arms-length debt test as a substitute test, which will apply only to an entity's external or third-party debt, disallowing deductions for related-party debt under this test. The earnings based approach, I might add, is very much in line with the earnings based approach that's been adopted in a number of other jurisdictions such as the UK, the US and most of the EU. To return to the overarching rationale for this: we have a transparency measure, we have a substantive measure related to thin capitalisation and at the heart of all of this is an attempt to make our tax system fairer but also more soundly based on policy. Through the measures in this bill, we are going to align tax revenue more closely with where the actual taxable value add and economic activity occurs, and that is very sensible from a policy perspective. It really is the most sound way in which to approach the taxation of economic activity. It is also, in my opinion, a fair approach because it reflects the fact that, where multinationals operate in Australia and benefit from all of the things that our society provides, whether it be training, transport infrastructure, social infrastructure, the rule of law or anything else, they should contribute to that. It closes a loophole and it provides transparency, so it's very aligned with international moves to provide a more effective and fairer tax system. 18:51 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, a bill that will deliver fair outcomes in our taxation system by holding large multinational corporate groups to account on their taxation arrangements in Australia. I would like to start by thanking the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, the member for Fenner, Andrew Leigh, for all his hard work and commitment to bringing fairness to our taxation system by championing the need to level the playing field for Australian businesses and increase transparency. Boosting fairness and transparency when it comes to the tax arrangements of multinational corporations was a key issue the Albanese government during the 2022 election campaign. Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax is not only good policy at home; it also demonstrates Australia's commitment to the global momentum towards ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of tax across national jurisdictions and borders in which they operate. We on this side of the House understand that multinationals need to pay their fair share of tax and that, when they don't and they obfuscate that obligation, it hurts all Australians. Multinational tax avoidance means that we have less money for the resources to fund our schools and our hospitals and less money for the NDIS, social security system and other government services that support our communities. Multinational tax avoidance is bad for local small businesses too because they ultimately find themselves competing on a tilted playing field against the large multinationals, which are using tax dodges that aren't available to the small businesses. This bill is a critical step in restoring that balance and transparency in our tax system when it comes to multinationals, especially in the wake of the recent PwC leaking scandal. The Albanese government is determined to restore faith and integrity to our system. Schedule 1 to this bill prioritises disclosure and aims to hold large corporate groups to account by requiring them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements such as through subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions. As part of this, the companies concerned will be required to disclose this information as part of their annual financial report, a practice that is in line with international approaches and measures already in place in jurisdictions such the United Kingdom. This disclosure will essentially become a fourth element of a company's annual financial support, a document which currently comprises a company's financial statements, notes to those statements and the director's report. This additional disclosure will improve information flow from companies by requiring information from their subsidiaries. This measure will likely be applied to large corporate groups that have set up complex corporate structures in the form of multiple subsidiaries. Approximately 470 large corporates with revenue exceeding $250 million are likely to have multiple subsidiaries. In turn, this disclosure information is critical in supporting enhanced economic analysis and will help to inform whether tax laws are operating as intended in collecting the right amount of revenue. Schedule 2 of the bill is focused on ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia and in turn on helping level the playing field for Australian businesses. The bill proposes to achieve this by amending Australia's interest limitation or thin capitalisation rules. In a nutshell, these reforms will essentially limit the scope of a multinational's debt deductions and address profit-shifting risks associated with the operations of multinational enterprises. The thin capitalisation rule amendments proposed in this measure will take a direct approach to limiting debt related deductions by restricting the level of deductible interest expense to an entity's earnings, and this approach reflects the OECD's best-practice guidance. These changes will bring Australia into line with other comparable jurisdictions, such as the UK, the US, Canada and most EU countries. Each of these countries has their own nuanced version of the rules. This bill has been designed to balance tax integrity with other considerations, such as continuing to ensure Australia is an attractive destination for investment. The Albanese government has approached this key reform with absolute diligence. These amendments were first announced in April 2022 as part of our government's election commitment platform. This bill will deliver a fairer operating environment for small- and medium-sized businesses in my electorate of Canberra and around the country and will aim to create a set of rules that are consistent across the board. In this way business across Australia can be assured that our government is serious about fairness in the tax system and creating a fair and balanced competitive environment. This bill is an important start when it comes to making multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia and making sure our local small- and medium-sized enterprises aren't unfairly disadvantaged because they don't have access to sophisticated profit- and tax-shifting arrangements across national borders. We all know that multinational tax avoidance won't be fixed overnight, but this bill is a big step in the right direction. The magnitude of this issue is why the Albanese government has moved so decisively. To illustrate the depth of the challenge ahead, at the moment we have two-fifths of multinational profits booked through tax havens and some $100 billion of Australian money sitting in tax havens—places like the Bahamas and Panama, jurisdictions known for their very low tax rates and where, on one estimate, four-fifths of the money is there in breach of other countries' tax laws. These tax havens aren't just employed as tax avoidance mechanisms; they are identified places and locations where terrorists, kidnappers, crime syndicates and drug lords store their money, so taking action to crack down on tax havens and multinational tax avoidance is not just good economic and tax policy but also important as a national security and safety measure. After a decade of neglect and disinterest on this issue from those opposite, Australians can finally breathe a sigh of relief that they now have a good government that is committed to addressing this issue and is taking a more forward-leaning approach than our predecessors did. I know that this is something that my constituents here in the Canberra community are passionate about—seeing multinationals paying their fair share so that we have that money to pay for the services that all Australians need. The record of the coalition on multinational tax avoidance speaks for itself. They dithered and failed to deliver any real reform on the issue during their last period in office, tinkering at the edges but never delivering reform on the side of Australian taxpayers and small businesses when it came to tackling the issue head on. I'm proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government that stands by the core principle of fairness on the issue of multinational tax avoidance. Our government won't stand for a situation that allows multinational companies to get away with brazen arrangements that see profits that ought to be taxed in Australia transferred offshore. Everything that the Albanese government does to address the multinational tax base is focused on ensuring that we can deliver the best public services to Australians. This also includes recognition that in a competitive economy we want businesses to be competing on making and delivering great products and services, looking after their workers and undertaking research and development, not competing with one another to find the next shady scheme that will see them conceal profits in a tax haven. Labor has a strong track record when it comes to fairness in public policy, and this bill to make multinationals pay their fair share builds on that tradition. 19:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle What a delight it is to rise in this chamber this evening to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. This is a commitment. This bill comes from a solemn commitment that the Albanese government made in opposition: that should we come to government we would seek to ensure that multinationals started to pay their fair share of tax in this country. I don't think there are too many Australian people that would not be with the government on this matter. Nothing gets under the skin of Australian people like the burning sensation of being ripped off by a global national swanning in and reaping the benefits of everything the nation has to offer, only to scarf off their profits to tax havens overseas and, by virtue of that action, dud Australian citizens in the process. It was no surprise to anyone who knows the Australian Labor Party that during the 2022 election campaign, we made a commitment to ensure that multinationals would pay their fair share of tax. This legislation before us is the very beginning of levelling that playing field for the Australian people, for Australian businesses and for Australian workers who, let's face it, are doing the heavy lifting and making very significant contributions to our revenue base here in Australia. Let's acknowledge the efforts made by both Australian citizens, in terms of our workforce, and those who have small- or medium-sized businesses right across Australia. These reforms start creating a level playing field for Australian businesses. Importantly they are increasing transparency as well. Critically, they are holding companies to account, particularly those large corporate groups whose structures are often pretty opaque, and making sure a light is shone on those corporate structures. We want to shine a light on any evidence that would suggest that those structures are operating in some kind of opaque manner or have atypical tax arrangements. Those are matters that we want to eradicate in order to ensure that we've got a fair system of taxation operating. Given the enormous global momentum that is gathering towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, this piece of legislation before us this evening is in the public interest. It's in the public interest that shareholders have a lot more information to hand about the companies that they might be investing in or taking an interest in in any way, shape or form. There are very good reasons why we are pursuing this legislative agenda in the House of Representatives this evening. The people of Newcastle, who I represent in this chamber, are hard workers. They're paying their fair share of tax. We have many small businesses that are making terrific contributions to the vibrancy of our communities. They are people who are working hard, trying to make ends meet and who make extraordinary contributions towards our local community as a result of their hard work. Those small businesses are also paying their fair share of tax. These people and these small businesses don't have the millions of dollars at their disposal to run off and get advice on how to avoid paying taxes. Let's not mince words here: that's exactly what large multinational entities are doing. They have no allegiance to this nation or to any one particular place. They like to be regarded as global citizens when it suits them—they can avoid paying taxes in any nation in which they operate. It brings the reputation of global multinational companies into disrepute when there is no allegiance to any nation anywhere—when large powerful entities choose not to make a contribution and pay their fair share in any nation. In Australia, we have a particular interest in making sure that those global entities do pay their fair share of tax, because we know that taxation in Australia is put to good use. It's part of how we establish a fair and equitable society. People pay their taxes, and those funds are distributed to provide essential, vital services for our citizens. Whether it's the provision of our tremendous universal healthcare system, Medicare, whether it's access to quality education or whether it's ensuring that we pay our workers decently and provide safe, respectful workplaces, these are important projects that our taxation system helps underpin, across Australia and in our local communities. That's why Labor took to the election campaign a commitment to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax and a commitment to evening out the playing field. It has to be said that the playing field has been very skewed towards large entities with almost unlimited funds and legal advice at their disposal to avoid paying their fair share of tax. These reforms, as I said, are going to help hold companies to account, especially large corporate groups, the ones that tend to think they belong to no-one and are somehow above the law. Well, that's not going to be the case in our nation. These amendments are about making things more transparent so that large multinational enterprises are competing in a manner that is apparent to small businesses and workers, who are already paying more than their fair share of tax. In recent years we've witnessed a most alarming trend of corporations exploiting loopholes that exist in the current system. They engage in 'tax planning', which is singly focused on avoiding paying a fair share of tax. This not only erodes public trust and confidence, but it also puts a grossly unnecessary burden on hardworking taxpayers—working men and women who are doing all of the heavy lifting, not just in terms of the labour they provide and the productivity they ensure for our nation but in terms of the dividends they pay back through their taxes. Those workers and those small and medium-sized businesses have told us well and truly that they want to see everybody making a fair contribution, not just them. The current system is undercutting the existing structures that are meant to ensure an equitable redistribution of funds for the essential public services that I spoke about earlier. That's ensuring that Australian citizens, wherever they live—it doesn't matter what your postcode is or what your pay packet or bank balance looks like—should be assured of essential public services, and that's what our taxation system provides. The OECD estimates that base erosion and profit shifting now costs countries between US$100 billion and US$240 billion—really eye-watering figures—in lost revenue every year. That figure is growing annually. It's already an enormous figure. I would suggest that it's really quite difficult for most Australian people to even imagine what US$100 billion looks like, or US$240 billion. But we know that that is the loss year in year out and that that figure is indeed growing. That's the equivalent of at least four to 10 per cent of global corporate income tax revenue—just gone, No-one's got access to it; it is absolutely gone. That means that governments right across the world—it's not just a problem for the Australian government—are denied hundreds of billions of dollars that should be going towards providing services and infrastructure and that should be lowering the tax burden on workers and reducing debt for nations. But all that potential is lost when companies are fully exploiting loopholes and getting so-called tax planning advice that enables them to dodge their responsibility of being decent global citizens. It undermines the fairness and integrity of our taxation system here in Australia, and, as I said, it's unfair to small business and other businesses operating in Australia that these big multinationals get a competitive advantage over them and can claim more of the market share because they're dodging their tax—and it's a dodgy practice—while Australian companies are paying for that abuse. As I said, global multinationals can pay armies of lawyers and accountants millions of dollars, because they're aiming to reduce their tax liability by billions, so they don't mind investing a few mill into making sure their accountants get them out of having to pay their fair share of tax. All the while, Australian workers, families and small businesses are the losers. Well, we're not getting to tolerate that on this side of the House. I don't think the Australian people want their governments, of any persuasion, to enable or turn a blind eye to these kinds of practices. This is utterly unacceptable, and it's especially unacceptable at a time when the Australian people are facing pressures around cost of living. Inflation has been hurting Australian families and Australian workers. And while inflation is easing, thanks to the fiscal responsibility of the Albanese Labor government as well as the hard work of the Australian people—let's never forget that—I know that many people in my electorate are still finding the cost-of-living pressures very real, very significant, and are still finding day-to day expenses extremely difficult to manage. So, it is only fair that multinational enterprises pay their fair share of tax so that individuals who are feeling those cost-of-living pressures are not put under undue pressure to fill the gaps and to fund the programs we all rely on, so that there is a more equal and fair system, when these multinationals get off scot-free. That is not the Australian way. That is not what Australian people want to see. This bill finally seeks to tackle the problem of corporate tax avoidance head on. I commend this bill to the House. I hope that all 151 members of this House of Representatives will see their way to support this important legislation. 19:15 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide This Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 is an important piece of legislation that is way overdue. It was a commitment by the Labor opposition in the lead-up to the 2022 election campaign, and this government is committed to ensuring, that multinationals pay their fair share of tax—that people who set up offshore companies where there is not much transparency are brought back into the fold to be on equal terms with other businesses that are doing the right thing and not offshoring assets, setting up accounts overseas and keeping that grey area over transparency. So this bill is a good thing. It's something that's way overdue and something we should be supporting in this House, and we heard the member for Newcastle say that she hopes every 151 members of this House support it. As I said, this legislation will provide a level playing field for Australian businesses and increase transparency. When I think of the businesses in my electorate of Adelaide, small, medium and large businesses, some are doing it tough, are working extremely hard and have put everything into their business to create a business that creates jobs and assists our economy. These people are doing the right thing, paying their fair share of tax, which goes into our education, our hospitals, our police and a whole range of things. What do you say to those people when there are companies out there who are evading our local tax laws by setting up companies overseas, offshoring their money and having zero transparency? That creates an uneven playing field and it creates uneven competition. For example, we know that Chevron paid very, very little tax. They're a big multinational company, they've got offices set up all around the world—hard to track et cetera. What do you say to BHP, who have been doing the right thing in terms of paying their fair share? But it is even worse when we look at the current economic climate that exists today here in Australia, because many families are doing it tough. Interest rates have gone up. People are struggling to pay their bills et cetera, and the parliament, both the opposition and the government, are doing all that we can to assist those people. But what do you say to those people who pay their fair share of tax—the nurses, the workers, the policeman, our everyday supermarket workers? It is a very unfair system when a very small group of people have the ability, through tax agents and through the resources that they have, to avoid paying tax in this nation. Paying tax means, as I said earlier, that we can afford our hospitals, our education, our roads and everything else that we perhaps sometimes take for granted in this nation. And it helps the economy because, when money is spent here in Australia, it spins off into other areas. As I said at the outset, this was a commitment in 2022 in the run-up to the election, and the Albanese government is ensuring through this legislation that multinationals pay their fair share of tax and that it levels the playing field for Australian businesses, and that it ensures transparency—knowing exactly what the make-up of a particular business is. This legislation will hold companies to account, particularly large corporate groups for their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, it is in the public interest that shareholders also have more information and know that the companies they're investing in are legit and not avoiding tax in the country they're based in or where they live. Most companies are doing the right thing. We know that. But there are a proportion of multinationals that are not doing the right thing. They're operating under the current rule. That's why we need, in schedule 1, the 'Multinational tax transparency—disclosure of subsidiaries'. This will target Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, to disclose the subsidiaries and where they are located—in other words, if they have offices overseas, where they are and what income they earn, and to monitor and ensure that they are doing the right thing. This will hold companies to account, particularly those larger corporate groups, requiring them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are operating under opaque tax arrangements, such as through subsidiaries located in low tax jurisdictions. We know where they all are—the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and a whole range of places. This information will support better economic analysis and help inform whether tax laws are operating as intended in collecting the right amount of revenue. It's not a tax grab and it's not the governments wanting to take your money. It's about doing the right thing. It's about ensuring that those companies are paying the correct tax, just like all those companies I mentioned earlier, in my electorate—and in everybody else's electorate—small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses, who work extremely hard. It's a tough gig, running your own business. But it's also about the everyday Australians who earn a salary or small wage. They don't have much to declare on their tax, in terms of expenses, yet these people are paying their taxes. It's an unfair playing field. Australia has always prided itself on being a fair country, a country of equal opportunity, a country that gives everybody a level playing field. This is not the case with our big corporates and massive multinationals. That's why companies will have to disclose the information I mentioned earlier, as part of their annual financial report, to help reduce compliance burdens. This is in line with international approaches. For example, the UK has a similar measure already in place, as do the EU countries and many others around the world. The other part of this is the revenue raising measure. It targets known tax planning arrangements by limiting M&E debt deductions and ensuring that they pay their fair share of tax in Australia. This helps level the playing field for Australian businesses. We have to give Australian businesses all the support that we can, and the least we can do is offer them an economic or business climate that is on the same playing field. At the moment, it's not. This bill was campaigned on and promised by the Labor government, and we intend on delivering it. We want to make sure that it's harder for businesses to be opaque, to ensure that they're paying their taxes, that those taxes go into the revenue that can then be used in Australia's public expenditure, on building roads and hospitals, making sure that our kids and grandkids get an education, and to ensure that we have enough money for the different funds and grants that support small and large businesses. So it's an important measure. It's a measure, as I said from the outset, that I hope every member of this House supports. We've seen too many stories of massive companies in the media, such as on 60 Minutes. There's always an expose of particular multinationals who pay zero tax yet have estimated earnings in the billions of dollars. What we're saying is that this is not a fair system. Even though it's a small group, they are jeopardising our legitimate businesses, who work hard—even our large businesses. I mentioned BHP earlier, where one of their competitors is paying zero or very little tax in Australia. These are the things that will assist our economy and raise revenue for us, as I said, to spend on those things that we need to spend on. An earnings based approach to debt deductions will ensure that deductions are directly tied to an entity's economic activity earnings. This is a good approach in the legislation to addressing the tax planning practices of multinationals as well. We've seen many stories in the media in this area where those that can afford the big tax agents or accountants and have lots of resources at their fingerprints can set up this specific bookwork et cetera to get away with it, or to make it so opaque that no-one can actually follow up on it et cetera. Schedule 2 amends Australia's interest limitation capitalisation rules. The amendments alter the exemptions with the existing thin capitalisation rules, and this excludes smaller entities with less than $2 million in debt deductions. There are a lot of things in this bill, but, as I said, the most important part is that we ensure that they have a level playing field. We owe it to our small businesses and those businesses that are doing the right thing. More importantly, we owe it to everyday Australians who earn minimal wages yet are still expected to pay their tax and have very few deductions. In the majority of cases, these are the people that look after us in hospitals, like nurses; the police that secure us and protect us; and our teachers, who educate our children and grandchildren. I think we owe it to those people to ensure that these big multinationals cannot get away with that. They have an obligation to this nation, just like we all do and just like everyday citizens do, to do the right thing. I think it's abhorrent that in today's world, where we know this is happening, we are letting them get away with it. I urge everyone to vote for this particular bill because it brings a level playing field. It is the right thing to do. We spend a lot of time in this place doing all sorts of things. We've spent the last 10 or six years with one side denying that anything was wrong with robodebt and the other side pushing it. There's a case where we went after the poorest of the poor in this nation and no-one shrugged a shoulder, yet here are people who are actually ripping off this nation, working people and businesses doing it hard. I find it hard to believe that there may be some opposition to this. It's mind-boggling to think that anyone would oppose this particular bill. As I said, it is the right thing to do. We've got a duty, and we owe it to our constituents and to those Australians that pay their tax in the proper manner. These Australians perhaps have no other choice but to pay, and earn much less than what these multinationals earn, yet we spent six to seven years chasing after the poorest of the poor with robodebt. In this case we shrug our shoulders and think nothing of it. That's why this is important. This is perhaps a bill that should have been passed in the last 10 years, after the exposes on 60 Minutes and a whole range of things that we've seen on TV and in the media. I did a google before I came in here to have a look at what came up. There is page after page of different exposes on multinational companies that pay zero tax and have no allegiance to any country but themselves, yet we chase after people with a small debt to Centrelink. This is not right. That's why, once again, I urge everyone in this place to ensure that they vote for this bill. It would be unthinkable to not vote for it. We've got a duty to those people that I mentioned earlier. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Cost of Living 71 19:29 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo In 1964 Donald Horne penned his book, The Lucky Country. The title soon became the nickname for Australia, which was ironic given the book was actually quite critical of Australia's rapid ascension to wealth and power. The title was drawn from the opening words of the book's last chapter: Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. Horne's message was while Australia has indeed been lucky, and blessed with resources, he was doubtful whether we deserved such luck, and was worried that unless we realised our good fortune, our luck may run out. I and many of my constituents now share Horne's concern that our luck may have run out. I say this because there was a time not too long ago when we had affordable electricity and a large manufacturing base. In my home state of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, South Australia's longest-serving premier, understood that power and water schemes were required to grow our industrial base and provide opportunity and quality of life for residents. The Adelaide Electricity Supply Company—at that time a private entity—proved troublesome for Playford as it shipped coal from New South Wales and, in times of great desperation, from South Africa. Refusing to store coal reserves placed our energy needs at constant risk. Playford, after many years of agitation and a royal commission, saw the AESC—the newly created Electricity Trust of South Australia—invest in the Leigh Creek mine, and this meant that South Australia's energy needs were no longer dependent on interstate or international influences. With cheap and reliable electricity a certainty, a golden age of manufacturing happened in South Australia, with automotive manufacturing beyond white goods everything. Times have certainly changed. We no longer own our own power supply. ETSA was sold in 1997 to fund the state government bail out of the state bank collapse. We have some of the highest energy prices in the world in South Australia, and manufacturing capacity is declining. Our economic complexity ranking is languishing at 93rd in the world. It's difficult to understand how we got here. As a country with enormous natural resources, we should have the cheapest electricity in the world and a thriving, advanced manufacturing sector. What is now occurring is, I believe, a national disgrace. I've been inundated with heartbreaking stories from people in my community who can no longer afford the basics—forget about the luxuries of life. Just last week I had an email from a couple their 80s. Their electricity bill for the last quarter was a staggering $883. Unable to afford these expensive bills, they go to bed immediately after dinner—it's their only way to get away from the cold. What is most disturbing is that this is not an isolated case. I receive emails and phone calls about this each week—stories of people wearing puffer jackets to keep warm, compromising on food purchases and children being pulled out of sport and music just to manage their household burden. The general cost-of-living crisis has pervaded every aspect of our lives. I've noticed almost a weekly increase in our staples. A packet of three tins of baked beans was $3.30 just a couple of years ago—it's now $6. The Australian Energy Regulator announced expected retail price increases for electricity between 20 per cent and 25 per cent as of 1 July this year. However, my community has experienced increases of over 50 per cent. The number of residential electricity consumers participating in hardship programs increased from 19 per cent in the same quarter last year. The average hardship debt increased by eight per cent to $1,871. In 1976, Horne wrote his follow-up: Death of the Lucky Country. We need to do better in this nation. I sincerely hope that Horne was wrong and that we continue to be the lucky country. But how in one generation we could have let our manufacturing go, how we could have ensured that pensioners are freezing cold and starving hungry, is an abomination and we must do better in this place. McEwen Electorate: Vietnam Veterans Commemorative Walk, Banking and Financial Services 72 19:34 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Next Friday will mark the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, which was one of the fiercest battles of the Vietnam War. This has since become Australia's Vietnam veterans' remembrance day. It is the day on which we acknowledge the sacrifice of all those who served in Vietnam and reflect on the bravery, endurance and teamwork that Australians showed during that long war. I encourage every Australian to pause on Vietnam Veterans Day and reflect with gratitude on all those who lost their life in battle, on those who returned sick and injured, scarred both on the outside and the inside, and on those who have lost their life since they returned. There are many families who still bear the physical and emotional scars of the service of their loved ones. I will use my time to talk about the Vietnam Veterans Commemorative Walk in Seymour. It is no longer part of our wonderful electorate of McEwen, but having been the elected member at the time of construction and opening, I believe it is still one of our proudest achievements, where we worked together to build such an iconic place. I had the privilege of working with a group of very driven local Vietnam veterans who held a vision of what they wanted, taking an empty median strip in the middle of Seymour and converting it into something fantastic for the community. I want to make sure that I thank Bill Melbourne, John Phoenix, Hank Kremers, Ross Stewart and the late Ross Gregson for their hard work and advocacy—five blokes sitting in a lounge room saying 'We want to build this.' The government of the time said it wasn't going to happen, not in Seymour. But they were determined. They showed the grit and courage that they showed in the Vietnam War to get this done. A lot of hard work was done. Jason Clare, who was the Minister for Defence Materiel at the time, helped to secure a Huey helicopter to put there. This has become so much more than a commemorative walk. It has become an iconic place for people to come and see the name of their loved one on a wall. There are 20,000 holes for poppies in the bricks there, and every photo on the wall is not something from the War Memorial. A message went out to Vietnam veterans saying: 'Give us your photos. We want to have real photos of real people.' And that's what happened. Anyone who gets the opportunity to go there and look at it will see an amazing, spiritual place to go to that was done by five blokes who were not going to give up on it. Vietnam veterans often say, 'We fight as hard for the living as we fight hard for those who died.' These guys are the epitome of that spirit in the way they fought to get this done and create this magnificent place. I want to have a bit of a crack at the banks over the closures in regional and rural Victoria. Our local communities are often the first to face cutbacks in services such as the closure of branches that allow for in-person banking in our communities. The corporate greed of the big four banks is disgusting, and it's putting those in the regional areas of Australia in an impossible position. Despite the corporate entities recording unprecedented profits, like the $8 billion the Commonwealth Bank recorded in 2021, they have closed branches across regional Australia, including in Woodend. We have also seen the closure of the National Australia Bank branch in Kilmore. The NAB recorded a 17 per cent surge in its cash profit, or over $4 billion in the past six months, but they can't find the time or the ability to keep things open to help members in our community. Closures are leading to more and more people in our community having to go out of their way and travel to the closest urban centre for in-person banking. But wait! That's not all. Now we're seeing a move to cashless banks. People who want to get cash out of the bank will walk in and say, 'I want to get money out,' but they can't. This is absolutely ridiculous, particularly when you're taking local branches away from communities. It certainly doesn't help if you've got to drive 30 kays each way just to get to a bank in this time when people are facing a cost-of-living crisis. We have five branches that have closed or are closing. When people reach out to the banks to express their concern they're treated with contempt. It's disgraceful and it's disgusting, and we deserve a hell of a lot better. The constituents of our communities and all those across regional Australia have become victims of this climate of corporate greed. I call on the major banks to actually serve their customers. Stand up and stick around. You're supposed to be there for the community. You're quite happy to take. How about giving something back? Give older people, people with disabilities or people in areas where there's no public transport the ability to go to a local bank and do their banking. It's wrong and unfair. In closing, I want to give a kiss to Lacey Torneze, my little granddaughter. It's her third birthday today. Sorry, Pa's not there, but I'm thinking so much of you. The SPEAKER 53517 Well said, Member for McEwen. Petition: Basketball 73 19:39 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Whether it be gymnastics at the local PCYC, soccer at Churchill Park, hockey and athletics at St Leonards, footy in Launceston, netball at Hoblers Bridge, swimming at the aquatic centre or basketball at Elphin, across Northern Tasmania thousands of children and youth are involved in local sporting codes supported by dedicated clubs almost entirely run by volunteers. I've spoken frequently over the past 12 months on the challenges the region faces with ageing or unsuitable community infrastructure and the impact this is having on the ability of many sporting organisations to effectively grow and meet demand. There is some light at the end of the tunnel for the Northern Tasmanian Netball Association, after securing some new indoor courts in the Northern Suburbs Recreation Hub—a key election commitment of mine in 2019. While this doesn't solve all the issues they face with court accessibility, it does provide a permanent home for some indoor games. The recent wild weather in Tasmania was also a reminder of how facilities are increasingly less fit for purpose, which is impacting grassroots sport, with hockey games in St Leonards called off a few weekends ago after the ground lights went out. With clubroom infrastructure also crumbling, I was proud to announce funding during last year's election, which, combined with a commitment from the Tasmanian Liberal state government, would have seen facilities appropriately upgraded. I once again call on the federal government to find a way to support this commitment. Tonight, however, I want to specifically focus on the needs of the local basketball community. Late last year, I sat down in a meeting with representatives from the Launceston Basketball Association to discuss the challenges they are facing as a sporting organisation. Since basketball first began in Tasmania, through the YMCA in the 1930s, the sport has been consistently popular, particularly in the north and north-west of the state, and over the past 10 years it has experienced significant growth. For a small region, we have produced some fantastic basketball players, including two-time NBL champion and member of the Australian Boomers 2012 Olympic team Adam Gibson, NBL champions Mark Nash and Lucas Walker and, of course, Hollie Grima, who won a silver medal at the 2008 Olympic Games as part of the Australian Opals team. Locally we're home to the women's basketball club the Launceston Tornadoes, which was formed in 1993 and now competes in the NBL1 league, and just a few years ago the Tasmania JackJumpers became the NBL's 10th club in the league. In just their first year, the team finished the regular season in fourth place and advanced all the way to the grand final against the Sydney Kings, who were the ultimate winners that year. What a fantastic start to this team, which has been proudly and passionately embraced by Tasmanians. Undoubtedly the launch of the JackJumpers has contributed to the popularity of the sport, which, of course, is a good thing. However, it's put additional pressure on the Launceston Basketball Association to find additional court space to meet the growing demand. In just the past year, membership has increased over 30 per cent, with the LBA now representing more than 3,000 players from almost 400 teams. They're incredible statistics from a region like Northern Tasmania. Craig Gibson, president of the LBA, said that the lack of court space is leaving the association with no choice but to schedule more games late at night or to increasingly schedule byes. Earlier this year he said: We've got a 20-week season coming up through winter, but every team will play a maximum of 15 games and then we've had to fabricate byes and put on really late games to be able to achieve that. Craig also told me that, without additional courts, clubs will soon be looking to introduce a cap on the number of teams within each club, leaving any new members unable to play in Launceston. I know from talking to local parents that some of their children aren't finishing games until after 10 pm, which is just not feasible in the long term, and LBA general manager Mitch Duhig has stated that association players are complaining about the extra bye and late games. 'The complaints have been getting louder and louder,' he said. In December last year, I joined the association as they launched a petition calling for all three levels of government, including the federal government, to invest in the significant infrastructure needed while also investing in the upgrades of the current facilities. On behalf of the principal petitioner, LBA general manager Mitch Duhig, and the 620 players, coaches, volunteers and supporters of basketball in Launceston who signed the petition, I would like to table this petition, which has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. I will keep advocating for our community to receive the funding necessary to keep our grassroots sports clubs thriving. The petition read as follows— The Launceston Basketball Association represents more than 3,000 players from 396 teams and has seen an increase in membership of over 30% from 2021 to 2022. The lack of available court space in our region is leaving the Association and clubs with no choice but to schedule more games late at night or increasingly scheduling byes. The sport is growing in popularity, however with court space already at capacity, clubs will soon be looking to introduce a cap on the number of teams within each club leaving any new members unable to play in Launceston. To meet both current and future demand, an investment in significant infrastructure is needed. We call on all levels of government to further identify possibilities for an additional six courts while investing in the upgrades of the current facilities at Elphin Sports Centre. from 614 citizens (Petition No. PN0565) Petition received. Books n Boots Inc. 74 19:44 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser In light of the Matildas' exciting win last night, the continuing debate around the Voice to Parliament proposal and recent discussions around Closing the Gap, I'd like to talk about a charity based in my electorate that connects a number of these dots called Books n Boots. This not-for-profit has, for the past seven years, been collecting preloved children's books and football boots and sending them to First Nations rural and remote communities and schools all around the country. It was co-founded by John Harding and Tara Newen. Their vision is to close the health and literacy gap one book at a time. A Meriam Gu-Gu Yulangi man, John was born and bred in Melbourne. He loves his footy and still treasures a decades-old photograph that was published on the front page of the Herald Sun. It features an 11-year-old John Harding, who was a part of Lalor Primary School's football team, which won the 1972 Victorian primary school premiership. The grand final was played at the MCG, and John, whose efforts that day were recognised with the 'best on ground' award, played in a pair of Dunlop Volleys. John was the only Indigenous kid on the team, and he wore a borrowed pair of boots for the photograph. This story explains one part of the inspiration behind Books n Boots. Coming a close second to John's love of football is his passion for literature and creative writing. John has been writing for theatre, television, films and poetry for 35 years and has won several state and national awards, including the Human Rights Drama Award. Tara, a social worker by training, is a Cham descendant, indigenous to the land now known as Vietnam. Tara has worked for years with First Nations communities, particularly through her involvement with the Margaret Tucker Hostel, which supports at-risk First Nations teenage girls. The spark that lit the flame of Books n Boots was a social media post from a teacher on Darnley Island in the Torres Strait, home to John's mother. The teacher had posted a desperate call for books because all the children on the island were stuck reading the same books over and over again, and so Books n Boots was born. For John and Tara, healthy minds and healthy bodies are indivisible. Both are critical to wellbeing programs. We know that a love of reading plays a key role in developing literacy and education more generally, and appropriate learning material—and plenty of it—is a key part of Closing the Gap. The evidence also suggests that there is no difference in year 12 completion rates and university participation, for example, if Indigenous and non-Indigenous students are at the same level of academic achievement at age 15. This is why early intervention is so critical. Since it was founded in 2015, Books n Boots has donated 16 tonnes of books, which equates to some 50,000 books diverted from landfill and delivered to First Nations communities. Last year, the Tiny Treasures program delivered its first shipment of 400 books to a youth justice centre and delivered books to four states and territories. Council libraries in Maribyrnong and Moonee Valley provide the majority of the books, while local schools and households can drop off boots with community radio station 3CR, which offers a drop-off point. A dedicated band of volunteers comb each book by hand, cleaning them and ensuring that the content is culturally appropriate. If there is any doubt, a board member is consulted. Only books in excellent condition are sent to the community. Demand is enormous for their services. Some 15 sporting clubs in Alice Springs are on the waiting list for boots and sport shoes from Books n Boots. A primary school in that town is also on the waiting list, with most of the 135 children attending the school barefoot. Following a program on Radio National about the charity that aired in 2020, Tara and John were inundated with offers of help from all over the nation. All of these are currently on hold because Books n Boots desperately needs more financial support so that it can expand. Currently operating out of John and Tara's home, Books n Boots desperately needs a place to call home. There is no shortage of book donations, but there is a shortage of places to store them. Their goal is a network of hubs across Victoria and interstate, which would also help their environmental goals by cutting down on transport costs. I offer my congratulations to John and Tara. Here's to many more offers of help and philanthropic donations to their very worthwhile organisation. Australian Space Industry 75 19:49 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise today to express my disappointment with the way this government has downgraded one of Australia's emerging and enabling industries: our space sector. When I was the minister for industry, science and technology I asked the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources to report on the future of Australia's space industry. Their report found that the global space industry is predicted to be worth almost $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years. The committee endorsed the coalition government's goal to increase Australia's space revenue to $12 billion and create an additional 20,000 jobs by 2030, giving us a much bigger slice of the global industry. We were well on the way to achieving that, having created the Australian Space Agency to drive that growth. Importantly, we also made space one of the priority sectors in our Modern Manufacturing Strategy and we established the Australian Space Discovery Centre at Lot 14 in Adelaide to provide a showcase and education centre to inspire our young astronauts of the future. Space was traditionally about exploration and human advancement through space travel, but today, with satellite communications, our way of life relies on space technologies like it never has before. Growing the space sector is about jobs. It's about improving opportunities for Australian businesses so they can access international export prospects. It's about building our national capability into the future. Sadly, in very sharp contrast to the coalition government, the Labor government seems to lack our vision for supporting this growing sector and building for the future. One of the first things that Labor did was scrap space as a standalone sector under the National Reconstruction Fund. This was incredibly shortsighted and a sign of things to come. In September last year Australia's peak space industry organisation took the extraordinary step of writing to its members and calling out the Albanese-Labor government and Minister Ed Husic for their failure to engage on space policy since the election. In the government's most recent budget it was clear why. It has now been revealed that the Albanese government has cut over $1.2 billion from Australia's space industry by cancelling the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program in its entirety. Earth observation from space is vital to Australia's interests, with satellite earth observations and other forms of remote sensing contributing over $5 billion annually to Australia's GDP. A report by Deloitte in 2021 found that Australia's earth observation sector, and the benefits EO data generates for other industries, is exposed to a significant sovereign supply risk, at a time when the risk of denial-of-service events is growing. That's why in March 2022 the coalition allocated $38.5 million for the first phase of the National Space Mission for Earth Observation. The overall program was promised $1.16 billion out to 2039. The National Space Mission for Earth Observation was a joint project with the Australian Space Agency, CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Department of Defence. It would have facilitated the design, build and operation of four of our own new satellites for vital earth observation purposes, providing sovereign capability in this vital field and anchoring Australia's growing space industry. It is a travesty that Labor have quietly just scrapped it. Sadly, this is not the only cut. As a result of this government's so-called spending audit last year, they cut $506.4 million across the industry and science portfolio. This included cuts to the Modern Manufacturing Initiative and the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund, which have dedicated funding for space projects. It was also recently confirmed by the Australian Space Agency at Senate estimates that the Albanese government had cut $59.7 million from the Technology into Orbit program and the space flight tickets subprograms, $80 million from the Moon to Mars Supply Chain Facilitation program and $32.3 million which had been slated to co-invest in space ports and launch sites. It saddens me that the momentum built under the coalition government has been brought to a halt, meaning that jobs and opportunities, as well as scientific benefits, will be lost to our international competitors. We have the advanced the manufacturing capabilities, we have the businesses actively engaged, and, through the Australian Space Agency, we have built goodwill and opportunity in the international community. What we no longer have is a government committed to the sector. Local Content Broadcasting 76 19:55 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Australians love their entertainment. We love our sporting games and we love our news programs on TV. For decades, we've benefited from a robust community minded approach by free-to-air channels. Whether it's Channel 7, 9 or 10, SBS or the ABC, Australians of all races, cultures and demographics have enjoyed free access to broadcasting. But, in the last decade, we've seen a dramatic change in the way that Australians use our TV services. The days of old—my day—of the family sitting around watching the seven o'clock news have changed dramatically. Recently, we watched the Matildas' brilliant win over Denmark. Over 3.5 million Australians watched that on free-to-air TV. I don't think there was a member of my family, over four generations, that didn't watch it, either at the game or on free-to-air TV. It brought us all together. In fact, I've seen very little in the last few years that brought Australia together like the game on TV did last night. This is important not just for our local media groups but also because the Australian broadcasters that bring us free-to-air TV are helping us to access a whole range of issues, including women's sport, in an important moment in our history, by providing it free-to-air. In my day, every home had a television. We watched free-to-air TV. We had our channels to choose from. But, recently, there has been a tsunami of different streaming services that have come into our lives, often costing significant amounts of money. In my electorate of Macarthur, which has been struggling with cost-of-living issues over the last four or five years, these streaming services can be extraordinarily expensive, and many people are dropping out of streaming services. Our free-to-air TV is now coming under threat from overseas interests that wish to capitalise on new technology, to push the free-to-air broadcasters to the absolute outer limits and their locally made content well down the pecking order of both accessibility and visibility. For example, the pay-for-space system that television manufacturers such as Samsung and LG use in their smart TV systems allows apps such as Netflix, Disney and Amazon Prime to be placed on the home screen in very prominent positions. The free-to-air apps are way down the list and not very visible. That is a design feature of the new TVs produced by the multinational companies. Nowhere on their systems is a visible or easily accessible option available for Australian broadcasters and their respective free-to-air TV apps. If an individual wants to add these as options, they must go through a very lengthy installation process, usually involving an aerial, which involves searching for those apps, downloading them and then installing them. It is very complicated for some people, particularly older people. Even when you do download the apps, they're placed on the home page far away from the likes of the Samsung, LG and Netflix apps and streaming services. The TV companies know this and exploit it. It undoes decades of what Australians of various generations have come to know—that, when you turn on your TV, local free-to-air channels instantly appear. No longer. Furthermore, it has been shown that one in three Australians don't know how to download the apps and activate them on their new TV systems, according to independent research conducted by RMIT. This equates to almost seven million Australians, which is a very concerning number, who are being actively locked out of accessing Australian free-to-air content due to foreign TV manufacturers selling vital space on their home screens to the highest—usually overseas—bidder. This is a major issue, and it means that local TV services and local content—and local sporting content—are disappearing from our local screens. I'm a rugby tragic. I want to watch rugby on free-to-air TV. I think that's really important to sports fans, no matter what code. I'm further concerned that, with these new systems, we are going to be seeing less and less local content. That's very important for my electorate of Macarthur. The SPEAKER 53517 It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 9 am tomorrow. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 77 NOTICES Presentation 77

Tuesday, 8 August 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Cost of Living 80 16:00 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Hardworking young Australians are working more, getting less and paying the price for Labor's broken promises. They have a job, but they can hardly afford the cost of fuel to get to that job every single day. They're not even thinking about homeownership anymore because their rents are far too high. Their rent is higher because housing supply is low and investor confidence is low. Investors are selling off their portfolios left, right and centre. Labor's plan for housing is nothing less than to dismantle the building sector piece by piece. When they open the fridge there's just not enough food to get by until payday. It's okay, though, because, chances are, they'll need to unplug their fridge to save power anyway! Their last power bill was already unaffordable, thanks to Labor's unmodelled energy policies. But the gym is also too pricey, and the streets are now unsafe. The stress of it all is leading them onto a downward spiral, but they can't afford mental health support like they used to, because Labor has cut their access to psychologist visits in half. They accessed HECS to pay for vocational or higher education, and, last fiscal year, young Australians paid an additional 7.1 per cent on their HECS loans—all thanks to Labor's failure to mitigate inflation. They survived on two-minute noodles, cheap coffee, student accommodation and share houses. They worked part time, studied full time and did unpaid placements. They sought the Australian dream and now find themselves barely making ends meet. This is the story of so many young Australians. Under the coalition, homeownership, entrepreneurship and mental health care were more attainable than ever before. In just 15 months, Labor have made these outcomes unattainable. Why do young people always pay more under Labor? Cooper Electorate: Edwardes Lake Park, Cooper Electorate: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 80 16:02 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Today I'd like to tell you a love story. It's a story that started when two gorgeous birds fell in love—meet Kevin and Mabel. Kevin is a wild black swan that has lived at beautiful Edwardes Lake Park since 2017. He is a permanent fixture there now. But, sadly, he lost his mate to a dog attack in 2020. So we were all full of joy when Kevin met Mabel, another beautiful black swan who just happened to make the lake her home. Locals used to visit Kevin and Mabel to see how they were going, particularly during COVID-19 when our local parks were extra-special places of refuge from the lockdowns. The pair were tagged as part of a study by Melbourne university, and they had many little baby cygnets. But, tragically, we recently lost Mabel, and Kevin lost his mate. I can't tell you how devastated I was to hear this, like so many in our community who love to visit and see the pair and their babies enjoying the lake. If you don't know this, swans are monogamous and mate for life. And now Kevin has lost not only his mate but his last adult black swan friend at that lake. Why did this tragedy happen? Well, we all love our furry friends, but it's been an ongoing issue in the parklands—that dogs are attacking wildlife, when they should be on leashes. I really encourage everyone in our community to adhere to the on-leash signs and use the designated off-leash area to keep all beautiful animals safe. I want to thank and acknowledge Kate Jost, the president of the Friends of Edwardes Lake, who came to Mabel's side and held her while she passed away. Cooper is home to so many who care for our environment and wildlife, and we're lucky to have them. On another note, in my wonderful electorate of Cooper we have many, many people who have volunteered to help us with a 'yes' vote for the Voice. We have 386 volunteers having conversations all over Cooper. I think you know that my electorate is named after the wonderful William Cooper, a First Nations advocate. He actually petitioned the King to ask for a voice to parliament—this was back in the last century—and the electorate of Cooper would be a very, very proud place indeed if we were to wake up the morning after the referendum to find that the country had indeed voted 'yes' to a voice to parliament, living up to the legacy of William Cooper's fight for recognition. This would be a great thing indeed. I'm very proud of the people of Cooper for their fight for a voice. And let's hope it is a 'yes' vote. Casey Electorate: Roads 80 16:05 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Driving through my electorate of Casey, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that you're within 100 kilometres of Melbourne. Our community is made up of hundreds of kilometres of unsealed roads, from Seville to Belgrave, from Wandin to Warburton, from Mount Evelyn to Healesville and every town in between. This is why the former Liberal government committed $150 million to seal 150 kilometres of dirt roads throughout the Casey electorate. Many roads were sealed through our project, directly improving the lives of thousands of residents through safer roads, reduced dust and cleaner air, and allowing emergency services ease of access to some of our most remote areas. It was actually a project that the then Labor shadow minister for infrastructure—none other than the now Prime Minister—committed to in the 2019 election, stating that it would 'build the safe roads our community needs'. That was until the Prime Minister and his Labor government came along and ripped up the funding in the 2022 budget. I've been contacted by residents of all ages, including primary-aged children, about the importance of sealing roads in our community. They want to get home safely. School students want to be able to walk to school without inhaling dust. Our emergency services need sealed roads to access every inch of our community in an emergency. I've written to Prime Minister Albanese about this, but I haven't received a response. So, once again, I call on the Albanese Labor government to reinstate the funding that they cut from our community. Road sealing isn't the only project in our community that Labor would like to rip up. They've now put the brakes on the long-overdue upgrade to the Killara Road and Maroondah Highway at Coldstream, and the Canterbury Road upgrades, including at the congested Montrose roundabout. With a new estate going up in Coldstream, and a pump bike track across the busy highway, the installation of traffic lights at Killara Road could not be more crucial. Not only have we seen too many accidents and fatalities at this intersection, but also the Coldstream CFA can't get out of their station and respond to emergencies. In addition to this, Labor is considering cutting the funds to the Canterbury Road and Montrose roundabout upgrades. My constituents are sick and tired of sitting in traffic on their daily commute. Canterbury Road is one of the main roads connecting my community to Melbourne. We must address this and the traffic bottleneck at Montrose roundabout, for the safety of all drivers. Labor can't keep ripping up road safety projects in our community. I urge the Labor government to get on with these projects and stop wasting their time on reviews. Macarthur Electorate: Telecommunications Infrastructure 81 16:08 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I just want to acknowledge the hard work by our communications minister on including a number of suburbs in Macarthur in the fibre-to-the-premises upgrades to the NBN recently. This $2.4 billion investment will allow residents, including residents of Macarthur, and businesses to take advantage of faster internet speeds and more reliable internet connections, which are increasingly important parts of a modern society and economy. Additionally, investments such as the Peri-Urban Mobile Program, the PUMP, provide Macarthur with much-needed phone connectivity. For a number of years, particularly during the years of the former government, my office received almost daily calls from constituents who were struggling to work from home, to contact their families and friends and to complete their studies in online courses. Macarthur is one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country, and it still has subpar NBN connection in regional suburbs and poor mobile phone connection—or even a complete lack thereof—in some areas of wider Macarthur. Investments and grants in relation to communications infrastructure in areas like Macarthur are integral to a functioning modern society, and I'm proud that the Albanese government, through Michelle Rowland, our communications minister, is committed to such upgrades. Initiatives such as the School Student Broadband Initiative and the full fibre upgrade program announced early last month will provide up to 30,000 unconnected families with school aged children with free NBN connections for 12 months and provide speed upgrades for schools and organisations. I have more than 80 schools in my electorate. However, more work still needs to be done. As the federal representative of the largest electorate by population in the country, I say that a strong and resilient communications network is vital for a society such as ours. In my own field of health care it is even more vital, as we are moving towards a connected health system via the internet. In my electorate of Macarthur we have a large university, including a large university healthcare campus, and these connections are absolutely vital to ongoing student support and ongoing research. Further to this, there are suburbs in my electorate bound to internet connectivity contracts with private providers unable to access the NBN. Therefore, in having no alternatives, these areas face more issues, dealing with a limited provider that often has very poor service. I'm incredibly proud of the work done by my government, but I call for an increase in such investment in the new peri-urban areas of Macarthur, which are dependent on the internet. In times of national emergency, like the Black Summer bushfires, we depend on proper connectivity. I'm proud to be part of a government that champions equitable access to high-speed broadband and phone connections. Bonner Electorate: Bayside United Football Club 82 16:11 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I think we can all agree that it is beyond exciting to see our Matildas make it through to the quarterfinals of the 2023 Women's Soccer World Cup. They were on fire last night, and what incredible ambassadors they are for Australia and for women in sport. But I rise today to update the House on what I believe is even more exciting soccer news for my electorate of Bonner. I'm happy to report that the Bayside United Football Club female change rooms and parents room are only weeks away from completion. Located in the great suburb of Lota, the Bayside United Football Club has a proud history of being a club for the people, and it is an integral part of our local community. Through my advocacy, and working alongside the Bayside United Football Club, I was able to deliver $580,000 in federal government funding to help the club expand and cater for female athletes and parents. When this project first started there were no dedicated female change rooms or parents room. This meant there was no privacy for female players or referees when they needed to change in or out of sports gear and no area for parents if they needed privacy with young children. That is why I fought for this much-needed community infrastructure upgrade to help ensure women and parents feel comfortable and safe when attending games at Bayside United Football Club. To know this project is very near completion is great news and a win for our local community, especially as female participation in soccer continues to grow to new heights. The opening of the female change rooms and parents room will also be just in time for the Super 6 summer series, and this year the club aims to have at least 50 per cent women and girls teams in the series, which will include mum-and-daughter teams along with dad-and-daughter teams. I have to say, the completion of this upgrade and the new life of the club wouldn't be possible without the passion and dedication of the new club president, Andrew Dale, as well as the hardworking committee members and people like the women and girls technician director, Theo. I'm also excited—or, should I say, slightly apprehensive—to share with the House that Andrew has challenged me to a pizza cook-off at the club. It might have been a while since my restaurant days, but, as the former owner of a small business called Elio's Restaurant, and being of Italian heritage, I'm hoping I can remember a trick or two! I look forward to keeping the House informed and, more importantly, to seeing more women playing soccer at the Bayside United Football Club. Tangney Electorate: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 82 16:14 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney A lot has been said about the Voice, and a lot of negativity oozes from the opposition. Today I want to share a very positive experience. Our electorate of Tangney is one of the most diverse in Australia. Around 45 per cent of its population was born overseas, way above the national average of 27 per cent. This means we have a culturally and linguistically diverse community like no other in Australia. This experience I'm talking about shows once again how diversity and multiculturalism foster values like dialogue, harmony and respect. With a little bit more than a week's notice, over 300 people gathered at Murdoch University last month to listen firsthand to local First Nations speakers about why the Voice is so important to them and how it has the potential to improve thousands of lives. These people came from very different backgrounds: First Nations, Chinese, Indian, Malay, Latin, European, and Australians of other ancestries. Many admitted not knowing what the referendum was for, not knowing what the Voice was, not knowing how it would work. But instead of giving in to despair, to a campaign of fearmongering and of misinformation, they decided to come together and respectfully listen, learn and debate. This shows us that the Voice cannot bring division. It can bring us all together. It can bring us all together in listening to each other, in respecting each other and in recognising that there are voices that have been silenced for far too long. None of this would have been possible without the efforts of our volunteers, the fantastic team at Murdoch University that so generously supported us and all the speakers that shared their time, wisdom and belief with us. Each vote counts. We have the opportunity to start correcting the injustices of the past. To my constituents of Tangney: your vote counts. I know that I'll be voting yes when the time comes, and my hope for all my fellow Australians is that you will take the time to come together like we did, that you get to listen to your brothers and sisters and that you vote following your heart. Forde Electorate: Infrastructure 82 16:17 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde The electorate of Forde is the epicentre of one of the fastest-growing regions in Queensland, the south-east corner. South-East Queensland is expected to grow by up to 2.2 million people by 2046, and yet we see this government keeps putting critical infrastructure in our region on the backburner. The coalition understands that to properly plan for future growth you need to invest in the infrastructure that will allow that to occur. Far too often, we have seen massive new developments around the south-east corner, yet the infrastructure is not put in place in a timely manner and we finish up with roads and other services that are no longer fit for purpose. That is why during the 2022 election the coalition committed $55 million to upgrade Exit 38 on the M1 at Yatala. This $110 million project, jointly funded by the Queensland state government, would improve access to one of the largest industrial zones outside of Brisbane, at the northern end of the Gold Coast, whilst also decreasing travel times for tens of thousands of commuters along this vital piece of infrastructure. One of the really concerning pieces to do with this exit is the queue of traffic that builds up from that exit during peak hour, back along the M1 into a 110-kilometre-an-hour zone. This is incredibly dangerous. There have been innumerable accidents along that stretch of road as a result, and it's well past time that this exit was upgraded. Since the election, I have written to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, highlighting the importance of these projects in the local area. I do want to thank the minister for her time last week to catch up and discuss some of these projects. And yet we have seen no commitments to these projects actually being funded, including the ones we had previously announced, even in the 2019 campaign. The recently announced 90-day independent strategic review puts at risk projects like the Chambers Flat Road upgrade between Park Ridge Road and Derby Road; the upgraded High Road and Easterly Street at Waterford; and the upgrade of the Beaudesert-Beenleigh Road to Milne Street section, to name just a few. These funded, targeted upgrades will cut travel time drastically— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:20 to 16:29 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 In the short remaining time, I will say it's disappointing to see the future of these projects now in doubt. Once again, I've written to the minister for infrastructure highlighting the importance of these projects, I've also provided a submission to the review. I'm committed to seeing these upgrades across the electorate of Forde to ensure our community is properly serviced with the infrastructure it needs. Parramatta Electorate: Sydney Metro West 83 16:29 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I rise to show my support for the New South Wales government's Sydney Metro West project. Parramatta is Australia's most dynamic CBD, and it deserves that title for a number of reasons. First of all, it is the fastest-growing CBD in Australia, with a million square metres of new office space recently laid down and a million more to come. It has all the right ingredients to become Australia's next global city, and that's being recognised by businesses right across the country, with 30 per cent of Australia's ASX 100 businesses now having a presence in Parramatta. At around $30 billion to $35 billion, if Parramatta were a country on its own, it would make it into the top 100 economies in the world by size. Parramatta also has a young and highly educated workforce, with no fewer than nine university campuses. Our local community is home to Western Sydney's best and brightest, and in the next 20 years Parramatta's population is set to double in size. One of the great assets of Parramatta as a global city is its connectedness. It sits right in the geographic heart of Greater Sydney and, because of its centrality, Parramatta is the gateway to the economic powerhouse of Western Sydney. So many businesses, from KPMG to NAB and the ABC, are taking advantage of Parramatta's perfect balance between connectivity, affordability and a workforce of young, job-ready locals. This is why the Parramatta Metro is so important. It would not only build on Parramatta's natural strengths as a regional hub but significantly add to its local economy. A recent study by Ethos Urban found that a Metro station in Parramatta would deliver $1.1 billion per annum to the local economy and 9,410 full-time-equivalent jobs. I want to commend Premier Chris Minns. Premier Minns inherited a swathe of infrastructure projects in trouble—projects that were over time and over budget—and it's appropriate that he review these projects and make sure that they are on track to deliver the proposed benefits and that they're optimised to make sure that they're delivered as quickly as possible and with as much upside for the local community as possible. That's why right now Premier Minns is undertaking a statewide review into how to clean up the mess left behind by the Liberal government. I respect that, but I also look forward to the delivery of Metro West and the enormous benefits that it will bring to Western Sydney, because it's true that the costs of the project have increased but so have the benefits. Schools 83 16:32 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Education is critical to the future success of every child and of Australian society more broadly. But this future is under threat, with school quality and student outcomes continuing to decline and wealth based inequality and segregation in our education system only getting worse. All of this, sadly, seems at odds with our history. Free, compulsory primary education for all students has a long tradition in Australia, with each colony having had legislation in place to offer this to citizens by the 1880s, provided on the basis that all citizens deserved an equal right to education regardless of their financial capacity. Moreover, in 2011 the Gonski reforms sought to address deficiencies in the education system by establishing the Schooling Resource Standard, or SRS. This set a funding level that all governments have agreed is the minimum required to meet the needs of every student. But, despite this, in 2023 almost all public schools across the country are still funded below the SRS, the effect of which was made clear to me when I met last week with school principals, who shared alarming stories of the impacts of this underfunding on children and school staff in public schools across the country. In other words, the Gonski reforms are failing, and failing by design, because the current agreements between the Commonwealth and state governments for public school funding in effect guarantee that most schools will never be fully funded. At my request, the Parliamentary Budget Office investigated one option to address this underfunding: lifting the Commonwealth government's share of funding for public schools to 25 per cent of the SRS by 2028. Their report shows that the total cost to 2028 would be $9.18 billion, or about $1.8 billion a year. The PBO also estimated that an average of about $3.5 billion would be required each year afterwards. For context, the stage 3 tax cuts are estimated to cost $20.4 billion in their first year alone. In other words, just a relatively modest investment would go a hell of a long way towards ensuring that every child has what they need to succeed at school. Of course, while costings like the PBO's are very useful, in all the talk of funding we must remember that, as the Gonski report itself noted, funding for schooling must not be seen simply as a financial matter but rather as investing to strengthen and secure Australia's future. This is all the more reason the government must not shirk the challenge before them—the challenge to find the money and invest in our kids—because, as the Gonski report also noted, Australia and its children now and in the future deserve nothing less. Peter Hopper Lake, Syro-Malabar Cultural Centre 84 16:35 Mr 243609 Scullin GILES (—) (): I want to talk about the Peter Hopper Lake, which is at the very centre of Mill Park and at the centre of the Mill Park community. The lake in recent times has fallen into some quite shocking disrepair due to algal blooms, which has meant that the local wildlife have suffered enormously and it hasn't been the focus of recreational activity that the community wants and, indeed, needs to enjoy. It's in the Redleap Recreation Reserve, which has been updated by significant investments, an off-lead dog park and upgrades to the playground. It hasn't been a place where people have been able to enjoy nature and this beautiful lake. I was so pleased at the last election that Labor committed to restoring the lake. I was even more excited that there was $2 million allocated to this project on 20 July this year through the Labor government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. This will enable a partnership with the City of Whittlesea to rebuild the lake, including the complete de-siltation of the lake and installation of stormwater quality improving infrastructure in the form of an inlet-zone sediment pond to capture future sediment, as well as off-line bioretention for continuous water circulation and nutrient reduction to improve the health of the lake, the entire local community and birdlife. People will be able to enjoy this beautiful part of our community. I give a big shout-out to the Friends of Peter Hopper Lake, particularly Karen, who I have been discussing this issue with for quite some time. If not for their passionate advocacy for community and wildlife, this investment wouldn't have happened. They are a fantastic example of community action partnering with government at various levels to make a real difference. I'm so excited to see work get underway at the lake so that it can again become a hub for people coming together and a place where our native wildlife can again gather safely. I also want to let the parliament know about an event in my community that's of great concern to me. A few days ago the Syro-Malabar Cultural Centre in Epping was the subject of a break-in. The break-in caused significant loss but also great distress to a fantastic community, who I count as my friends. I reached out to Dr Johnson George to express my concern and my solidarity. I do so in this place too because for a place of worship to be subject to this kind of vandalism and attack is really shocking and instils a sense of fear that is entirely out of place in any of our communities. So in this place I restate my sense of solidarity with everyone in the Syro-Malabar community. I hope that these words give some comfort at a difficult time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 84 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Gender Equality 84 16:38 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby The recently released Globalgender gap report from the World Economic Forum shows that, since the Albanese Labor government took office, Australia's world gender equity ranking has jumped 17 places from 43rd to 26th, the largest increase since the index began in 2006. This is a huge achievement. It means that Australia is starting to properly value and invest in better outcomes for women and girls. This historic 17-place jump is in part driven by Labor's commitment to equal gender representation in politics. We are now the first Australian Commonwealth government in history to be majority women—53 per cent. The number of women in our cabinet has increased to 10 out of 23—43 per cent. This is the largest number of women we've ever had in an Australian federal cabinet. This kind of representation was thought to be completely outside the realm of possibility when I was young. When I was born, there was one female MP in the House of Representatives and there were four female senators. Young women and girls of today's Australia have a very different example before them. We know that gender equality has been demonstrated to lead to better decision-making. We see the evidence in boardrooms and management. ASX listed companies have better financial outcomes when they are led by a diverse board with at least two women. We had a decade of stalled progress under the former coalition government, which has allowed the gender status quo to continue for far too long. As the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, has said, on average, women working full time can expect to earn 14.1 per cent less per week in their pay packets than men, and we are facing poorer economic outcomes as a result of this inequity. Every year, $51.8 billion is lost because the underpayment of women continues. The current projections show it will take another 26 years to close the gender pay gap. This is unacceptable, and the Albanese government will not sit back and allow this sorry situation to continue. At the last election, Labor promised to push forward Australia's progress and make us a world leader on gender equality, and some of the changes we've implemented are making a tangible difference. We are extending and modernising paid parental leave. Our new model encourages fathers to also take parental leave, which is a benefit to the child and also to the whole family. It also allows the mother to return to work earlier if she so chooses. We are expanding the single parenting payment, legislating Australia's first paid domestic violence leave so survivors don't have to choose between safety and retaining their job, and increasing transparency on gender pay gap reporting. I have my own personal expense with the gender pay gap, where in a team of three equivalent executives I discovered I was being paid $8,000 less than one and $15,000 less than the other male counterpart. It was only once I discovered this and pointed it out that I could make the case, and my pay was adjusted appropriately. I shouldn't have to do that work. We are investing in consent based, respectful relationships and protected behaviour programs in primary and secondary schools because, if we want to end sexual assault, we need a cultural change. There is funding for a national consent survey, and we are abolishing the ParentsNext program on 1 July 2024. This is just the start. A large part of our plan to push for better outcomes for women and girls is the National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality. We've made significant strides in developing this strategy, which will guide holistic, community led action. It will be an important mechanism for recognising, elevating and prioritising actions that will achieve gender equality. The strategy will work towards improving all aspects of life for women, from ensuring their physical safety both at home and at work to challenging stereotypes and attitudes that restrict their choices, as well as addressing the undervaluing of women's labour and leadership. Developing this strategy has involved extensive consultation with a diverse range of women and girls. We understand that diversity of experience and perspective is a vital part of this plan. Recognising the impact that intersecting identities have on the experience of women will allow us to tackle gender inequality in a nuanced and effective way. The lived experience of gender inequality is something that was really brought home to me during my time at Catherine House. This women's homelessness service and the women experiencing that homelessness are a living example of the perfect storm of gender inequality, the cumulative effect of gender inequality throughout their entire lives. When you discover that women are more likely to be living in poverty in older age and that women 55 and older make up a huge cohort of people experiencing homelessness, this is the reason why. These were often the women who had few options for work when they left school. They were often in gendered roles, none of which were well paid or, in those days, even paid the same as their male equivalents, were there any. They often had to leave work when they got married or pregnant, and, even for those not in that age group, women are often in gendered roles: the caring professions, which are somehow underpaid despite the importance of the work. They are often a casualised workforce with part-time roles and long gaps in their career paths due to caring for children, husbands, partners and parents. And, even if they do go back to work after children, again they're often lower paid, they've lost years of career progression and are on part-time work. All of this means that they don't have much of a financial safety net: little super and few savings. Then they get older and something happens: a relationship breakdown—sometimes with DV, but it can be something else; a cancer diagnosis, an injury or a job loss; trauma, such as sexual assault; or just getting to retirement age and finding they have nothing to fall back on. They run out of options and they end up sleeping in their car or on a friend's couch. That's how easy it is to become homeless as a woman, and that's how gender inequality directly impacts on a woman's life: it's cumulative through their entire life. Whether a woman ends up in this cohort or not, gender inequality affects all women. I shared the story of how it affected me—and I consider myself to have had a very lucky life. So it's important that, as a government, we address gender inequality. The understanding that this government has of the experiences of women is like that of no other government to date. Why? What makes this government so different to previous iterations? It's the fact that women's voices are represented at an unprecedented rate. Women are at the table, being heard. The amazing women in our cabinet and our caucus room are sharing their experiences, hardships and triumphs in a room that is prepared and eager to listen to their unique perspectives. They're hearing understanding the experience of other women in our electorates and they're bringing those into the parliament, into the caucus room, into committees and into policy discussions. That changes outcomes, and that's what we've seen. The World Economic Forum has recognised that things are changing here in Australia, and that's why our gender equality ranking has jumped from 43rd to 26th: 17 points. We still have a long way to go. I note that our neighbour New Zealand is at No. 4, but we're heading in the right direction. I am very proud of the achievements of the Albanese government to date, and I commit to keep pushing forward so that Australia becomes the most gender-equal country in the world. At the last election gender equality and the treatment of women by the former government was one of the major issues that I heard about from women in my electorate. It was certainly something that influenced my decision to run, and my decision to be here to make a difference. To see this enormous jump in the gender-equality rating so soon after we came to government is incredibly rewarding. I'd like to thank all of my electorate for the opportunity to be part of this. 16:47 Mrs McINTOS 281513 Lindsay H () (): I wouldn't be getting too excited about the figures. The government is claiming that it has been all their work which has improved our standing. But if we look deeper into the figures globally, in 2013 Australia was ranked No. 1 when it came to educational attainment. We're now No. 78. Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Would you like to claim No. 78 as well? We're 89th when it comes to health and we're also 38th when it comes to economic participation. And, yes, we are 26th out of 146 countries. I have a particular interest in this issue. In 2014 I ran a big women-in-leadership event on the sidelines of the G20, and I would like to acknowledge a couple of the men who supported that and championed it: former senator Robert Hill, Kevin McCann and a former senator who has, sadly, passed away, Russell Trood. They really got behind this issue, because it's not just a women's issue; it's an economic issue. There was a goal set at the time by the G20, that by 2025 the reduction in the gender gap would be 25 per cent globally. Australia does play its part in that, and the improvements that we're seeing overall are encouraging, but there's absolutely more work to be done. The way that we do that is across multiple areas. Of course there are women in politics and having clearer pathways for women—having more women in the talent pool; women in business and how to keep women engaged with their careers; and investing in women, which is a particular issue globally. When we look at the figures globally—and we can't take Australia out of that context, because this is a global target to reduce the gender gap—we've had setbacks and we've actually gone backwards. We should be concerned about that and whether we're going to pick up pace again to reach this 25 per cent target. Of course, that is due to the COVID pandemic and the impact it had on women and girls in education and the workforce, followed by economic and geopolitical crises worldwide. Today some parts of the world are seeing partial recoveries while others are experiencing deteriorations as a new crisis unfolds. Global gender gaps in health and education have narrowed over the past year, yet progress on political empowerment is effectively at a standstill and women's economic participation has regressed rather than recovered. We can't increase global GDP, which is actually the aim of decreasing the gender gap, if we don't have women's economic participation. COVID-19 placed an immense occupational, social and economic hardship on all of society, in particular on women and children. We know that in most households, when care is needed, it is overwhelmingly a woman who sacrifices employment or occupational advancement. This was evidenced in the peak years of the COVID pandemic, particularly during the lockdowns. COVID also affected hospitality, and many women working casual or part-time roles went without work or pay throughout that period until the former coalition government stepped in to assist those workers and families to ensure stability. We also saw the female dominated professions of caring, nursing and education facing the brunt of the pandemic. Maybe that's why we've seen such a decline in the rates around education. I urge the government to really look seriously at those, both in the area of education and in the area of health, and why we have gone from No. 1 down to 27 and are now 89th in the world when it comes to health. I'd like to also acknowledge our nurses, who worked night and day to save lives during that incredibly difficult period. I know the New South Wales government offered healthcare workers accommodation so they didn't have to go home and risk spreading the virus to their families. And, of course, I want to thank our carers for the amazing work that they did during that period. Without their efforts, many more lives in aged-care facilities or disability services and housing may have been lost. Our teachers, within an instant, had to change the delivery model of work for students, and I understand the additional stress this put on our educators. I thank them for their stewardship of innovation during those periods so that, from early learning all the way through to university, kids were still being engaged in their education. I know that firsthand, with three children. I mention those because that period of time during the pandemic had a real impact on the results that we are seeing today. I think the world needs to get back to some sense of normality for us to relook at the figures and also Australia's place in those figures before we get too carried away about doing such an amazing job. So I urge the government to be a bit careful in their self-congratulatory language about our current ranking in the world. When we're thinking about women and their ability to work and support, we can't step back and not talk about the impact of this Labor government's cuts to the psychology sessions from 20 to 10. From the data, we know that it particularly impacts young women and girls who use the Better Access sessions provided by the former coalition government. In the midst of the pandemic, the coalition knew Australians were struggling and that mental health issues were arising from lockdowns and COVID. Now we're seeing that the cost-of-living crisis is causing distress in the community as well as the compounding impact of that period for those with long- to medium-term mental health conditions. Women face a higher rate of homelessness as they age, and we know that workforce participation and economic opportunity can impact this. When I get an opportunity, I often give a shout-out to a program that I was involved in establishing when I worked in community and social housing. It's called the WISH program, Women In Social Housing. It was established for women who had been in the cycle of intergenerational welfare, had been through domestic violence and had never been able to get out of social housing. They were partnered with mentors in the community and provided wraparound support and training to get them into the workforce. I think that is such a wonderful program to give women independence—most of all, economic independence. These programs should have support in our communities, and these are local programs that make a difference. If women can have that economic independence, they can continue to strive, live out their dreams and be great role models for their children. That's some of the feedback that we were getting from women participating in that program, because it was about changing lives. Again I want to reflect on the figures; they're not great, worldwide. We're not reaching that 25 per cent target. Australia does have its role to play in that. Please don't get carried away patting yourselves on the back that you're doing an amazing job, because there is a lot of work to do. Please focus on education, please focus on health and please keep the work going that the coalition government started in our term of government 16:56 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm It is very typical of those opposite to be only able to look backwards. This really was a shameful slip in the rankings over the last decade that we're recovering from now. It is, I think, quite telling that there's only one speaker from the opposite side that signed themselves up today to speak on this significant issue of Australia's improvement in the World Economic Forum Global gender gap report rankings. So you'll forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of those opposite when it comes to gender equality. Of course, the record of the last decade speaks for itself in terms of that shameful slip backwards that our nation unfortunately experienced in its standing on gender equality. But I've got really good news, and that is that Australia has improved its standing on gender equality. The World Economic Forum Global gender gap report rankings now list Australia as 26 out of 146 countries—an improvement from where we were previously, at 43 in the world. This improvement is a good achievement and is one that is only possible because of the steps taken by the Albanese Labor government to promote gender equality. Our commitment to fostering greater workforce participation, through making early childhood education and care more affordable and accessible, our work in ensuring feminised work is not worse-paid work and the implementation of paid family and domestic violence leave are all part of the active efforts undertaken by this side of the House to ensure that we close the gender pay gap. In addition, we have started the implementation of all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report so that all women are safe at work. The report and the recommendations were the product of so many conversations with women right across Australia who were working in horticulture, hospitality, factories, offices, education and a range of different sectors. I'm so pleased that we've taken action to make sure that those women are going to be safer at work. We do have some way to go, and this side of the House acknowledges that. Current projections mean that it will take about 131 years to close the gender gap globally. Of course, the gender gap impacts women differently. Things are, still, in our own country, too unequal for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds, for First Nations women and for women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. We must consider the intersectionality of experience when implementing policies to make sure that these can improve situations for all women. Our National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children does take intersectionality and women's voices seriously, with victim-survivors at the heart of the ambitious plan to eliminate gendered violence within a generation. This is a plan that all states and territories have signed up to. In terms of the work we're doing in our region, we are placing gender equality at the heart of our aid program. We know that this significant commitment to lift social and economic participation in the Pacific region is a really important thing for our nation to do, and I'm really proud that we're making that commitment. Labor governments have a good history of taking action on gender equality, with the first female minister—the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women—being a Labor woman: Susan Ryan. She was a remarkable trailblazer who introduced the Sex Discrimination Act to the parliament and the nation. This was preceded by a private senators bill that she introduced—a brave act by a courageous, tenacious woman whose legacy we all benefit from today and, I believe, are obliged to build on. We still need to do more to improve economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment—all key measures of how well we are doing in the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report rankings. The difference between our side of the House and the other side is that, when we acknowledge all the work that needs to be done, we don't shy away from our responsibilities; we make the active commitment to do more, to do better and to close that gender gap. Women make up more than half of our government. We should feel great pride that our nation has played host to, arguably, the most successful women's sporting event the world has ever seen: the FIFA Women's World Cup. The Matildas are doing really well and being celebrated by people from all walks of life. But we need to do more to change cultures, to change behaviours and to set new and better standards. I would think that is something everyone in this place should be very aware of. These achievements that we reflect on having made over the past year have not happened by accident. They've happened because there has been determination to make change, to make our nation more equal, to make the region more equal and to make the world more equal. This work is the responsibility of us all, and do I urge those on the other side of the House to join us in taking active steps to close the gender gap. Our policies in the areas of education, industry, health, finance and housing all take into consideration the gendered dimension of opportunity and aspiration, as well as entrenched and systemic challenges and structural inequalities that need to be addressed. Our government's holistic approach to gender equality is one that will give us a much greater chance of success in continuing to close the gender gap that persists. Given that there are so many women representatives on our side of the House, that should come as no surprise. I'm very grateful to all those who worked so hard over so many decades in this place to develop policies and implement laws to make it possible for me to be here, but I know that there are many other women in this country who need more to be done to ensure that they have the opportunities that they should and that they deserve. I will use every chance I get here to do what I can to open doors to those women who have been locked out. 17:03 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins What a difference a year makes. Australia has just witnessed its biggest jump—a leap, in fact—in the World Economic Forum's rankings for gender equality. Australia has gone from a middling 43rd out of 146 countries—embarrassing for one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD—to now being 26th in the world. This has been driven by several indices but principally by political empowerment. The gender equality ranking is made up of various indicators. These are economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival—which is very good in Australia, where, as we know, women have a life expectancy of around 84 years—and political empowerment and representation, which is where we lag behind. Last year, we were 50th out of 146 countries. This year we are 29th. We have raised our country's entire profile by 17 places. What does political representation actually mean? It means a government that is now female dominant. We have, for the first time in Commonwealth history, 53 per cent representation of women. As my colleague the member for Reid, who is sitting next to me, said, the House of Representatives is finally living up to its name. It was long overdue, but it has happened. This didn't happen, however, by accident. This happened due to intentional policies that were initially flagged by the Labor Party—indeed, under Keating—around 30 years ago, and a decision was made, due to the abysmal representation of women back then, that we needed quotas. Quotas were debated; they were hotly contested. But, in the end, we landed it and we decided to go with quotas. Our aim was a modest 50 per cent. That's all we aimed for—50 per cent. We were not ambitious. We were not asking too much. We said, 'Let's set a target of 50 per cent—even representation,' not really expecting us to get there. And what has happened in 2023? We have sailed past parity and we are sitting at 53 per cent. But, again, we don't aim for too much. It turns out our cabinet has the highest representation of women in Commonwealth history as well: 10 out of 23 cabinet members are women, sitting at 43 per cent. 'Why is that important?' you may ask. 'Why does it matter? Is this not some kind of leftie woke agenda? Why can't we just forget about women?' Well, apart from the small fact that women make up 51 per cent of our population, they also happen to live longer than men, so, as you get older, it's going to be skewed towards women; there's a bulge in that sense. Having women at the table improves the quality of the decision-making, and, in a peak decision-making body like this place, that matters, because the decisions that are made, or the decisions that are not made, have repercussions across millions and millions of people, from girls to adolescents to women. So I am proud to say that we are a government that is hardwired to focus on women's economic attainment as well as representation, and there is a range of interventions that we have introduced. There is $4.7 billion in child care—the largest on-budget spend in our October budget. Now why did we do that? Why does child care matter? It doesn't really matter, does it? Isn't it just middle-class welfare? Isn't that all we hear from those opposite? Child care is infrastructure. We regard it as critical social infrastructure—and economic infrastructure, I might add. Why? Because it brings a triple dividend: to the mother, to the baby and to our economy. Leaving the talent of women on the table is wasting that talent, and, in this environment, when businesses are crying out for workers, no-one, no government, would be sensible in ignoring that cohort of 51 per cent. That is why we pumped $4.7 billion into child care. It is also why we've realised that this sector is in need of reform. We have tasked the Productivity Commission with looking further into how we can make it more efficient and more equitable, so that everyone benefits from it—including those who live regional communities, where there may not be that many childcare centres. In addition to this, we have invested in paid parental leave—a proud Labor government legacy, introduced by Julia Gillard in 2011—and we have expanded it by an additional two weeks, in order to then bring it up to six months by 2026. Why, again, does this matter? What does it matter having paid parental leave? Well, paid parental leave matters because those gendered norms that box in men as breadwinners and women as homemakers start in the early days when baby comes home, and they entrench and they persist. What it means for mothers is that mothers do not go back to full-time work, and so you end up with a divergence in pay and economic inequity, which persists for that mother's entire working life. That brings me to the next point: our gender pay gap. Our gender pay gap has stubbornly sat at 14.1 per cent. This is largely driven by the care economy, which is a feminised industry. It includes nurses, teachers, social workers, childcare workers and aged-care workers. Much of our workplace relations reforms is focused on levelling that field and boosting the pay of these female dominated industries. You may think, again, that this is some sort of leftie agenda. It's about the economy. To quote—who was it? Was it Clinton or Reagan? I forget. It is about the economy, stupid. We have to get on with it. We have to level the playing field, because we cannot afford to let women fall behind. But we're not stopping there. We have also made gender pay equity an object of the Fair Work Commission. We are focusing on modernising our workplaces by zeroing in on sexual harassment. That belongs to another era, the era that the Australian people slammed the door on on 22 May last year. And we have implemented all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, or else these are well on the way. In addition to this, we are making gender pay parity an object of peak research organisations such as the NHMRC, the National Health and Medical Research Council, a body that funded me once upon a time when I was a young mother undertaking a PhD. This is incredibly important. Of course we should be bringing up some of our most gifted, brightest women and ensuring that they attain research parity with their male counterparts, because goodness knows they've got enough barriers to contend with. We are also investing in housing—social and affordable housing—for women and key workers like nurses, because these are people we cannot afford to live without. It is a shame—in fact, a disgrace—that a bill, currently in the Senate, that addresses the acuity of the housing crisis is currently being blocked by the Liberals and the Greens, who have teamed up with One Nation. When you are voting with One Nation, you are already on the wrong side of history. It goes down like a bucket of vomit in Higgins, I can assure you. But we're not stopping there. We have also established the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, which comprises 13 eminent women who are providing independent advice to the government, and that is ongoing. We've also committed a record $1.7 billion to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. Why does that matter? It is one of the most potent drivers of homelessness in Australia—women experiencing domestic violence—and men are highly invested in this issue as well. So we have some way to go, but we have really come a long way in one year, and we're not going to stop there. 17:12 Ms CLA 248181 Newcastle YDON (—) (): What an honour it is to rise to speak on this ministerial statement regarding the World Economic Forum Global gender gap report rankings. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that I, and also all of the Labor women who stand behind me and who have made such terrific contributions today, would want to speak to this, because this is what Labor women do. The latest gender pay gap report from the World Economic Forum shows that we have so much to celebrate. It shows that, since the election of an Albanese Labor government just 12 months ago, Australia's world gender equality ranking has jumped a very impressive 17 places. From what was an all-time record low for Australia 12 months ago under the former government, when we were positioned at 43 on those world rankings, we have jumped 17 places, up to 26, the largest increase since the index began in 2006. In no small part, that jump is due to Labor's steadfast commitment to gender-equal representation in politics. This is not some woke new agenda we've just cottoned onto here; this is a project that has been at the heart of Labor's work for three decades. That is why we stand before you—three women; there are two with me in this chamber now. For the first time in Australia's history since Federation in 1901, the Australian parliament has a government that is a majority of women. It is by no accident that this happens. To those opposite, if you still think that there isn't a role to play around rule changes in your party rooms and having a very conscious program for addressing the inequities that exist in political representation in many parts of this country, then you are kidding yourselves. The global gender pay gap index is something that annually benchmarks the current state and evolution of gender parity across four really key dimensions. I've just spoken about the amazing work that we've done in terms of political empowerment for Australian women. But there are also the economic participation and opportunities that are assessed in these rankings, along with educational attainment, health and survival—all critical parts for quality of life by anyone's measures. As I said, our ranking has improved out of sight in the field of political empowerment and, importantly, is not going backwards in any of those other measures. Our government is the first in this Commonwealth's history to have a majority of women. The number of women in cabinet is 10 out of 23, the largest number of women ever in an Australian federal cabinet. Women make up the vast majority of the Australian Senate—let's not forget that other house. Labor's commitments to gender-equal representation in politics have seen our rankings jump from 50th in 2022 to 29th in 2023. What a difference 12 months makes. This is no accident; it's the result of hard, deliberate, conscious and purposeful action. It is because of this commitment that our global ranking on the women-in-parliament indicator has jumped up from 48th position to 38th position. When it comes to women in ministerial positions, Australia is now ranked 19th, up from a measly 62nd. We were ranked 62nd in the world for ministerial positions for women. Twelve months later, after the election of a Labor government, we ranked 19th in the world. What a great result. We should be celebrating that. Having 53 per cent women in an Albanese Labor government ensures that gender is no add-on for us; it sits at the centre of everything we do. The World Economic Forum knows that better gender representation leads to better outcomes. We've known that for a long time. When women are in the room, we are part of the decision-making. Make no mistake; we are participating at every step along the journey—every step. When it comes to reflecting on some of Labor's progress, I think of the very first woman to serve in the portfolio of the status of women, Labor's Susan Ryan. She was elected and took up the position in 1984. Susan Ryan started the practice of having a women's budget statement. Again, it was hard fought. When we reflect on that journey since 1984, Australia led the world in gender-responsive budgeting practices. It meant that we were conscious of what we were spending and how that was distributed and we were measuring the outcomes of that. Then there was a little glitch in the program back in 2014, a year after I had just been elected—the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott decided he'd make himself the Minister for Women. We were all pretty excited about that! And then he decided he'd scrap the gender budgeting process because Australia didn't need that anymore. Well, we saw the results of that. We slipped down those rankings because nobody in the coalition bothered to keep an eye on progress—or, as the case turned out, decline—over those years. Again it was left to a Labor government to clean up what had been an appalling track record for Australian women since 2014. When we entered government, we started to see progress. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released just last June showed that, since the Albanese Labor government came to power, women's total employment has gone up by 249,000 women; 233,500 women have joined the labour force; women's part-time work has increased by 20,500 women; women's full-time jobs have boomed, increasing by 228,600 women; and women have accounted for 59.3 per cent of the growth in full-time jobs. That is good news for Australian women, because we know the importance of having employment security as well. The gender pay gap is persisting across all industries, but progress to close that pay gap has typically been uneven and terribly slow in Australia. We are, again, acting on that front, because we say that women who work full time and somehow end up earning $253.50 less per week than a man doing a full-time job is unacceptable. I don't know whether that is by anyone's measure regarded as being okay. It's not good enough. Women should not be paid less than men, and it's really that simple. The Albanese Labor government is taking decisive action on this issue to close the gender pay gap, progressing gender equality and improving women's economic security through the passage of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation. We have made sure that we are enabling bargaining to open up for workers in low-paid industries that are most likely to be female dominated. We have seen the amazing difference it makes to everyday lives when you increase the pay of the lowest-paid workers, like our aged-care workers, who just got a 15 per cent pay increase recently. And let's not kid ourselves; we know it is women who are in those low-paid, insecure jobs. It's terrific to see the expansion and modernising of the Paid Parental Leave scheme under the Labor government as well. This will expand an employee's entitlement to flexible unpaid leave from 30 days to 100 days, ensuring that from 1 July this year employees can use their government funded paid parental leave more flexibly. That is a great outcome. We have progressed on Respect@Work. We've expanded single parenting payments. We've got Australia's first-ever paid domestic and family violence leave. There is so much that we have done. There is still so much to achieve. We will never sit back and rest on our laurels. Labor promised to make Australia a world leader in gender equality again, and that's exactly what we are doing. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 91 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Housing Affordability, Energy 91 17:23 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane Governments have begun to speak more and more about affordable housing, but their definition of the term 'affordable' shows that they are really living in another world. The south-east region of Queensland draft plan, announced just last week, is an ambitious plan to build 900,000 new homes by 2046, with 20 per cent of them to be earmarked as affordable. That sounds great on paper, but, unfortunately, their way of defining 'affordable housing' is like something out of a utopia. Under this plan, a nurse on $90,000 a year paying $515 a week for a unit would be a measure of success under South-East Queensland's new population planning. If paying off HECS, this means rent would make up 42 per cent of this nurse's income. In addition, Queensland's Deputy Premier said that the bulk of the 20 per cent affordability target will be delivered by the market at market prices. But the issue is the market and market prices. This plan typifies the approach Australian governments at the state and federal levels have towards the housing crisis. Their plans are piecemeal and will not address the systemic barriers everyday Australians face in finding a safe and affordable place to call home. This South-East Queensland draft plan is yet another example of a government essentially admitting defeat and an acknowledgement that they are just carrying out the agenda of property investors. As the member for Brisbane I have consistently heard from renters who are only one rent increase away from eviction. Many are hesitant to ask for basic repairs and maintenance out of fear that their lease just won't be renewed if they do. The electoral division of Brisbane has close to a 55 per cent renter population and has the second-youngest demographic of any electorate in Australia. The housing crisis is hitting my community hard, and many of my constituents are experiencing acute and chronic financial and housing stress. I've been a renter ever since I moved out of my family home 12 years ago. Over this time I have lived in townhouses, in share houses and, with my partner, in apartments. These rentals have been all across Brisbane and on both sides of the Brisbane River. My rent has increased by 22 per cent in the past two years, following the trend that has been experienced across Brisbane, where rents have increased by an average of 27 per cent over the past two years. If I was still working in my previous job, in retail, I would not have been able to afford these increases. My partner and I would have had to join the thousands of Brisbane residents who are trying to find a rental that won't blow their budget. It is now an expectation in the market that renters will apply for properties, sight unseen, and that they will also engage in rent bidding. Many of these practices are actually illegal in Queensland, yet the state government is doing nothing to enforce these laws, again benefiting investors at the expense of those seeking housing. I have also heard horror stories about rents being increased by up to $400 per week, as landlords and agents seeks to cash in on housing insecurity, the threat of homelessness and a market that is very poorly regulated. Stories like these have been reported publicly in Brisbane and across national media. We hear stories of real estate agents encouraging landlords to increase rents by extreme amounts to make as much profit as possible off people who are suffering. Landlords and real estate agents feel empowered to impose extreme rent increases on people, despite properties being in poor condition, because our country's economic and housing system has been orientated to ensure that landlords and investors always win and that renters always lose. We know there are solutions out there. The Greens have a plan to ensure all Australians have a safe and affordable roof over their heads. For months we have sought to reach a compromise with Labor to pass a bill that will actually start to tackle the scale of this housing crisis. We have two key demands: immediately push for a freeze on rent increases, through National Cabinet, by offering $1 billion a year in extra funding which states could use to purchase affordable homes right away; and a guaranteed minimum spend of $2.5 billion per year on public, community and affordable housing, starting right now. And our key demands are enormously popular. According to polling from the Australia Institute released just a couple of days ago, almost nine in 10 Australians support more money being spent directly on affordable housing, and three-quarters want the federal government to work with the states and territories to implement rent caps across the country. The federal Labor government has a clear choice: do what the nation is calling out for—to work with the Greens to improve this bill—and actually make a dent in the housing crisis, or walk away from the millions of people crying out for public and genuinely affordable housing. I will keep fighting in this place for my constituents and to end the housing and rental crisis. The petroleum resource rent tax, or PRRT, was introduced in 1987 as a means of collecting, on behalf of the Australian people, a fair share of petroleum profits—or at least that's what it's supposed to do. The PRRT is forecast to raise just $2.1 billion in 2024-25, and $2 billion in 2025-26. This would mean that, in 2025-26, PRRT revenue would be worth just 0.08 per cent of GDP, around half the level that was raised from the PRRT during the early to mid 2000s. Australia has now become the world's largest seaborne exporter of gas. However, the PRRT is so ineffectual at taxing gas that, according to the Treasury department, the record exports coming from the massive terminals dotted across Australia's west, north-east and northern coastline have so far generated no tax revenue. The PRRT was originally designed to capture income from oil and gas projects. Because of the differences in investment and processing of liquefied natural gas, this tax has simply failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes in Australia's hydrocarbon production. While the gas industry in this country booms, the petroleum resource rent tax does not. Australians are missing out on revenue that could be used to fund vital services and benefits—revenue which could help with crucial investment in the transition to a zero emissions economy. The gas sector is massively increasing Australia's emissions and it should be paying its fair share to help reduce them. The planned changes to the PRRT will only raise an additional $2.4 billion over five years. The government is short-changing Australians. Our resources are being snatched up and sent overseas, and we are not seeing anything substantial for it. There is a better path that we can take. We don't have to start from scratch either. Take Norway for example. Since 1996 Norway has been taxing the profits of its oil and gas sector at 78 per cent and it still mines fossil fuels, so the fear campaign that we hear—'If we tax these corporations, they will just move offshore'—is completely the stuff of fairytales. Norway's Minister of Finance projects that tax revenue from oil and gas will be a staggering A$127 billion this year. That works out to be around $23,500 per Norwegian citizen in one year. Meanwhile, Australia's oil and gas industry receives billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded subsidies, yet the gigantic surge in revenue to the industry has not resulted in an anywhere near similar jump in tax revenue. All the while Australians are facing some of the highest prices in the world for gas. We are being taken for a ride. Labor now has a very clear choice—work constructively with the Greens to double the proposed additional revenue from gas companies or settle for half that amount in exchange for weakening environmental regulations for gas projects to the satisfaction of the Dutton opposition. With Australia's oil and gas companies making record windfall profits the government needs to urgently change how the industry is taxed to ensure Australians get a fair share of the returns from our resources. Cost of Living 92 17:31 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Australians are doing it tough. Right around the country there are families that are seeing the cost of their groceries go up, the cost of their fuel go up, in many cases their real wages go down and their housing costs go through the roof. Nowhere in my electorate do I see this more poignantly than in the streets of Harris Park. In Harris Park there is a beautiful community of some of the most generous people you will ever meet. A shop in Harris Park called Jaipur Sweets is run by a gentleman called Narinder Singh. Every Tuesday evening they offer free meals to anybody who needs those meals. It can be anybody who happens to be there on the day or anybody who has a desire for a meal that night. They do it irrespective of religion, need or location. They just provide a free meal. This is an important element of the Sikh faith—to provide a meal to those in need. I have noticed over recent weeks and months that the line outside of Jaipur Sweets every Tuesday night has been getting a little bit longer. Every week there are more people in need, more people who can't make ends meet and more people who need that element of community support. That speaks to the challenge that so many families in Australia are facing to make ends meet. People in this situation don't want slogans and they don't want political lines; they want real solutions. They want solutions that will help bring down the cost of living, that will provide targeted support to those in need and that will address the very real housing crisis that they face. Unfortunately, what we have in this cost-of-living debate right now is a government that is consistently proposing solutions to those challenges and an opposition who are seeking to weaponise those challenges. In fact, every time we get a piece of unfortunate news about the economy, instead of seeking to propose real solutions, the opposition rubs their hands with glee because, rather than actually fix any of these problems, their real desire is to politicise them in the hope that the challenges that Australian families face—challenges created by the hangover of COVID-19, supply chain bottlenecks and the war in Ukraine—can be connected to the government. They're hoping Australians feel more pain, to serve their political strategy. That's why, every time we've proposed solutions to those real challenges that Australians face, the opposition haven't voted for them and haven't proposed to amend or improve them; they've just tried to block them. In area after area that matters to Australians, we've had nothing more from those opposite than blocking and saying no. Think about health. Health is an area of very significantly rising costs for so many Australian families. Over the last 12 months, the health CPI has increased by nearly five per cent. It's particularly difficult for families and seniors who might have multiple prescriptions and sick kids. The cost is going up and up. The availability of bulk-billing doctors is going down and down. Over the period of the coalition government, the cost of health care in Australia, measured by the health CPI, increased by 37 per cent. They would have you believe that this is a recent phenomenon, something created by the Albanese government. But, in fact, they increased health costs in this country by 37 per cent over the period from 2013 to 2022. Those costs are still rising, and that's why we've taken significant action in order to bring them down. That's why we introduced cheaper medicines for Australians, reducing the cost of medicines that affect so many people, particularly those with chronic illness. That's why we introduced 60-day prescribing so that people don't have to go to the GP so frequently and don't have to pay so many fees to get the medicines that they need. Instead of proposing alternative solutions or supporting these solutions, the opposition have just opposed, because the pain that families feel in the healthcare arena is something that they don't want to address; they want to capitalise on it for their own political benefits. That's why they're opposing the 60-day prescriptions and that's why they're not proposing any alternative solutions. The next example is energy. How many Australian families have struggled with the rising cost of energy over the last 12 months? Opening those bills, getting that bill shock and seeing the price of electricity and gas go through the roof—it's been painful for so many families. Again, this isn't a new problem. Energy costs have been rising for some time. In fact, in the last quarter of the coalition government, energy prices were rising by 6.3 per cent quarter on quarter. That is one of the highest increases of any item in the CPI. And they were rising so quickly because of lots of international factors, the failure of the coalition government to invest at all in new electricity supply and their shunning of renewables and modern sources of energy supply. That led to an enormous build-up of pressure in the system that was accentuated by the war in Ukraine. Now, in the most recent quarter, that CPI increase in energy has gone down from 6.3 per cent to minus 1.2 per cent. That energy CPI of 6.3, which was left by the previous government in their last quarter, has gone down, in the most recent quarter of the Albanese government, to minus 1.2—a really terrific turnaround for many Australians who are experiencing very rapidly rising prices. It doesn't mean that all that increase has gone away, but it has stopped increasing at the rate that it was increasing when those opposite left power. Why is it coming down? It's coming down because the government took the problem seriously, chose to provide targeted and direct support to those families who need it most and decided to cap gas prices to make sure that gas was available at a reasonable price to Australian families and industries. And we can see the effect of this action in the numbers: 6.3 down to negative 1.2. And again, instead of supporting those solutions or proposing alternative solutions— Mr Fletcher L6B Why not directly subsidise food? Dr CHARLTON I8M Here we go! I was hoping he was going to interrupt, and so he has! Why not directly subsidise food? Here we go! This is terrific! I'm lovin' it—'directly subsidise food' from the member for Bradfield. He's showing his little socialist streak there: the direct subsidisation of food. That's not what we propose, because not only is it socialism—although it's interesting to hear that from the member for Bradfield—but it would also in fact create even more problems for many Australians. Remembering that we have an inflation problem that those opposite left us with, we don't want to subsidise food directly. We want to find targeted interventions and that help people out but do not increase the CPI and make inflation even worse. Not only did they leave us with an inflation problem but they also left us high and rising interest rates. That means that, unfortunately, we have to be a little bit more targeted and nuanced than just subsidising food. That's exactly what this government has done— Mr Pasin 240756 Real wages are going down. Angus has already texted me that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The member for Barker will restrain himself! Dr CHARLTON I8M It's good to see that Angus Taylor is watching this! That's terrific. The shadow Treasurer hasn't managed to lay a glove on the Treasurer but, thanks to the member for Barker, he's watching the Federation Chamber like a hawk! It's the beginning of his comeback! He's going to start landing some blows on the government. He hasn't landed any yet, but it starts right here in the Federation Chamber tonight. Fantastic! I really look forward to the ongoing assault. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Parramatta and I take this opportunity to remind all members that the member who has the call has every right to be heard. I give the call to the member for Bradfield. Indigenous Art 94 17:42 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Indigenous art is a very important part of Australia's cultural landscape. Recently, it has gained some negative attention with allegations that Indigenous art is a big con job and that the works are actually produced by people who are not Indigenous. In May, following these allegations being reported in the Australian, the arts minister, Tony Burke, joined with his South Australian and Northern Territory counterparts to announce an inquiry. This was an appropriate step in view of the serious nature of the allegations, but I have to say that I'm very concerned about how poorly this has been managed and how long it has dragged on for. I'm very concerned about the consequences of confidence being damaged in the Aboriginal art market in general, and in the APY Arts Centre Collective and in its constituent artists more specifically. I am concerned that that confidence has been unnecessarily eroded. I was particularly concerned to learn recently that the APY Arts Centre Collective had been notified that it will not receive funding under the Indigenous Visual Art Industry Support program's open competitive grant round. They were informed of this fact in a letter from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. The letter specifically made references to the 'pending government review into practices at the APY Arts Centre Collective and the seriousness of the matters which are under review'. It is very troubling, simply on the basis of allegations which have not been tested through an independent process, that funding to the APY Arts Centre Collective has been cut. I am pleased to see that the National Gallery of Australia has conducted its own review, and that that review has cleared the works in question. These were works proposed to be included in the exhibition Ngura Pulka—Epic Country. The review has cleared those works of allegations of improper interference. I do, nevertheless, reiterate my concerns that as this matter drags on it is doing damage to public confidence in Indigenous art and in the Indigenous art market. I use that term very specifically because in my view it is a desirable thing that we have a vigorous and healthy market for Indigenous art. I think there's a great deal to celebrate when it comes to the Indigenous art scene in Australia. Certainly, in my time as arts minister, visiting Indigenous art fairs like Desert Mob in Alice Springs, the Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair and the Tarnanthi Festival in Adelaide, I saw an impressive range of works for sale and enthusiastic crowds of buyers—locals, and interstate visitors as well as international visitors. Desert Mob has work by more than 250 artists from over 30 communities across the Central Desert, 9,000 people attend and it contributes an estimated $4 million to the Alice Springs economy. The Darwin fair is even bigger, generating around $15 million. On one memorable day during my tenure as arts minister, travelling with then South Australian Premier and arts minister Steven Marshall I visited four remote communities and art centres in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, or APY, Lands in the far north of South Australia. In Mimili we met Betty Kuntiwa Pumani, winner of the 2017 Wynne Prize; and Robert Fielding, winner of the 2017 work on paper award at the prestigious NATSIAs. Betty, Robert and the other artists we met showed us numerous works and explained the stories, or jukurrpa, that they represented. After telling one such story, they said, 'Now we will dance it for you.' Their creative generosity was remarkable. In Amata we saw an enormous work comprising a large number of spears, which had previously been exhibited at a gallery in Switzerland. In Pukatja/Ernabella, we visited a new kidney dialysis centre partly funded by money earned through works sold by the APY Art Centre Collective on behalf of member artists. It was a powerful example of the good that can flow because Indigenous people in remote communities can earn an income from their art. Now, the economic benefits are one thing, but even more important is the way that Indigenous art expresses the distinctive knowledge and perspectives of Indigenous Australians. In turn, it educates non-Indigenous people about the depth and richness of a culture which goes back more than 60,000 years. But all of that is put at risk if the integrity of Indigenous art is threatened by fake art. This is not a new problem. You need only see some of the mass produced junk which is sold to unsuspecting tourists in our big cities. In 2018 a parliamentary committee carefully documented the issues to produce the Report on the impact of inauthentic art and craft in the style of First Nations peoples. Government has responded, including through the National Indigenous Visual Arts Action Plan, which I joined with then Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt to release in late 2021. Key commitments in the plan included a national rollout of digital labelling as a tool to verify the authenticity of artwork, and developing a legislated certification trademark. I hope the current government will take these measures forward. Indigenous art is rightly celebrated and supported across the political spectrum, and I welcome the emphasis on Indigenous art contained in the national cultural policy released by the current government earlier this year. I do want to encourage the government, if it is holding an inquiry into Aboriginal art and the issues that were the subject of allegations earlier this year, to look at the full range of issues. That might include the notorious carpetbaggers—unscrupulous dealers in Alice Springs and other locations who exploit Indigenous artists and extract works from them without fair payment. It would also include the industrial-scale production in factories, typically in countries in Asia, of work in the style of Indigenous art but of course not authentic Indigenous art. An inquiry must also, in my view, involve an unbiased and impartial testing of the allegations which have been published about practices within the APY Art Centre Collective. But again I want to emphasise that it is so important that that matter is dealt with quickly, and it is very troubling, from the information I've been provided with, that the APY Art Centre Collective have been told that they are not receiving funding under the current round of funding under the IVAIS scheme, the Indigenous Visual Art Industry Support scheme, because of these allegations, even though there has not been a process to test those allegations. That appears to me to be getting things round the wrong way. I don't think the mere making of allegations is sufficient grounds for funding to be denied, and I am concerned about the impact on artists and on others in the communities within the APY Lands. I have to say what I saw, as minister, of the operations of the APY Art Centre Collective, both on the APY Lands and at its art gallery and facility in Adelaide, impressed me. I also have to say that what I've seen around our nation of the works of Indigenous artists impressed me. What also impresses me is the work being done to allow those artists to make their work available in the marketplace to those who are interested in buying that work. It was striking to me at both Desert Mob and the Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair to see the number of people who had travelled to those events, not just from within the Northern Territory but from around Australia and from other countries, because they wanted to buy high-quality art and they wanted the chance to meet the artists and to understand the stories. That is something to celebrate. It would be troubling, in my view, if allegations that have been made are not handled in a prompt and expeditious fashion and, as a consequence, damage is done to the vibrancy of the Indigenous art scene and the Indigenous art market. I close again by using the word 'market' very deliberately. I believe it is a very good thing that Indigenous artists are able to sell their work in the marketplace. We should be encouraging that. It would be in my view troubling if the way that the present government is responding to these allegations allows these matters to drag on and does unnecessary and consequential damage to artists and to the market for Indigenous art. I close by expressing my strong support and indeed admiration for the extraordinary talents of Indigenous artists, and I express my gratitude for the privilege I've had to see their work around Australia. (Time expired) Robertson Electorate: Environment 95 17:52 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I want to take a moment to acknowledge some of the outstanding environmental groups that operate within my electorate of Robertson at the southern end of the Central Coast in New South Wales. First and foremost are the brilliant volunteers that support Grow Urban Shade Trees, or GUST as it's colloquially known on the peninsula on the Central Coast. Their commitment to greening the Central Coast, especially my hometown of Umina Beach, does not go unnoticed throughout the community. To Debbie Sunartha, Melissa Chandler, Jennifer Wilder, Leslie Harvey and all the other volunteers of GUST, I want to pass on my sincere thanks for all the work that you do for our local environment on the Central Coast. As many of the members in this chamber may know, highly urbanised communities are more susceptible to an environmental phenomenon called the urban heat island effect, which we see on the peninsula of the New South Wales Central Coast. The urban heat island effect is where heavily built-up areas tend to be hotter in temperature and less liveable than places that are not so built up. For example, on the Central Coast, Umina Beach is a built-up area, and, consequently, studies from the Central Coast Council and the Central Coast administration have shown that Umina Beach is one of the hottest areas on the coast, especially during those warmer periods of the year during those summer months. To respond to this phenomenon, GUST is, and has been for the past several years, embarking on a campaign to green Umina Beach and, more broadly, the peninsula. That includes places like Woy Woy, Ettalong Beach, Blackwall, Pearl Beach, Patonga and Booker Bay. Generally, when you're driving down the road or you're on a bike or the footpath, GUST regularly facilitates tree-planting days to line otherwise treeless streets with native trees. With an increase in trees comes greater shade, obviously, but also greater biodiversity for the area, reducing the urban heat island effect and making Umina Beach and the peninsula not only cooler but also more liveable. GUST also organises annual tree-planting projects on National Tree Day where local schools and the wider community get involved to plant and increase the vegetation in their suburbs. These projects have been great successes, and I note that trees planted in previous years along Brisbane Avenue in Umina Beach have grown so well they're now beginning to provide substantial shade to pedestrians and cyclists using the footpaths on those streets. To mark National Tree Day this year, I helped students from my former primary school, Umina Beach Public School, plant several coastal banksias along Melbourne Avenue in Umina Beach. It was a great learning experience to have students get their hands dirty by digging holes, mulching, planting and watering those trees. Students were learning the importance of having tree canopy in communities for a range of reasons, including habitat for native animals, to provide shade and to provide clean oxygen, breathing air to the surrounding environment. It was a great way to teach students key life skills like collaboration, teamwork, listening and how using these skills helps complete a project. Principally, it was a fun and engaging exercise for all students involved, and I would like to thank Umina Beach Public School and GUST for organising and participating in National Tree Day 2023. Moreover, GUST has been involved in the upgrade of Runway Park in Umina Beach, which has gone from a barren, open space to a green, inviting oasis—a big turnaround from what was initially, during the period of the Second World War, a runway for incoming Allied aircraft. This park now features pleasant pathways, exciting playground equipment and native garden beds to keep young minds occupied on even the hottest of days. Not only does GUST plant more trees in the suburbs of my electorate; they also educate the community about proper tree-planting methods and the correct varieties of trees which are best suited for growing in our beautiful region that is the Central Coast. These activities are invaluable and strengthen biodiversity on the Central Coast, and I commend GUST and its volunteers for the work that they do in this area. I would also like to update the parliament on a recent investment in my community's historical convict past. As many of you already know, on the Central Coast we have a well-preserved example of convict infrastructure in the form of several sandstone retaining walls that support the Old Great North Road in Wisemans Ferry. The Old Great North Road was used by European convicts in 1836 to travel between Sydney and Newcastle. Thanks to an $88,000 grant from round 5 of the Australian Heritage Grants program, the retaining walls at Devines Hill will get vital restoration works to ensure their longevity and preservation. It was great to meet with representatives from New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sarah and Sandy, who were able to show me around Devines Hill and explain to me how this funding will assist them with preserving some of our heritage on the Central Coast. I want to thank the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, for her department's support of this project in my electorate. I look forward to working with my community to continue to identify other historical projects that would benefit from federal government assistance. Another environmental group in my electorate I wish to recognise is the Community Environment Network, or CEN. CEN is involved in a range of environmental work to protect, conserve and strengthen the unique biodiversity that exists on the Central Coast. For example, CEN undertakes bush regeneration programs across the region. It provides a team of professional bush regeneration workers that can complete weed eradication and control, undertake erosion management, identify threatened species, facilitate seed propagation and lead environmental education programs for people on the Central Coast. These services make a real impact and help safeguard the distinct environment on the Central Coast for future generations. CEN also regularly publishes media releases and newsletters that inform the community about current and upcoming campaigns to support environmental protection on the New South Wales Central Coast, including in my electorate of Robertson. I commend the amazing work that CEN do for the protection of the environment and marine ecosystems in my region, and I look forward to working in partnership with the organisation in the future. Lastly, I would like to recognise the 3 Villages Community Group, who represent the suburbs of Saratoga, Davistown and Yattalunga. This organisation has been influential in securing federal government funding to improve open spaces such as the Jirramba Avenue community space in Saratoga. This upgrade included planting established trees, magnificent landscaping works and other environmental enhancements. The group also advocates on behalf of residents to protect the community from out-of-character development and other unwelcome projects that risk the villages' sensitive environmental areas. Recently I joined with the 3 Villages Community Group to advocate for a much-needed upgrade to Saratoga Oval. As many people in Saratoga, Davistown and Yattalunga know, Saratoga Oval is susceptible to significant flooding issues following wet weather, and this presents a challenge for local sporting organisation. This is because the oval lacks any formal drainage system. Along with the community, I am calling on all levels of government—local, state and federal—to consider allocating support to prepare a detailed plan for an upgrade of this oval. I have launched an online petition and a hard-copy petition, and I'm calling on my community and those in the villages to support this campaign. To sign the petition, you can visit my website or you can contact my office and request a hard copy of that petition. I report to the parliament that to date 561 people have already signed this petition, but I do want to see more. To those who've already signed I want to say: thank you, and let's keep the momentum rolling so that Saratoga Oval can see a prosperous future. I want to thank the driving forces behind the 3 Villages Community Group—Monique Roy, Stephanie Blower and Taia Sansom—for their ongoing community dedication and advocacy. I look forward to working alongside the 3 Villages Community Group to progress this much-needed upgrade and these environmental improvements for Saratoga Oval. To achieve this will ensure this open space not only is revitalised for the community but also becomes a whole place for the community to enjoy into the future. Victoria: Australian Labor Party 97 18:02 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin In tonight's grievance debate I'm going to outline the biggest grievance that I and many other Victorians have, and that is the way in which the Labor Party—both the Labor Party at a state level under the Andrews government and their very close allies here in Canberra—have in many respects ensured that Victoria is behind every other state in our country. Today I was reminded of this fact when I saw reports of the presentation of James Hardie's quarterly forecast and results. They were speaking about plans that they had had to set up a new facility in Victoria, a greenfield site that would employ 200 people. In their quarterly report and forecast today, they outlined that they would no longer be proceeding with that new greenfield site, that new manufacturing capability in Victoria, but instead would continue with a site that they had planned to close in New South Wales. It was very clear the reason that they were doing that is that Victoria is no place to do business. The Labor government, with its succession of taxes and charges and its inability to understand the economy and what it takes to make a state budget work, has meant that that large business would not be creating 200 jobs in Victoria. Instead those jobs will go to New South Wales. The truth is that those decisions are being made by businesses large and small every day. Every day, businesses are making the decision that Victoria is not a good place to do business because of the entrenched decisions of the Labor government. The reality is: the Labor government in Victoria and the Labor government here in Canberra are joined at the hip. They are one and the same. The Labor members who sit in this caucus are closely aligned, factionally and otherwise, with every single member of that state government, and, for what Victorians are facing in Victoria, they can quite rightly blame this federal Labor government as much as they would the state government. We have seen very little from the federal government in the way of taking responsibility for decisions that Victorians are now suffering for because of their close allies, their fellow party members in the Victorian Labor Party, who, in many respects, are running the economy and the budget in Victoria into the ground. We didn't hear much from the Labor government up here when Daniel Andrews and the Labor government cancelled the Commonwealth Games. They went to the election saying they would do the games. They bid for them. They snuck in there, saying they were going to do them. They said they would deliver them. And now it looks like Victorian taxpayers will be slugged, potentially, billions, in order to pay compensation for the decision of the Labor government to cancel the Commonwealth Games—the games that they went out and went after. We hear nothing from the federal Labor government. They support them, obviously. We've seen no criticism from the federal Labor Party. Perhaps it's because the Prime Minister and the Premier in Victoria are former housemates, very good friends and very close allies—Socialist Left allies. The Socialist Left is large and in charge of the Labor Party. The mainstream Australian Labor Party is long gone now. The Socialist Left has taken over, and we've seen that today with their decision—the activists' decision—around Israel. God knows what else they will come up with at their national convention. But the Commonwealth Games are something Victorians are paying billions for. In the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, we're very accustomed to suffering under decisions of the Labor government. We, in the east, all remember the $1.3 billion that Victorians were forced to pay not to build a road. That's not $1.3 billion to build a road; it's $1.3 billion to cancel the East West Link. And now we suffer crippling traffic every single day on the Eastern Freeway, thanks to that decision from the Victorian Labor Party, supported by their federal Labor colleagues—supported by the Albanese Labor government. Now we see the latest instalment of the Socialist Left being large and in charge, and that is: they are banning gas connections to new homes. It's just a precursor, I presume, to banning gas in total. So no new homes will have gas connections. Now, at a time when they've run our electricity grid into the ground, when power prices and gas prices are going through the roof, they're going to make Victorians more reliant on the ever-expensive electricity—and that's before we even get into the heat of summer, when I think many are suggesting that blackouts, or brownouts at the very least, are likely to be the fate of Victorians. Again, Victorians are suffering because of decisions of the Victorian Labor Party—that's the Victorian Labor Party in the state government, and the Victorian Labor Party sitting up here in Canberra in Anthony Albanese's caucus. Where are those colleagues here in Canberra who backed the decision of the state government to cancel gas connections? So that's no gas heating, no gas cooking and no barbecues, for all those who have got or who would like— The DEPUTY SPEAKE C2T Member for Deakin, just pause for a moment. Remember to use people's titles. It's 'the Prime Minister'. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I did think I was referring to him as the Prime Minister— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T No, there's been an occasion where you referred to 'Anthony Albanese'. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Sure. The Prime Minister, and the caucus up here presumably, support very strongly the decision of the state Labor Party to ban gas connections, making families ever more reliant on expensive electricity. They can't run away from this. They can't hide. The Labor members that sit up here in the caucus are Labor members who, in many cases, are supported in their preselection by the Socialist Left, which is controlled by Daniel Andrews in the Labor Party in Victoria. He is omnipresent in the Victorian Labor Party. He runs the place. I suspect many of the Labor members who sit in the caucus up here are only here because they're very close allies of Daniel Andrews or his radical Socialist Left members in the Victorian government. Why did the Victorian government cancel the Commonwealth Games? Because they're broke. They've run out of money. For the older Victorians and Australians out there it would be no surprise that a Labor government has come in and spent all the money, and now there's no more money. At some point debt starts to control you. I don't think anyone believes that Daniel Andrews and the Labor Party wanted to cancel the Commonwealth Games. They had to. Why? Because the debt's now controlling them. Debt in Victoria is higher than in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and, I think, South Australia combined. That's just one state. That is debt that will be borne by generations of Victorians, thanks to Victorian Labor and their caucus members that sit up here in Anthony Albanese's government. I don't really know how anybody— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T If the member for Deakin could pause—again, you referred to the Prime Minister by his name. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I don't know how anyone could be proud of that record. Sadly, what Victorians are now facing, thanks to Labor, is a state that will have fewer job opportunities, because businesses are leaving. They'll have higher debts. Their children will inherit higher debt, and that's a tax on the next generation being facilitated by the Albanese government. We will have higher electricity prices. We will have an electricity grid that is probably the weakest in the nation, thanks to the policies of Victorian Labor. No matter how much the Victorian Labor members up here try to disassociate themselves, or distance themselves, from Daniel Andrews and his government, they are shoulder to shoulder with him. They are members of the same party. They are, in many cases, members of the same faction. And many of them are only in parliament because of the support that Daniel Andrews provides them. Every single Victorian knows that the issues they're facing are thanks to the mismanagement and the destructive nature of this Labor government, being fully supported by the federal Labor government— (Time expired Migration 98 18:12 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My grievance is about the global movement of people and how it is being handled—or not handled. I recently attended a celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Adult Migrant English Program, which has been empowering refugees and other migrants through English language learning and training. The Adult Migrant English Program was first established by Australia's first minister for immigration, Arthur Calwell, as part of the then government's provision of teaching English to the thousands of newly arrived migrants who formed the great post-World War II migration program. In fact, six months before it was officially introduced, a trial version of the AMEP was run at the Bonegilla Migrant Reception and Training Centre as part of our settlement of our new Australians. Australia was the only country in the world to provide English language classes to newly arrived migrants at the time, and we have led the way ever since. In celebrating 75 years of service to newly arrived migrants, Victoria's largest AMEP service provider, Melbourne AMEP, led by Melbourne Polytechnic, gave past and present students and teachers, including TAFE community partner providers, the opportunity to celebrate this milestone event and recognise student achievement. Present in the audience was a very special guest: Mary Elizabeth Calwell, the daughter of Arthur Calwell, who remembers well the initial implementation of the English language program as key to assisting newly arrived migrants to settle in Australia by giving them access to services and ultimately pathways to employment and settlement. Of the many service providers at the event on the day, I want to especially mention the Meadow Heights Education Centre in my electorate of Calwell, its president, Phillip Perroni, and its CEO, Nader Hanna. Thank you for the excellent work that you do in ensuring that our newly arrived migrants and refugees are assisted with professionalism and care and given every opportunity to learn English and achieve positive settlement outcomes.There were many stories of success spoken about on the day, and I congratulate Frances Coppolillo, chief executive at Melbourne Polytechnic, and her staff for organising a wonderful day. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the work of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and member for Scullin for his continued work and policy reform in this space. We recently celebrated Refugee Week, which offers us an opportunity to reflect on Australia's long history of resettling refugees and others in humanitarian need. Australia has welcomed over 950,000 refugees since World War II, and 67.7 per cent of our community in my electorate of Calwell have parents born overseas. They have made tremendous contributions to our nation. The migrants and refugees in my electorate have brought a diversity, a commitment and a dedication that has shaped the Australia we know today. The experiences in arriving from difficult circumstances, needing to find employment, educating children whilst buying a home and contributing to our nation are things felt by many and, on occasions such as this, programs such as AMEP resonate that much stronger. The world today is in constant flux, experiencing the largest global movement of people in our history—some 100 million people are on the move, and I understand that that figure is growing. They are a combination of refugees and also people wanting to migrate from impoverished countries, looking for better opportunities in wealthier countries. They choose pathways that are fraught with life-threatening dangers, and they make perilous journeys across the seas and on inland cargo. They are people who, having no other choice, choose to put their lives and safety into the hands of unscrupulous people smugglers. We have seen so many times the tragic outcomes of such ventures, not only in our own region but also more recently and more frequently in Europe and in the UK. My grievance is, as I said earlier, about the global community's failure to tackle collectively the issue of the global movement of people. I was recently in Greece and Cyprus, where there is now a huge problem around managing and dealing with the thousands of migrants and refugees who have fled war, and those who have come through the people-smuggling pipeline. Both Greece and Cyprus are struggling to address challenges to their social cohesion stemming from the perhaps unintended consequences of a deputisation of the issue in Europe under the guise of the so-called Dublin Regulation. The objective of the Dublin Regulation is to ensure quick access to the asylum procedures and the examination of an application on its merits by a single, clearly determined EU country. The regulation establishes the member state responsible for the examination of the asylum application. In this case, Greece, Cyprus and Italy are the first countries the refugees and migrants reach and therefore they are responsible for processing. Of course these countries do get financial assistance, but they have ended up becoming a holding pattern for people who, in all cases, simply want to move on into other countries in the European Union. A report by Amnesty International called Europe's borderlands says: The construction of a Fortress Europe that has severely limited the safe and legal avenues of entry for refugees to the EU at the same time as an explosion in the global refugee population, has inevitably generated considerable pressure on the EU's periphery states—particularly Greece and Italy, who are struggling to cope with the increase in arrivals of refugees and migrants. These pressures … reflect the need for both greater global solidarity, in response to the ever-growing refugee crisis, and greater internal solidarity between EU member states that currently share the responsibility for receiving asylum seekers unequally. In practice, the ratification and implementation of the Dublin Regulation has highlighted some of the failures in Europe to actually address the issues of the global movement of people. The Dublin Regulation has, perversely, created almost the effective subsidisation of human trafficking throughout Europe—unintended consequences. Thousands of refugees and migrants become vulnerable to exploitation in both the labour markets and in the trafficking of women, and this risks the proliferation of a form of modern-day slavery in the heart of Europe. By leaving people to languish in the frontline member states, Europe is failing to find agreement on a fairer solution which takes pressure off countries such as Greece and Italy and provides a more comprehensive, practical and coherent global response. Migration and the global movement of people is an issue for the world community, and we need to deal with it accordingly. Failure to do so will only add to the worrying trend of politicisation of refugees and migrants by many conservative and nationalistic movements that are now making a mark on the electoral map of Europe. The tensions around migration cannot be confined to one geographical location, country or continent. The refugee and migrant experience the world over is one which ultimately can be shaped by either fear or a welcoming attitude, and I'm very glad that we here in our communities have chosen the latter—a welcoming attitude. Belonging is not just a sense or a feeling; it means very deliberate and concrete actions to ensure that everyone, regardless of their culture, birthplace, language or religion, has access to safety, shelter, education, work, health care, respect and the freedom to live in peace in our communities right across our country here in Australia. Migration is a core feature of our modern Australia, and it's the foundation upon which this country's social and economic prosperity is built. We should never take our success for granted—nor should we be quick to criticise. My grievance is that too often we do both. What we have to do is contrast our situation here in Australia to that of some of the responses in Europe. With respect to the implementation of mandates which would result in effectively maintaining the conditions in which human trafficking seems to occur in Europe, as the Finnish Non-Discrimination Ombudsman pointed out, 'the Dublin regulation is not adequately commensurate with the protection of victims of human trafficking'. The ombudsman found that, in complying with the Dublin III Regulation in relation to the return of victims to another country, which, in this context, was another EU country: … victims of human trafficking receive inconsistent assistance, the system in place for the receipt of returnees is overstretched, and, due to the lack of information exchange, the receipt of assistance may be interrupted during the return. They can be returned to an EU country in which they have been a victim of trafficking, without adequate protection. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:23