MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

2023-08-09 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 9 August 2023

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

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Universities: Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 3 09:14 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to sexual assault and harassment on university campuses be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Homelessness 3 Reference to Federation Chamber 6 09:35 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to Homelessness Week be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 6 Report 6 09:35 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I present report No. 16 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 4 September 2023. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 August 2023. 2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 8 August 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 4 September 2023, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2023) (Notice given 28 March 2023.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 2 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2023) (Notice g iven 28 March 2023.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 3 MS SPENDER: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that Australia is facing a housing crisis, with rents and house prices surging, home ownership falling, and more than 640,000 households either homeless or under housing stress; (2) notes that: (a) this crisis is severely affecting young people, those on lower incomes and renters, with advertised rents rising over ten per cent across capital cities and many regions; and (b) the crisis is the result of decades of failed government policy, which has left Australia with one of the lowest number of homes per person in the OECD; (3) further acknowledges that: (a) the Government has taken some positive steps but its commitment to building one million new homes by 2030 is insufficient relative to the scale of the crisis; and (b) without substantial further action, the Australian dream will soon become a nightmare and a generation of young people will forever be locked out of home ownership; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) significantly raise its ambition on increasing housing supply; (b) work with state governments and local councils to accelerate actions that increase housing and land availability, which will lead to increased home ownership and improved housing affordability; and (c) provide urgent support to help young people and renters deal with the cost of living pressures created by this crisis. (Notice given 8 August 2023.) Time allotted — 20 minutes. Speech time limits — Ms Spender —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 1 ROBODEBT SCHEME: Resumption of debate (from 7 August 2023) on the motion of Ms Thwaites—That this House: (1) acknowledges the release of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, a 990-page report that examined the establishment of the scheme and who was responsible for it, and made 57 recommendations; (2) recognises that the Robodebt Scheme, which was put forward as a budget measure in 2015 and was found to be unlawful by the Federal Court in late 2019, caused great harm to vulnerable members of the Australian community; (3) notes that despite the mounting warnings and criticism of the scheme, in the words of the report the Government of the time 'continued to illegally raise debts against some of society's most vulnerable'; (4) commends the courage, leadership and bravery of victims, families, advocates and whistle-blowers who continued to raise concerns about the Robodebt Scheme; and (5) welcomes the Government's commitment to ensuring such a tragedy never happens again, and to carefully consider the recommendations from the report and provide a response to these recommendations in due course. Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — All Members —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Notices — continued 4 MR COLEMAN: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government is seeking to impose new misinformation laws in Australia which are deeply flawed; (b) even before submissions closed on 20 August, the Government's exposure draft bill had already been the subject of an avalanche of criticism; (c) some of the most vocal criticisms have come from leading lawyers who have clinically taken the Government's bill apart, piece by piece; and (d) the Minister appears to have had few defenders of her plan; (2) acknowledges that, under the Government's exposure draft bill: (a) the definition of 'misinformation' is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate; (b) authorised content by the Government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Government by ordinary Australians can be misinformation; (c) nothing an academic says can be misinformation, but statements by somebody disagreeing with an academic can be misinformation; (d) good faith statements made by entertainers cannot be misinformation, but good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation; (e) journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation; and (f) if the Minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of the misinformation laws; (3) condemns the Government for delivering this appalling exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) admit that the Government's plan is deeply flawed; and (b) bin the bill. (Notice given 8 August 2023.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits — Mr Coleman —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR BIRRELL: To move: That this House notes that: (1) the Victorian Government's decision to cancel the 2026 Regional Commonwealth Games is not just a significant loss to regional communities in the state, but a body-blow to the reputation of Victoria as a centre for major sporting events; (2) the stated reason for the cancellation, the cost blowout to between $6 and 7 billion, demonstrates that the Victorian Government either made a serious miscalculation in its decision to host the games years earlier than originally proposed, or is incapable of managing major projects; and (3) given the mismanagement of this major event, the $2 billion announced to be spent in regional Victoria to compensate for the loss of the games should be determined by the impacted regional communities, not the Victorian Government. (Notice given 8 August 2023.) Time allotted — 30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Birrell —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MR GEORGANAS: To move: That this House: (1) notes the mature approach which has been demonstrated by the Government in the ongoing negotiation of a trade agreement with the European Union; (2) congratulates the Government for its unwavering support of Australia's interests, including those of Australian farmers, businesses, and exporters during these negotiations; and (3) supports the Minister for Trade and Tourism in his ongoing fight for a deal that defends Australia's interests and delivers meaningful outcomes for Australia's workers, businesses, and consumers. (Notice given 31 July 2023.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Georganas —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 MR GEE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that Australia has endured an unprecedented number of natural disasters in the past two years; (2) recognises the immense hardships faced by people across Australia in the aftermath of natural disasters; (3) acknowledges that the response to these natural disasters by governments and insurance companies has been, in some cases, grossly inadequate; (4) further recognises the invaluable work of organisations that support communities through natural disasters such as our first responders including the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Service, Lifeline, Rapid Relief Team, Rotary and Lions; and (5) calls on: (a) Commonwealth and state governments to activate the full suite of disaster assistance and make it available to devastated communities across Australia, including to Central Western New South Wales; and (b) the Commonwealth Government to pursue equality in disaster relief that ensures no Australian, regardless of their postcode or economic status, is left behind when disaster strikes. (Notice given 8 August 2023.) Time allotted — 20 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Gee —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MR BURNS: To move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) the field of genetics has great potential to improve medicine and public health through enabling diagnosis, prevention and early treatment of disease; (b) that increasingly, genetic information is used in routine patient care to identify individuals at risk for medically actionable conditions, and early knowledge of this risk can allow at-risk individuals to take preventive steps to reduce their risk or, in some cases, avoid developing the associated disease altogether; (c) the current ability of the life insurance industry to legally use genetic test results in underwriting can lead to discrimination; (d) that insurance discrimination fears can also act as a barrier, by deterring people from having potentially life-saving genetic testing that could match them to tailored interventions and treatments, as well as from participation in genetic research; and (e) that numerous other countries have prohibited the use of genetic test results to discriminate against individuals in insurance underwriting; (2) acknowledges that: (a) in 2018, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' inquiry into the life insurance industry made recommendations relating to the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting, including consideration of a moratorium and potentially further legislative action or another form of regulation banning or limiting the use of predictive genetic information by the life insurance industry; (b) in 2019, the Financial Services Council introduced a partial moratorium restricting member life insurance companies from requiring applicants to disclose or using applicants' genetic test results for policies below certain financial limits, which is self-regulation by industry with no government oversight; and (c) the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium: Monitoring the Effectiveness and Response (A-GLIMMER) Project was funded by the Government from 2020-2023 to investigate effectiveness of the moratorium as a regulatory solution to genetic discrimination in Australian life insurance, and found that discrimination fears continue to deter individuals from having genetic testing, and that the moratorium is inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance; (3) recognises the invaluable work of Dr Jane Tiller, Project lead, Monash University, and the investigator team in preparing the comprehensive A-GLIMMER Project report, as well as the project's collaborators, patient/consumer and supporter groups, and the many individuals who participated in the research studies completed as part of the project; and (4) calls on the Government to consider policy changes to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance and assist patients in receiving lifesaving medical care. (Notice given 31 July 2023.) Time allotted — 30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Burns —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 5 MR HOGAN: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the importance of Australia's visitor economy and tourism industry; (2) notes that during the pandemic, international visitation fell by over 95 per cent; (3) further acknowledges tourism industry concerns that in the first twelve months in office, the Government has: (a) cut funding to Tourism Australia by $35 million; (b) increased the cost of visitor and working holiday maker visas by 20 per cent; (c) increased the passenger movement charge for international tourists; and (d) refused Qatar Airways' request to double their flights to Australia; (4) recognises the international market for the global traveller is fiercely competitive and many destinations have returned to pre-pandemic levels of international visitors; (5) further notes that: (a) international visitor numbers to Australia for the year ending May 2023 remain down 40 per cent on the corresponding May 2019 figure; and (b) of the 5.6 million international visitors in the year ending May 2023, only 32 per cent nominated holidaying as the reason for travel, with the majority of visitors nominating visiting friends and relatives as the reason; and (6) calls on the Government to back our tourism operators and regions reliant on international visitors by: (a) reinstating funding cuts to Tourism Australia; and (b) reversing its 'tourism tax' targeted at international visitors. (Notice given 3 August 2023.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm. Speech time limits — Mr Hogan —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices — continued 6 MR BURNELL: To move: That this House: (1) notes with great concern that: (a) there has been a significant increase in far-right extremism and extremist activity in Australia and throughout many parts of the developed world; (b) far-right extremism is often cultivated through its overlap with various conspiracy theories, which have become a common tool to radicalise individuals, especially through misinformation on social media platforms; and (c) far-right extremism tears apart the social fabric of Australia's proud and diverse multicultural communities; (2) acknowledges the vital work undertaken by agencies within Australia's national intelligence community, in cooperation with federal, state and territory law enforcement agencies, to identify and disrupt extremist activities and to intervene and assist those who are at risk of becoming radicalised or becoming further radicalised by hateful ideologies; (3) condemns far-right extremist groups that presently operate within Australia that seek to promote fascism, ethnic and religious based hatred, and to recruit and radicalise others to ascribe to their malevolent systems of beliefs; (4) affirms that the ideologies endorsed by right-wing extremist groups have no place in the Australian community; and (5) commends the Government for taking the threat posed by right-wing extremism in Australia seriously. (Notice given 1 August 2023.) Time allotted — 30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Burnell —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 7 MR PASIN: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the importance of the Black Spot Road Safety Program, which has been delivering funding continuously since 1996 to reduce the risk of road crashes; (2) notes that half of all road crashes are on local government roads, and these crashes account for 52 per cent of all casualties and 40 per cent of all road deaths; (3) recognises that local government is responsible for around 77 per cent of the road network but only collects around 3.5 per cent of the total tax revenue raised by governments in Australia, and as such is heavily reliant on road funding from other levels of government; (4) further notes that: (a) two thirds of all road fatalities occur on regional roads; and (b) the Black Spot Road Safety Program intention is to allocate funding on a half-half basis between urban and rural roads; (5) acknowledges that not all councils, in particular rural and regional councils with lower rate bases, have the resources necessary to make applications that meet criteria for the Black Spot Road Safety Program; and (6) calls on the Government to amend the Black Spot Road Safety Program guidelines to make it easier for the local Government sector to access that fund. (Notice given 2 August 2023.) Time allotted — 50 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Pasin —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 8 MRS PHILLIPS: To move: That this House: (1) notes that caravan parks are a popular holiday accommodation choice for Australians, particularly for families, budget-conscious travellers, and travellers who want to get off the beaten track and explore everything our country has to offer; (2) commends the Government and the Minister for Trade and Tourism for the successful roll out of the Caravan Parks Grant Program which is delivering much needed improvements to caravan parks in the regions all across Australia; and (3) encourages Australians to consider holidaying at home, all across regional Australia, and to continue to support local business owners and workers. (Notice given 31 July 2023.) Time allotted — 20 minutes. Speech time limits — Mrs Phillips —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 1 CHILD CARE: Resumption of debate (from 7 August 2023) on the motion of Ms Bell—That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) the Government's Cheaper Child Care policy has driven up the cost of early childhood education and care for families across Australia since it was implemented on 1 July 2023; (b) families are reporting increases to the cost of their daily fees in excess of $20 per day; (c) the Government's inability to manage the cost of living crisis in Australia is driving up the cost of rent, mortgages, groceries and everyday bills, like early childhood education and care bills, for Australian families; (d) the Government's inaction to address workforce shortages is limiting access to early childhood education and care for families; and (e) families continue to be unable to access early childhood education and care, particularly in regional and rural areas; and (2) calls on the Government to deliver: (a) more access to early childhood education and care places to support Australians to return to the workforce; and (b) real cost of living relief to families. Time allotted — 55 minutes. Speech time limits — All Members —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 11 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Notices — continued 9 MR PERRETT: To move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 the Houses of the Australian Parliament had the power to expel a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives; (b) the expulsion of a Member of this House is the most drastic of sanctions; (c) on 11 November 1920, the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie Hugh Mahon was expelled from this House; and (d) the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie is the only Member to have ever been expelled from this House; (2) acknowledges that the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie Hugh Mahon was expelled: (a) by a motion brought on hastily and with limited time for debate; (b) by a vote of the House on party lines; and (c) without the due process and procedural fairness that such an important issue deserves; and (3) recognises that: (a) it was unjust, on the limited evidence, for the institution to which Hugh Mahon had been democratically elected to reverse the decision of his constituents; (b) the expulsion of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie Hugh Mahon was a misuse of the power then invested in the House; (c) for over a century the Mahon family has endured this injustice and it is time that the Parliament revisit the matter of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon's expulsion. (Notice given 14 June 2023.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm. Speech time limits — Mr Perrett —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. THE HON D. M. DICK MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 9 August 2023 Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 13 Report 13 09:36 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 498, entitled 'Commitment issues'—An inquiry into Commonwealth procurement. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HILL 86256 by leave—I am pleased to present this report into Commonwealth procurement. It's been the outcome of a very wide-ranging and extensive inquiry over the last nine to 10 months. It's a major report, and I am pleased to say it has been unanimously agreed to, recommending major changes needed to procurement committing tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds every year across the Commonwealth. Procurement is indeed big business—over $80 billion in 2021-22, awarding more than 90,000 contracts to more than 12,000 businesses. Yet agencies systematically fail to comply with the rules and demonstrate value for money, lack compliance with ethical requirements in many of the reports we examined, and demonstrate poor record-keeping and contract management. Put plainly—hence the title of the report—the Commonwealth has serious commitment issues, and the recommendations in the report go to both system changes, changes to the rules, but also cultural changes. The committee secretary, Jenny Adams, who does a terrific job, was actually on leave for a few weeks in July, and I think she was horrified to come back and discover that we had in fact named the report Commitment issues. But the point of it is actually to signal that cultural change is needed, which means you need to get the attention of public servants and agencies if we are going to see a change in behaviour. I will also put a disclaimer on this. I did receive a call yesterday afternoon from the committee secretary, saying there was a big problem with the media release which we were about to issue. I said, 'What's that?' She said, 'They're not going to put it out, because it's not in the tone of the language of the House of Representatives media.' Apparently this has never happened before, so I will just put on the record that I'm going to tweak the uncensored version after this for the public record. It is the first time it's happened. The language is indeed drawn directly from the report, but who knew there's a tone and style guide? Here you have in this tabling statement the uncensored version, which reflects the language in the report. Action is needed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not been wasted as a consequence of poor public sector procurement practices. Public servants need to get far more comfortable and skilled at playing the field and sharpening their pencil on suppliers, even if this leads to difficult conversations and rejection. It goes to culture. Don't just take the first quote, even if you are procuring from a panel. Ask for a better quote. Push on price. Get comfortable with rejection. AusTender, of course, is the Commonwealth's public reporting system for tenders that are put out and for contracts that are entered into, but AusTender is no 'AusTinder', and it needs reform. When departments and agencies conduct procurements using taxpayer money, they should be able to demonstrate and prove that that money was spent effectively and appropriately. As the Auditor-General's work has made clear, just from his reports on what is available on AusTender, big winners from this limited competition include the big five, the five biggest consulting firms: Accenture, KPMG, Deloitte, PwC and Ernst & Young, which secured nearly $2 billion in government contracts in the 2021-22 financial year alone, comprising more than $1.6 billion in new contracts as well as more than $300 million in contract variations or extensions. We've heard directly and anecdotally that it's part of the business model at large consulting firms. The phrase internally is 'land and expand'. You get the small bit of work, you get it off the panel and then you milk it for variations. That's the key. As long as you land something, even if it's a loss leader and a low quote, you're on the money, because then you vary it once you've got your hooks in and you've got the inside knowledge. There are a few systemic recommendations. There are 19 recommendations. I'm not going to go through all of them, but, just for the record, I want to go through the ones we're suggesting need to apply across the entire Commonwealth. Firstly—and it was a big call: Panels have become an uncompetitive rort and it needs to stop! A growing share of procurement across the Commonwealth is conducted from suppliers that are listed on panels, yet too often now panels are limiting competition and value for money and particularly advantaging the big five consulting firms. We're saying, 'Enough!' The Auditor-General has called this out, but the behaviour hasn't changed. The trend is clear. The audit committee thinks: The rules should be changed to make clear that: sole-sourcing is not cool— Apparently I'm not allowed to say cool. It's not parliamentary—there you go!— and multiple quotes should be obtained; a separate value for money assessment must still be undertaken; and panels should be refreshed more often. To put that in plain English: panels too often now have become a club. You go through the competitive process, you get put on the list—that's the club—and it freezes out new market entrants for years, particularly SMEs or people who want to disrupt a market. It creates this club. It's also, we've discovered, too easy then for public servants to just go to one or two people, the favourite people on the panel. They might just get one quote and yet publicly it's reported on AusTender that that has been a competitive process, because, years before, the list that set up the panel was competitive. It's just not appropriate. It is locking out SMEs in particular. The second recommendation: Better Match-making by Tarting up AusTender! It really needs to be clear publicly. Transparency and sunlight breed good behaviour. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It needs to be clear publicly how many quotes were actually sought, even when procuring from a panel; and, secondly, why a contract was varied or amended. In too many audit reports we see variation after variation after variation. The third recommendation: Take a broader view of what you do! Procurement is more than just a conveyor belt trucking goods and services into the Commonwealth and trucking taxpayer money out. Modern professional practices are needed. There's a lot we can learn from big corporates in the private sector about category management and supply chain management. Defence do this pretty well, but there are other areas, particularly IT, where we can really lift our game. More active management of key supply chains and markets can maximise value for money. The fourth recommendation: Value for money, always, no exceptions! Sometimes things are urgent. There is clause 2.6, which everyone goes to to exempt themselves from the requirements of the rules. A couple of examples of legitimate uses include procurement of PPE during the pandemic and procurement of repatriation flights during the pandemic. But exempting yourself from processes cannot exempt an agency from a value-for-money assessment. If you're negotiating with Qantas, for instance, you still have to actually turn your mind to value for money and not just keep paying the same price for flights month after month, year after year. The fifth recommendation: Take a good hard look at yourself! Internal audit committees exist in every entity, and they need to increase their scrutiny of procurement controls and provide more assurance, particularly over complex, major or risky procurements. We had a public session with audit committee chairs, and it was pretty stunning to the committee that they do almost nothing on procurement. There is very little oversight of tens of billions of dollars. The sixth recommendation: One in, all in! The minister in the chair is the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIA is a good example. It's a corporate Commonwealth entity. Currently the rules are written so that corporate Commonwealth entities are not subject to the framework, to the procurement rules. We think it's time to reverse that onus: to rebaseline it and set a default presumption that all corporate Commonwealth entities are captured unless the finance minister excludes them, reversing the onus. The seventh recommendation: It's time to re-professionalise! They've got to take responsibility. Finance must address the lack of procurement expertise and capability across the Australia Public Service by prioritising the development of a procurement professional stream in the APS and by updating the procurement framework to match the development of the procurement profession that we've seen outside the public sector. It was abolished years ago. It's time to bring it back. What we saw in every agency that gets itself into trouble, every agency that gets exposed by the Auditor-General for a really bad job, whether they do it easily or slowly, was that they eventually learn the lesson and recentralise and re-professionalise procurement. We need to accept that has to happen across the public sector. I will make some very brief comments on each of the reports and dwell on one of them. Defence's procurement of six Evolved Cape class patrol boats: overall, big compliments to Defence. It was a really good example of a well-managed sole source procurement. They got an approach from the market and they managed it pretty well. There are a couple of recs about improving their probity around tender guidelines and stuff in those circumstances but they did well. Procurement by the National Capital Authority was sloppy. It wasn't good enough. It's a good example of an agency that's well meaning, but they broke all the rules. There was a lack of ethical procurement. But it's to their credit that they acknowledged their problems and put in place a chief procurement officer and have a reform program. The procurement of the delivery partners for the entrepreneurs program was fundamentally unethical. It demonstrated a shocking bias towards incumbent providers along the way. Again, it's a credit to the department in how they handled themselves, acknowledged the problems and what they're doing to fix them. The Digital Transformation Agency's procurement of IT related services was appalling. It was a cowboy culture and their word 'expediency' understates the issues. There are examples where, internally, their corporate area said, 'This is not ethical. You can't keep varying this contract,' but they kept on doing it. Their approaches to market were flawed. The variations were flawed. It felt like a club. The CEO has gone, and the committee appreciated their frankness, at least, at the committee hearings. I want to read a bit from the report regarding the good old Department of Home Affairs. This relates to their management of the civil maritime surveillance contract. That's a really important contract. It's the contract that flies the surveillance planes off north and Western Australia looking for people smuggling, drugs, pests, illegal food imports, all sorts of really important stuff. It says: It is unacceptable to the Committee that the audit found deficiencies in almost every aspect of the department's management of a contract intended to protect Australia's maritime zone from illicit activities. It's not the first time. It's very similar to critical audit reports about offshore garrisons in Nauru and PNG. Despite the serious deficiencies identified by ANAO, a month or two later—not long after—the department decided to vary the contract by another $990 million and extend it for six years. So by the end of this contract, if it runs full term, it will not have been competitively tendered for 21 years, at a value of $2.6 billion. There's no excuse. The department secretary acknowledged it's not acceptable. The committee didn't find persuasive, though, the secretary's explanation that it's because the former government wouldn't give him an integrated investment plan. You're left scratching your head. The Auditor-General wrote back to us and said, 'This is not a capital contract. The government doesn't own the planes; it's a service contract, where the contractor owns the planes and flies them around.' Despite offers to do so and repeated requests, the secretary declined to explain how the lack of an integrated investment plan impacted the contract. We were generally interested in trying to understand it. It's not simply a matter of value for money or compliance with the CPRs. Australia is now lumbered with way out-of-date technology compared with the rest of the world. There are better examples, where these assets fly with enhanced surveillance capabilities, and they tap back into Defence and Border Force and can perform other national security functions all with the same contract—if we only had modern technology. The committee was unable to understand why the department didn't seek amendments to the terms of conditions, at least, to identify issues in the audit before they gave another billion dollars and a six-year extension. I encourage people interested in this to read the findings in section 5 in relation to that contract. It's a shocker. We made a series of recommendations. In summary, I commend the report to the House. It's a mixture of individual findings but really systemic changes. Above all else, in any group of humans, in any organisation, culture is set by leaders. Whether it's a sporting team, school, business or a government department, 80 per cent or more of the behaviour of how people come to work and whether they're inclined to follow the rules, look for ways around the rules or follow the spirit and the intent of the rules is driven by leaders. You can only do so much—very little, really—by changing the rules themselves. The big message to the public sector is to take up the spirit and the intent of what we're saying, not just the rules, and actually shift behaviour to improve value for money. We could save literally billions of dollars over the next few years if we sharpened the pencil and rethought how we're procuring things across the Commonwealth. I want to thank the other committee members, particularly the deputy chair, Senator Reynolds, for their really constructive engagement. It's pretty nerdy stuff, but it can have a real impact. I also want to thank the committee secretariat for their forbearance. Again, we're very sorry for the name, committee secretary, but hopefully it has an impact on the public sector in driving some of that cultural change. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Does the member for Bruce wish to move a motion in connection to the report? Mr HILL 86256 I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 16 09:51 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 16 09:51 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce by leave—I present executive minutes on reports Nos 492 and 494 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and you'll be pleased to know I don't intend to talk to them. Public Works Joint Committee 16 Approval of Work 16 09:51 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—Facilities to Support JP9101 Phase 1 Enhanced Defence High Frequency Communication System—'Project Phoenix'. The Department of Defence is proposing to undertake works to support its enhanced defence high frequency communication system. The proposed works include the refurbishment of control buildings, engineering services and infrastructure at existing sites and the construction of a facility at a new site and fibre optic cable links between a number of regional paired sites. The estimated cost of the works is $280.2 million, excluding GST. The works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 20 June 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2024 for completion of all sites by late 2026. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 16 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 16

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

Second Reading 16 09:54 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. This bill gives effect to the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to crack down on multinational tax avoidance and improve transparency of corporate subsidiaries, and as such has been foreshadowed since it was announced in April 2022. This legislation levels the playing field for Australian business and increases transparency. This important legislation represents a crucial step towards creating a fair and just economic landscape, ensuring that multinational corporations contribute their rightful share to society as well as promoting transparency in tax practices. Given the global push to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, it is in the public interest for shareholders to have access to more information of this nature. These measures are based on the 2013 OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Over 135 countries and jurisdictions are working together within this inclusive framework to take steps to combat tax avoidance, strengthen the coherence of international tax legislation and promote a more transparent tax environment. With this in mind, it is important to note that the aim of these reforms is to hold companies to account, particularly large corporate groups, with respect to their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. In recent years we have seen a worrying trend in which many multinational firms have used loopholes and complicated financial arrangements to reduce their tax responsibilities. As a result, they have avoided paying their fair share of taxes, placing the burden of funding important public services, infrastructure and social programs on the rest of society. This must stop. The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill are intended to improve tax transparency by requiring Australian public companies to disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports. These amendments apply to the financial year commencing on 1 July 2023. This will hold firms accountable, particularly large corporations, by compelling them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are using opaque tax arrangements, such as subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions. This data will aid in producing better economic analysis and will help to determine whether tax arrangements are collecting the appropriate amount of revenue. It is helpful to know that stakeholder feedback in August 2022 and April 2023 influenced this measure. It is a measure that is a significant step towards improved tax openness, and it supplements ongoing efforts to develop a beneficial ownership register and public country-by-country reporting, on which the government is continuing to consult with stakeholders. While schedule 1 is a transparency measure, schedule 2 is a revenue raising measure. It aims to limit multinational entities' debt deductions, ensuring that they pay their fair share of tax in Australia and helping to level the playing field for Australian enterprises. We know that a lack of coherence in international tax rules creates international tax gaps in a global digital economy where large multinational entities aggressively engage in tax avoidance practices. This practice was highlighted by the OECD report titled Addressing base erosion and profit shifting, which resulted in the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan. The OECD stated that this plan was a response to the perception that domestic and international rules on the taxation of cross-border profits are broken and that taxes are paid only by the naive. This government is not naive. Australians are not naive. Through this bill, multinational entities will discover that we as a country are not naive. At a functional level, schedule 2 introduces new thin-capitalisation earnings based tests for the new general class investors. Specifically, this measure will limit an entity's debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits. This new earnings based test will replace the current safe harbour test. An earnings based approach to debt deductions ensures that deductions are directly tied to an entity's economic activity and earnings. This is a robust approach to addressing the tax planning practices of multinationals. This is an important measure. Because debt is tax deductible, multinationals can adjust their debt levels and use related-party borrowings to minimise the amount of tax they pay. The increasing occurrence of this tax avoidance practice has resulted in international efforts, as highlighted earlier by the work of the OECD, to address tax integrity risks and directly limit debt-related deductions for multinational entities. It's worth noting that jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and most of the European Union have already implemented earning-based interest-limitation rules. The proposed thin capitalisation amendments will bring Australia in line with these jurisdictions and ensure that we are not the final frontier when it comes to multinational entities and tax avoidance. I also acknowledge there has been some criticism of the speed of these changes. It is important to remember, and for me to reiterate here, that these amendments were first announced in April 2022 as part of Labor'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 arrangements as much as possible, noting that this is a tax integrity measure. Additionally, we know—and it should come as no surprise to both the House and the majority of hardworking, taxpaying Australians—that postponing these changes would present a revenue and tax avoidance risk by allowing taxpayers—in this case multinational entities—to artificially restructure their arrangements to avoid the new rules and gain a tax benefit. I said earlier that we as a government are not naive, and the speed of these changes taking effect following extensive and considered consultation speaks to this fact. This bill is an overdue response to the growing concern over income inequality and the erosion of public trust in the fairness of our tax system. The current state of affairs is not only inequitable but also undermines the trust and confidence citizens have in their government and the corporate sector. We have got to do more on multinational taxation. We have two-fifths of multinational profits currently sitting in tax havens. We have 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. With this in mind, I found it truly remarkable that those on the other side of the House issued media releases criticising this government for wanting to do more on multinational taxation. In Victoria, my home state, 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 cleanup obligations. Some nine million tires were sitting at the dump, and the attempt of the owners to shift ownership off to Panama for a tax haven was all designed to avoid their liabilities. It is this sort of problem that Labor—the government—wants to address. Over nearly a decade in government, those opposite tinkered around the edges making the odd tweak here and there, but throughout their time in government they clearly showed which side they were on—and it was not on the side of Australians but on the side of rogue multinational tax dodgers. The profit 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 multinational profits. However, the first thing the coalition did when they came into government was hollow out the tax office, sucking out almost 5,000 staff. Two years into government, they realised how much that was costing them and so they set up a taskforce to plug the hole—the very hole that they created. It was before the federal election last year when those opposite told Australians not to support anyone that proposed to raise taxes on multinational tax dodging. That is pretty outrageous and makes us really question what side the Liberal coalition are on. Labor takes the view—our government takes the view—that the international group that came together in 2021—more than 100 countries—to strike a deal on global taxation has made a step in the right direction. As someone standing on the government side of the House, I'm pleased to say that we are now working to see those measures implemented. Those opposite 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 certainly don't have an army of lawyers and accountants who are looking to find the arbitrary to cross the international tax system to exploit it and seek out every loophole possible. On the contrary, new start-up businesses in Australia are working hard, putting in long hours and doing their absolute best to manage cash flow, balance the books and launch a new business. However, as it stands right now, they face the potential of being cheated by multinational entities and tax dodgers who are using tax havens in favourable jurisdictions. We clearly have to do more to level the playing field and support those Australian businesses. I'm really pleased that our government is doing just that. Let there be no mistake: Labor is closing these loopholes that will improve the integrity, transparency and credibility of our tax system. It's important to highlight that a feature of the bill includes provisions to strengthen the enforcement of tax laws and increase penalties for non-compliance. By doing this, we create a strong deterrent against tax avoidance and evasion, ensuring that all companies, regardless of their size or influence, play by the rules and pay their fair share. A transparent and fair tax system can enhance our nation's credibility and attractiveness to foreign investors, providing stability, predictability and a level playing field for business. It's essential to understand that this legislation is not about punishing successful businesses but rather about building a more just and equitable society. When multinational entities pay their fair share of taxes, we can fund better education systems, health care, infrastructure and social safety nets for our citizens, promoting economic and social development for all Australians. When multinationals don't pay their fair share, individuals and families—all of our communities—suffer the most. Over the years, we have seen things like the Panama papers, the Lux leaks and the Paradise papers reveal that the deliberate, sophisticated tactics global companies have been using to shift profits around the world to pay less tax have been bad for the world. In closing, I want to mention the words of the always inspiration US President Barack Obama: We shouldn't make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes … He went on to say that there is: … the basic principle of making sure everyone pays their fair share. This basic principle is the essence of what makes the Labor government a Labor government—fairness and making sure that we're able to build a better future where no-one's left behind. I am proud that we, as a Labor government, are playing our part in this important issue. I commend the bill to the House. 10:08 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Firstly, I want to thank those members who've contributed to this debate. The Australian government went to the 2022 election with commitments to tighten tax integrity and to play a meaningful part in driving international tax reforms. We made that commitment more than one year ago, and the time lines we set were to allow for meaningful consultation with affected stakeholders. That consultation has indeed taken place. Through the exposure draft, Treasury has conducted 10 meetings with interested stakeholders, ranging from peak groups to individual firms. Since the bill was introduced, Treasury has carried out seven more consultation meetings, again, with a range of peak groups and investors. The exposure draft received 54 written submissions, and those submissions that asked to be made public have been published on the Treasury website. More than a year on from the election, I stand here to speak in favour of a government that seeks to implement its election commitment. The measures we brought to parliament have benefited from the guidance and input of industry and civil society, but we bring these amendments to the parliament with a clear eye to the main game. For too long, multinational profit shifting has left a hole in our corporate tax revenue. For too long, artificial debt deduction mechanisms have been used and misused to allow revenue to drain away to low- or no-tax jurisdictions. When that happens, households and businesses pay more, and that's why this bill the government brings to the House is a pro-business measure. As the member for Chisholm so articulately put it, this is about creating a level playing field across all Australian businesses. If you are a local small business just trying to make payroll, you're not thinking about how you're going to restructure your arrangements to set up a high-interest loan coming out of the Caymans so you can reduce your tax bill. If you're a regular mum-and-dad business just trying to get by, what you ask is to be placed on a level playing field with other firms. Multinational tax is complicated, but the very principles at stake in this bill are simple: do we want multinationals to pay their fair share, or do we want to allow the status quo to continue? We have given industry over a year to prepare for these changes. The consultations have helped ensure our integrity measures are properly targeted to tighten loopholes that can be used to allow the strategic erosion of our tax base. We don't want to affect legitimate commercial arrangements. Our commitment is to shift the norms, not maintain the status quo, and that reflects the consensus embodied in the OECD/G20 process. That inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting has seen over 140 countries and jurisdictions collaborate on the implementation of measures to tackle tax avoidance to improve the coherence of international tax rules and to ensure a more transparent tax environment. It brings an end to the notion that we should just allow a race to the bottom in corporate taxation, with a global 15 per cent minimum floor on corporate taxation. The commitments in this bill work in the spirit of the OECD/G20 reforms. We took them to the last election. They were confirmed in the October budget. They sit alongside our commitment to introduce a public country-by-country reporting register and to limit the deductions multinationals can make on payments relating to intangible assets when those payments are made to low-tax jurisdictions. They interact with other transparency reforms taking place in the EU and with like-minded countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom. We are committed to working with like-minded international partners in order to close multinational tax loopholes, in order to improve transparency, in order to implement the global minimum tax that was at the heart of the OECD/G20 arrangement. There is now a growing number of jurisdictions committed to implementing a global minimum tax from 2024, and these measures are designed to complement those key multinational tax reforms. Australia has championed the global 15 per cent minimum tax. We have committed to have that and the domestic minimum tax apply from 1 January 2024. We are delivering on our promise to make multinationals pay their fair share. We are doing it methodically and responsibly. Schedule 1 of this bill is a transparency measure. It applies from 1 July 2023 and requires Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, to disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports. Schedule 1 to the bill is part of the government's broader regulatory mix to improve corporate disclosures, ensuring that appropriate public scrutiny can be brought to bear to build trust in the integrity of the tax system. If you have significant assets hiding in the Caymans or the Bahamas or another tax haven, then it is only reasonable that your investors know about that and the potential tax risk that might pose. So we are asking public companies to make that information available to investors so investors can make an informed choice as they look across firms that are domiciled in tax havens and those that are not. Schedule 2 to the bill amends Australia's thin capitalisation rules to limit the amount of debt that entities can deduct for tax purposes. The amendments introduce earnings based interest-limitation rules for general class investors to replace the existing asset base rules. Specifically, the current safe harbour rule lets an entity deduct debt up to a threshold of 60 per cent of assets. Under the new rule, that threshold will become 30 per cent of profits. That ensures that an entity's debt deductions are directly linked to its economic activity, to its earnings, which is a more robust approach to addressing the use of debt as a base-erosion and profit-shifting risk. This amendment is consistent with the OECD's best practice framework rules. The amendments in schedule 2 also introduce the third-party debt test to replace the existing arm's-length debt test. While this test excludes related party debt—a higher base-erosion and profit-shifting risk activity—from being deductible for tax purposes, it's expected to be used by the property and infrastructure sectors to ensure genuine commercial arrangements can deduct third-party arm's-length debt without an earnings limitation. These amendments together implement the government's multinational tax election commitments, helping to ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. In closing, I want to draw the House's attention to an amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I have strong respect for the member for Wentworth and admire her keen interest in tax. There aren't many tax nerds in the parliament, and it's always good to see another member of that fraternity. Her interest in tax reform is admirable, and I understand that it comes from a desire to achieve a good outcome. But I have to say that the effect of the member for Wentworth's amendment would be to do the opposite. It would cost the budget millions of dollars by keeping open a multinational tax loophole, which would then have to be paid by small businesses and households—millions of dollars which would not be available to spend on services, such as health and education, and which would be flowing to the shareholders of multinational firms that have chosen to use artificial debt arrangements. The member for Wentworth's speech referred to consultation, but, as I have taken the House through, there has been extensive consultation on this bill. The consultation on this bill has taken place through the ministers' offices and directly through the department. We have seen an exposure draft process, as is usual for this kind of reform. We have engaged extensively with industry, with civil society and with tax experts in crafting this bill. But we are committed to closing a multinational tax loophole. We are committed to a level playing field. I do welcome the opposition's announcement that they will not be supporting the member for Wentworth's announcement. I welcome the announcement from the Liberal and National parties that they will be voting with the Labor Party to close this multinational tax loophole. It's the right thing to do. We must ensure that the misuse of debt arrangements does not gut corporate tax revenues in Australia. We must ensure that we stand up against the trends that have seen: globally, too many dollars of multinational tax profits channelled through no- or low-tax jurisdictions. We must stand up against the complicated corporate structures, the debt artifices, which see profits on which tax should be paid in Australia being siphoned offshore. Every multinational tax expert acknowledges the importance of debt deductions and their abuse and the way in which that is forming a challenge to the multinational tax system. If we don't close down these loopholes, they will continue to cost the Australian taxpayer. It will be the constituents that sent us here who will have to pay higher taxes if multinational firms get away with these artificial debt contrivances. It'll be these local firms that are doing it tough and working long hours, who never have a thought of doing business in the Caymans, who will end up paying more if we leave these multinational tax loopholes open. It'll be Australia's services that suffer if we don't get the corporate tax revenues that will flow from closing multinational tax loopholes. Closing multinational tax loopholes is not easy—and I want to commend the work the officials have done in engaging with a range of stakeholders, domestic and international, to put this package together—but tax reform needs to be done. The world is looking at the issue of multinational tax avoidance as a major challenge to the corporate tax base. If we don't do something about it, corporate tax itself could one day come under threat. So, we've done this. We've consulted with industry, we've consulted with stakeholders, and we've brought forward these important reforms today. I urge the House to support the bill but not to support the amendments that are being brought to it. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

54 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. 86 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail 22 10:34 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in may name, together: (1) Schedule 2, item 14, page 9 (table item 2A), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 2, item 17, page 10 (lines 1 to 6), omit the item. (3) Schedule 2, item 18, page 10 (line 9), omit ", 820-E or 820-EAA", substitute "or 820-E". (4) Schedule 2, item 76, page 38 (line 22) to page 43 (line 25), omit Subdivision 820-EAA. (5) Schedule 2, item 143, page 62 (lines 1 to 5), omit the item. As I flagged in my speech to the second reading debate, I fully support the principle of the bill and the government improving the integrity of the tax system. I certainly support the integrity of the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury in what he is trying to achieve, and I support the principles of what the government is trying to achieve here. However, when I speak to businesses, they tell me they want one thing from government policy—or, actually, two: (1) they want it to be evidence based and (2) they want certainty and stability so that they can make good decisions. My concern is that there are still issues with the drafting of certain sections of the bill which create potential uncertainty, and I am seeking that those parts of the bill be reviewed and receive proper consultation before they proceed through this House. The problem with the bill is that it introduces complex changes to tax law which have not been subject to consultation and potentially are unworkable. I appreciate that many parts of the bill have been well consulted on, and I commend the assistant minister and other ministers for this work. However, the specific part of the bill which I have a concern with was not part of exposure draft legislation and, because it is technical tax legislation, it is absolutely important that, when we come to these sorts of technical changes, there is public consultation in advance of the bill coming to the House so that any particular issues can be addressed. The challenge that a number of members of the business and tax community have raised is that, while trying to prevent tax loopholes and multinationals shifting tax away from Australia, which are of deep concern to me—and, frankly, I've been quite outspoken on the need to close tax loopholes, including for multinationals, in areas such as the petroleum resource rent tax framework—potentially there are legitimate business activities that would be captured by this legislation. We should get into the detail and debate what is and isn't included, to make sure that whatever is put forward to the House and the Senate is appropriately targeted at finding that balance between integrity and workability and is appropriate for supporting legitimate business activities. The changes are also partly retrospective, and that is also of concern to the business community. I've discussed these issues with the minister and I can see that there are different views on this, but I think the fundamental challenge is that there are some technical issues with this bill and those should be resolved before we pass it. The deep reason for that is that, if a bill goes through the House now but is going to be amended—and I certainly hope it will be amended before it passes the Senate—there will be a period of uncertainty where businesses do not know what they should be doing and what rules might apply to them or not. That stops businesses getting on with the work that they need to get on with. The greatest uncertainty is when there's a bill in the House and we don't know if it's going to change. A principal objection is, basically, that we need really good consultation, particularly on technical details, so business has certainty around its investment decisions and the things that it should work into. And that consultation should be done before the bill comes to the House because business uncertainty increases if it doesn't happen. So my amendments, simply put, say, 'Why don't you move forward with the parts of the bill for which there's broad agreement and there has been really broad consultation; and why don't you hold up the part of the bill which was not part of the exposure draft and has not had the same level of consultation, come back in another period and introduce fundamentally strong legislation which has been through the appropriate exposure drafts and consultation, where, even if people do disagree, there is actually certainty from the community about what is going to be put forward both in the House and in the Senate.' I want to make sure that my words and my amendments can't be characterised as trying to stand up for multinational tax avoidance, because, frankly, quite the opposite is true. I've been a strong proponent of addressing multinational tax avoidance, but if you're going to change tax policy we should make sure there are exposure drafts that businesses can have legitimate engagement with. Then we can pass these through the House and through the Senate. 10:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The government won't be supporting the member for Wentworth's amendment, as I foreshadowed in my earlier remarks. As I've said, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Wentworth, for her passion for tax reform and for her interest in better policy. This dates back to her first speech to the parliament and her remarks about the importance of a tax system that improves productivity in Australia. I regard her as a member of the highest integrity, somebody who has a keen interest in public policy and in good economic reform. The government is not supporting this measure because, by removing the proposed debt deduction creation rules from the bill, it would remove an important integrity feature of the bill. This side of the House has a keen commitment to multinational tax integrity. That was represented in the 26 government speakers who spoke in favour of this bill. Twenty-six of my colleagues took the time to prepare and present remarks about the importance of closing multinational tax loopholes. They spoke about the importance of revenue for the communities they serve, of adequate revenue to fund health, education, community services and infrastructure. They spoke about the issue of fairness, about the importance of achieving a level playing field, and they spoke about their frustration, that multinational firms shouldn't get a tax benefit from artificial debt. The strengthened thin capitalisation rules play an important role in ensuring deductions are directly linked to earnings and legitimate commercial activity. Engineering excessive debt deductions is one of the easiest ways of shifting profits out of Australia and into a low tax jurisdiction. If the member for Wentworth's amendment were carried, it would have the effect of allowing artificial debt deduction creation schemes to continue operating, meaning less tax revenue to fund vital services. Australia supports the OECD's action plan on base erosion and profit shifting, and these measures are entirely consistent with that OECD work. The government has worked extensively with stakeholders. We have signalled, on the initial tabling of the bill on 22 June 2023, the importance for the government of balancing tax integrity with supporting genuine commercial activity. As I outlined earlier, that consultation has seen 17 meetings by Treasury, 54 written submissions to the exposure draft. Those who were asked to be public, published on Treasury's website. There has been extensive consultation by the government on this measure, which we took to the last election, having announced it in April 2022. This measure is not being rushed. The consultations haven't been forgotten. We have engaged with stakeholders, with industry, with civil society and with experts. We understand that there will be multinational firms currently using artificial devices to deduct debts in low tax jurisdictions or via low tax jurisdictions who would prefer not to pay more tax, but if we don't close this loophole then millions of dollars of revenue will be lost. The revenue cost of the member for Wentworth's amendment runs into the millions of dollars. Those millions of dollars will, effectively, have to come out of the pockets of regular Australian taxpayers, of ordinary businesses and households. All will be borne in the form of higher national debt or inferior services. The government's commitment to multinational tax integrity is steadfast. We do this through our engagement with international partners, which are all moving in the same direction. Let's make no mistake. Right now, there are stakeholders in other countries arguing for a slowdown, but those countries are moving ahead on these important tax integrity measures. Australia should move ahead too with the global consensus on closing multinational tax loopholes. I thank the opposition for their announcement that they will not be supporting the member for Wentworth's amendment. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 24 10:45 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. TARIFF PROPOSALS 24 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2023 24 10:46 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2023. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2023 proposes to amend section 18B of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to extend for a further 12 months the concessional treatment of imported goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine. From 4 July 2022, these goods, other than petroleum, fuel, tobacco and alcohol products, have been able to claim a free rate of customs duty on import. This was due to end on 3 July 2023. The goods will now be able to continue to access concessional treatment until 3 July 2024. The extension of concessional treatment supports Ukraine's continued participation in international trade and will contribute to its reconstruction and recovery. Australia has stood with Ukraine since Russia's illegal invasion 17 months ago. We are very proud to be one of the largest non-NATO contributors to and supporters of Ukraine. This extension forms part of a $110 million package of assistance that was announced by the Prime Minister on 26 June 2023 to help Ukraine defend its territorial integrity and to meet the humanitarian needs of its population. Australia unambiguously condemns Russia's illegal, immoral and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We support Ukraine's territorial sovereignty, integrity and enduring right as a democracy to self-determination. Australia will continue to uphold a rules based international order that ensures not just the security of Ukraine and other countries in Europe but, indeed, our own. I commend this proposal to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2023 24 10:48 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2023. The customs tariff proposal that I have tabled inserts new item 59 into schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The new concessional item provides a free rate of customs duty to certain goods that are for use in connection with an international sporting event. Eligible goods and relevant sporting events for which they are imported will be prescribed by by-law. The concessional item will facilitate duty-free treatment for goods that are imported for use in connection with the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. This event features the world's top 32 women's national teams. It is the largest women's sporting event in the world. It's estimated that the competition will attract 1.5 million spectators across Australia and New Zealand and attract over two billion broadcast viewers around the world. The Australian government is proud to be co-hosting this event with New Zealand. It is the first time that the FIFA Women's World Cup has been held in the Southern Hemisphere, it's the first time that the Women's World Cup has been co-hosted and it is the first Women's World Cup to feature 32 nations. The Australian government will continue to support major sporting events hosted in Australia, such as the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. We will continue to provide financial investment where possible to support the delivery of events and legacy initiatives. Our country will continue to work with the event owners and organisers to support the safe and successful delivery of events that leave a long-lasting legacy and deliver socio-economic outcomes for the Australian community. Deputy Speaker Freelander, I'm sure that you, I and many others around this chamber have watched on with utter delight as we have watched the Matildas surge their way through to the quarter-finals. This is such an exciting moment for the country. If the Matildas win the Women's World Cup, it might be the biggest single sporting achievement that we've had as a country, certainly in women's sport. We are so proud to be cheering them on. Go, Matildas! Debate adjourned. BILLS 25 BILLS Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 25

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

Second Reading 25 10:52 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The system of classification of content in this country has allowed us to safely enjoy family movies or computer games knowing that the images and themes are age appropriate. As content creation and distribution has evolved, as have the times; and as the ways that we consume media have rapidly expanded, our classification systems must evolve along with them. So it is good to see the continuation of the legislation by the new government that builds on the work of the coalition government before it. The sheer volume of content now at our fingertips requires us to be more streamlined and agile when it comes to classification, whilst simultaneously ensuring that quality controls and safeguards are actively in place. The Stevens review, released in 2020, outlines a number of sensible recommendations to deal with this, and it is pleasing to see that this bill starts the process of enacting some of those less contentious recommendations swiftly. These include the high cost of processes to use the board, especially given the volume of content now requiring classification; time frames to use the board, which are too long to be compatible with current media practices; and lack of compliance with existing legislation among some content providers, including some video-on-demand providers and online game storefronts, partly as a result of the high cost and long time frames of the existing classification practices. The continuation of expecting the Classification Board, a single governing body, to solely carry out the load of classification approvals is increasingly unrealistic, not only from a timing perspective but also from a cost perspective. I acknowledge that this bill makes steps to allow for that. Allowing self-classification by accredited individuals trained by the board—and I emphasise 'accredited'—will provide considerable relief in the bottleneck that we currently see. I appreciate the outlined safeguards that have been created in this bill in relation to self-classification, including ensuring that accredited persons are of fit and proper character and have carried out the relevant training. Accredited persons are not to be permitted to classify films likely to be rated X, 18+, or RC. The person's accreditation may be revoked or suspended on a range of character or performance grounds, and the board may revoke the classification set by an accredited person either on its own initiative or on the request of the minister or secretary. In that event the board must then classify the film or computer game. Given the multitude of ways in which we view the same piece of content, the Stevens review highlighted that, under the existing arrangements, classification ratings can not be carried over between broadcast TV and other platforms such as video-on-demand, thus needing to be classified twice. This duplication was not only costly but also unnecessarily laborious, adding to the board's caseload with no justifiable benefit. With that in mind, this bill removes this barrier and applies a 'classify once' principle for broadcast content. I also note that the explanatory memorandum states that cost-recovery arrangements for industry self-classification may be considered in a future budget process. While fees may be applied for accreditation and training purposes, the bill states that such fees must not be such as to amount to taxation, which makes complete sense. I acknowledge that the Stevens review was advised that public libraries are finding it difficult to source films other than English for their culturally and linguistically diverse communities—films that were being requested by the residents. We, as Australians, pride ourselves on our multicultural make-up, so this finding was not entirely surprising. As it was not commercially viable to pay the cost of a classification for a comparatively small number of copies of a foreign film to be purchased for libraries, this is completely understandable. For a distributor, the cost implications simply deemed small-scale physical distribution an impossibility. Stevens recommended the development of an exemption for unclassified films in languages other than English for supply to public libraries, and it is pleasing to see that the bill seeks to enact this recommendation in its first phase. I do, however, need to note a couple of key concerns. While the broad strokes are here in terms of meaningful first-step reform, what is lacking are finite, modern definitions of 'cultural exemptions' as well as 'cultural events and exhibitions' and 'approved cultural institutions'. My concern is that this particular loophole has the potential to be exploited, and I hope to see these definitions evolve. Additionally, I question the effectiveness of kicking the X 18+ or RC classifications to the keeper. I would suggest that there will be a propensity among some to classify content as M to avoid the potential delay in approvals, particularly if the accredited person works in house at a content creator entity. This may be a loophole that requires more analysis once the changes included in this legislation are active in market. To that end, a formal review process of the changes at an agreed time—be that after six months or one year—should be recommended. With that said, I agree with my colleagues that this bill represents a good first step to tackle some of the less contentious issues around classification and I hope to see a more finite detail around the harder aspects of the Stevens review in coming months as the planned phases are rolled out. 11:00 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I thank the member for Cowper for his contribution. 'Intense, passionate and deeply emotional, a sense of raw determination and strength, capturing the essence of a man driven by a burning desire for freedom and justice.' These words could have been written about many in this place, but they are from a review describing the phenomenal performance of Mel Gibson as William Wallace in 1995's Braveheart. Gibson portrays Wallace as a brave and charismatic Scottish leader, inspiring his people to fight for freedom. He gains numerous victories against the English, becoming a legendary figure like a 13th century Dave Warner—although I'm sure David would hope for a more peaceful and less divisive end to his life. 1995 may feel like yesterday to many of us in this place—although not all, judging by some of the youngsters on this side of the House in particular. Although the time may feel like it has passed in the blink of an eye, technology has come a long way in 28 years. As well as Braveheart, 1995 brought us The Usual Suspects; 12 Monkeys; Babe, the talking pig; Tom Hanks being shot into space in Apollo 13 and then being grounded as Woody in Toy Story's first outing; and the movies Seven—don't open the box!—and Bad Boys. VHS was king and video rental stores were big business in every shopping mall. Kids these days will never know of the tantalising wait for a video to rewind or a computer game cassette to load. As for the internet, dial-up was still king and just 10 per cent of Australians were using the net. 1995 is when the National Classification Scheme was established, and it's remained largely unchanged. Technology has moved on, but our National Classification Scheme remains stuck in the past like a tape caught in the old head unit. We've moved a long way from those days. Movies, TV shows and social media are available 24/7 on demand. No longer is the TV in the front room the only screen in the house, where families would gather together for a shared experience and, for young ones, a managed experience. Now most households have multiple screens: TVs, desktop computers, tablets, laptops and smartphones, all connected all the time to multiple avenues for film, TV, social media and gaming. Families share their viewing less, and children's viewing is less supervised and curated. Limiting the kids' access to content deemed unsuitable is a never-ending and laborious task, completely undermined, at the end of the day, by our kids' ability to watch what their parents don't want them to on their friends' devices. As technology has advanced and entertainment options have expanded, the need for a robust classification system has become more evident. There is more content created than ever before, and it's being created more quickly and getting to market more quickly. So how can the Classification Board possibly cope with cobwebbed guidelines last substantially changed 28 years ago? Film classification boards play a vital role in empowering audiences, protecting artistic freedom and ensuring responsible entertainment. Australian families rely on classifications to make informed choices about what they and those they care for watch, read and play. The classification system helps parents, guardians and consumers make informed decisions about the suitability of movies and games for different age groups. It ensures that children's exposure to unsuitable content can be curated and limited. The system serves as a guide for consumers, allowing them to choose content that aligns with their preferences, sensitivities and values. It empowers individuals to make choices based on their comfort level with certain themes or content. Some content may be potentially harmful or distressing for certain audiences, such as young children or individuals with specific sensitivities. The system can help to safeguard these vulnerable groups from exposure to potentially harmful material or, indeed, unwanted material. The classification system promotes consistency and uniformity in the entertainment industry. It helps studios and developers understand the appropriate content to include in their creations for specific audiences and to avoid potential controversies or legal issues. Having a transparent classification system builds trust between content creators and consumers. It provides clarity about the content's nature and prevents any misunderstandings or misinformation, and it demonstrates that the entertainment industry takes its social responsibilities seriously. It shows there is a commitment to protecting audiences from content that may not be suitable for those audiences. Film is more than mere entertainment; it is an integral part of our cultural and historical heritage. Some films hold immense historical value, reflecting the mindset and sentiments of the past. Film classification boards play a crucial role in preserving these artefacts and ensuring their accessibility to future generations. By categorising classic films appropriately, film classification boards ensure that these treasures can be enjoyed responsibly by all audiences. They help educate younger viewers about our cultural heritage, our changing values and the evolution of storytelling in cinemas. With access to more content at the click of a button than we've ever had before, it's important that we update our classification system. In March, the Albanese government committed to a process of reform to improve and modernise our classification system for the modern user and modern day media. It will be a two-stage process. As online content increases, with largely foreign owned streaming services vastly outnumbering live TV channels from traditional free-to-air broadcasters, we need a modern way to deal with classifications for this content without relying on the Classification Board to deal with the waves of new online content. This bill supports the implementation of the first stage of this process by introducing a number of changes to modernise the system. These changes will help us improve the capacity to deal with large volumes of online content, increase access to cultural content and promote industry compliance. This bill will make the classification system fit for purpose for modern day media by expanding options for the industry to self classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs for business. It will provide appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality-assure, and revoke where necessary, self-classification decisions. Eligibility criteria will be put in place to ensure that only fit and proper people can be accredited to classify content. We'll expand exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English, being distributed through public libraries that will be classified at the G or PG level, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. And we'll improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Moving to only needing to classify content once will remove a huge barrier in terms of time and convenience to broadcasters. This first stage of changes will enable us to work with key stakeholders when we implement more comprehensive reforms in the second stage of the proposed bill that will establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and ensuring the criteria are aligned with evolving community expectations and guidelines. A modern classification system will strike the right balance between expressing creative freedom and respecting community standards. A modern Classification Board will empower audiences by providing information to help them make informed choices. Balancing these roles, classification boards contribute to a responsible and enriching experience for all. Their commitment to preserving cultural heritage, educating audiences and maintaining the balance between artistic freedom and social norms makes them indispensable allies to both creators and audiences. I commend the bill to the House. 11:09 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The legislation being debated today is the first stage of the Albanese government's two-stage reform process—the important and complex process of updating our national classification framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it works for Australians. The National Classification Scheme was introduced in 1995. It required agreement between all states and territories and has been left largely unchanged, despite the rapid transformation of the media landscape and how Australians consume content. In 1995, 2.8 per cent of the Australian population were internet users. In 2020, that number stood at 89.6 per cent. The National Classification Scheme is in urgent need of review if it is to continue to provide Australian consumers with accurate information on the content they are consuming, ensuring they can trust the integrity of the scheme. Since 1995 Australia's classification arrangements have been the subject of several reviews, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's 2019 report and the Stevens review, handed to the Morrison government three years ago, which has now been released by the Albanese government. The Stevens review was a comprehensive, 145-page document that highlighted the need for a system that can better adapt to the fast-changing nature of the media landscape, one that provides information to Australians. The conclusion that all three reviews had in common was that the classification system is out of date and aspects of the system are no longer fit for purpose. The industry, itself, has been highlighting the need for reform. This bill will implement the Albanese government's first stage of this reform process. A key element of this bill will expand options for the industry to self-classify content. Currently, in order to classify content, submissions must be made to the Classification Board, or minister-approved classification tools must be used; however, this process is outdated and time-consuming as the volume of content has increased so rapidly. It has become cumbersome, resource-intensive and inefficient for industry, especially content providers who do not have the necessary resources. The new process will establish a new accreditation system that allows individuals who are trained and accredited to classify content. It will reduce time frames, allow faster classification and reduce the cost for business. It is a measure that is good for both businesses and consumers. However, there must be an appropriate level of safeguards and oversight of the new self-classification system. The legislation will expand the powers of the Classification Board and introduce provisions to ensure the proper regulation of the system. These provisions will include criteria to assess individuals seeking accreditation, as well as a provision to suspend or revoke accreditation. This legislation will ensure the quality of the self-classification of those accredited. This is necessary not only to ensure the integrity of the system but also so that consumers have confidence in the classifications—that they mean what they say. The board will revoke and change classifications as necessary. The bill provides classification exemptions for certain low-risk content. This includes low-risk content such as films that are in a language other than English and that are distributed through public libraries and displayed by approved cultural institutions, exhibitions and events. This is an important change to cut the administrative red tape for cultural and artistic use of content and make accessibility easier for consumers. Additionally, this bill will further streamline the process of classification for content that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This bill supports the principle of 'classify once'. Currently, such content is required to be reclassified under the classification act—an issue that was noted in the 2020 Stevens review and the 2019 ACCC review—which is an inefficient and burdensome requirement. Simply put, content that has not been altered or modified and that has already been classified should not need to be reclassified. Removing this requirement will harmonise and improve the efficiency of the system. This is a commonsense change. The changes detailed in this bill are part of our commitment to reforming the classification system—a system that has been in place for decades with little change. It is a difficult task. As such, this bill has been introduced ahead of the second stage of reforms, prioritising the immediate improvements and adjusting the scheme to put it on the right path in preparation for comprehensive second-stage reforms. Whilst a long process, it is an important one, and it must be done correctly to ensure that consumers and content providers are confident in the system and, more importantly, that everyone has the protection they require. I commend the work of the Minister for Communications, both on the bill that is currently before the House and on the extensive consultation process that is continuing. The Australian community expects a robust, responsive and modern classification framework, and that is what the Albanese government is delivering. I commend the bill to the House. 11:16 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise to contribute to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. We have all seen those colourful icons when watching a movie, as well as the voice overs at the very start of a TV program saying: 'This program is rated PG. Parental guidance is not recommended for viewers under the age of 15.' Some would say this is iconic, but it serves a real and useful purpose. These classifications are not just for movies and TV but are also used for video games and publications, such as magazines. Ratings can range from G, which is suitable for everyone, all the way up to MA, which is suitable for those aged 15-plus and which children under the age of 15 may not legally watch, buy or hire unless they are in the company of a parent or an adult guardian, and R is restricted to adults only. They say you can't judge a book by its cover. That is also the case for film and television, and even video games. You can never really know what you're buying until you watch it or play it. That is why these classifications are so important, especially for families. As a father of two young girls I know how useful these classifications are, because they always try to get to watch something they shouldn't be. I would not want to expose my daughters to something they should not be exposed to because I didn't realise it contained things that were inappropriate. Think of the movie Ted, for example. It's not my type of movie, but it's an example of a movie with a misleading name. Imagine watching Ted with the family and thinking it was a movie about a teddy bear! In reality, the movie is rated MA15-plus, being suitable for an audience aged 15 and over. Because of our classification system, families know that this movie is not on the cards for a family movie night—even though my girls will still try to make that happen! The National Classification Scheme has served us well since it was introduced in 1995, but it has remained largely unchanged since it was first introduced. We all know that the world is very different now to the world in 1995. Our kids are growing up in a world that in many ways hardly resembles what the world was almost 30 years ago. As a result, our classification standards are falling behind the times. They have not kept up with the pace of Australians' access to media content, particularly the rapid growth in online content. For the scheme to act effectively as a guide for Australians to choose what content they view, it needs to be trusted and reliable. But when the system is seen as being outdated, it is difficult to trust. This threatens the integrity of the scheme and the confidence Australians have in this source of information. There have been multiple reviews into the scheme. The Australian Law Reform Commission produced a report in 2012 and also in 2020 based on reviews of Australian classification regulation. Both made findings that there are aspects of the scheme that are no longer fit for purpose. There are also strong calls from industry making the same claims. It is clear that reform of this scheme is needed and long overdue. The needs of the modern Australian family are completely different in 2023 than they were even just over a decade ago. Our children are more easily exposed to all sorts of content all over the internet without any kind of regulation. This is dangerous and could harm our young people. That's why the government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australian families. This bill will introduce our government's first stage of reforms to a national classification scheme. There is more content available to Australians than ever before, and there are even more content providers, providing this content. This is largely driven by the huge amount of content that can be found online. With these large numbers of content providers today, especially online content providers, it can be difficult to comply with classification regulations, and the time frames and costs involved have an impact on this. This bill will address this issue, specifically by expanding options for industry to self-classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs for their business. There is also a whole range of cultural content which is absolutely fine for people of any age to be exposed to but does not need to be classified. This bill expands exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than England that would be classified at G or PG level being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. This makes the system fairer and more streamlined by making a commonsense change that does not harm anyone at all. Before 1995, some content was regulated under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Right now there is a requirement that this content be reclassified in line with the current national classification scheme but, more often than not, this is just doing the same job twice. This bill will improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. We have a lot of work to do in this area, and these changes are just stage 1 of our broader two-stage classification reform process. This staged approach is very significant and it is well thought-out. The changes in the first stage are important as they are needed to help set the scheme on the right path forward. That is why we have prioritised this stage and implemented it immediately. This first stage will also open the door for further changes, meaning that the government is able to work with key stakeholders to develop more comprehensive second-stage reforms. These reforms will have focus on clarifying the purpose of the scheme. A scheme which is lacking clarity in its purpose will not achieve any objective at all, so it's very important that everyone is clear on what the scheme seeks to achieve. It's also important that the scheme actually achieves what it was intended to achieve. It needs to be relevant to the modern age and incorporate factors that were not as major when it was first introduced, like the internet and the online space. Stage 2 will ensure this by establishing fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements. This next point is perhaps the most important. The scheme must be guided by what the community deems to be appropriate. If it is there to guide the community, it must reflect the values and thoughts of the community, otherwise it's irrelevant and will provide false guidance. This is why we will make sure that classification criteria is aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. There is a whole range of issues that have real impacts on our community today which may not have been topics of sensitivity in the past, or their impact may have been overlooked. These kinds of issues may be expressed in content, but other classification standards fail to advise the community that they may be triggering content. This shows how the guidelines have failed to move with the times and how they have failed to achieve their objective of properly providing advice on the type of content people are choosing to watch in order to avoid this content causing harm to them or their families. It is great to see that earlier this year the Classification Board updated consumer advice to make sure Australians are better informed about whether a film contains potentially triggering content such as bullying, suicide and self-harm, as well as disturbing content related to horror or blood and gore. In 2022, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and the Arts surveyed 2,000 Australians on their values and their understanding and use of classification information. This showed that Australians want more information about what they are watching to avoid any unwanted and possibly confronting surprises. Our world and our country have changed significantly, and they are continuing to change. The amount of content available and the content type that is available, the ease of accessibility of such content, and the standards and expectations of a community are all elements which are constantly changing in the ever-evolving world we live in now. Our classification framework needs to keep up with all of these factors in order to properly serve its purpose. This bill will create a contemporary classification framework that will serve all Australians into the future. I commend this bill to the House. 11:26 Ms M 133646 Dunkley URPHY () (): As speakers before me have noted, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is the first of the government's responses to the Stevens review and, of course, it's a very important response. The 2020 Stevens review was released by this government in March of this year. I was really pleased to see the minister make a number of commitments on behalf of the Australian government—expanding options for industry to self-classify content, providing exemption from classification for foreign-language films distributed by public libraries and routine exhibitions hosted by cultural institutions, and removing the need to reclassify content that has already been classified for television We see that commitment come to fruition in this bill. The government also committed to consulting with industry and other key stakeholders on broader classification reforms, and that consultation is something that the minister and the minister's office have been very diligent about doing. The third announcement, which is something I wanted to briefly speak about, is to seek agreement of state and territory attorneys-general as co-partners in the scheme to introduce a mandatory minimum classification of R 18+ for games which contain simulated gambling, and M for computer games containing paid loot boxes. I'm the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We recently finished quite a long inquiry into the regulatory regime and harm reduction for online gambling, and it included looking at loot boxes and simulated gambling. As we concluded in the report that we recently handed down, the evidence was clear that young Australians—children—are increasingly exposed to gambling-like activities. They're widely available and marketed to them on all digital platforms. There is a problem with the regulation and age gating. One only has to speak to parents to know that that is the case. My friends talk about their nine-, 10- and 11-year-old children using loot boxes and simulated gambling in online gaming; they didn't realise they were using it until they really stopped and interrogated the game. Mind you, one of my friend's children was smart enough to know how to use her credit card to pay. And you don't need anecdotes like that. The research presented to the committee suggests that simulated gambling in interactive games normalises gambling for children and young people and carries risks for lifelong addictive behaviours and the range of harms that online gambling causes. There is still some debate within the evidence about whether there is a causal link or simply a correlation between the harms of loot box features and young people gambling with real money and experiencing harm from gambling in adulthood. But it's the committee's view and my view that we shouldn't be waiting. We shouldn't be waiting for another generation to be exposed to something that we know is, at the very least, associated with—and some of the evidence suggests it's causal—significant harms when we know the significant harms that online gambling is already causing adults in our community. That is why the committee was very pleased with the government's commitment to dealing with this, in part, through changes to the classification scheme. The world has changed so significantly since most of us were children that sometimes it's hard to understand the changes. I had no idea what a loot box was before I started this inquiry, which we recently finished. It's yet another way that technology has improved lives but also has the potential and the reality to cause harm. It raises again that it is incumbent on governments to be alert to this, regulate, and work with industry, and not just always be playing catch up. That is why the government has committed to implementing important reforms in this bill. We've reached a point where most people understand that it's not viable just to sit back and say, 'Let's see how this piece of technology evolves' or 'Let's see what happens with this and then we can work out what to do with it.' At times, that has been an appropriate way to regulate and to legislate. But things are changing so fast that the harms can sometimes not be predicted. We need to review where we're at and what sort of framework we can put in place that has the capacity to deal with the known and the unknown changes that are coming. It may well have to be tweaked and changed as we go, but at least we'll have a framework to deal with these things. The classification system's framework hasn't been updated for so long that it hasn't been able to do that. I want to return briefly to loot boxes and simulated gaming. There is no doubt that the government's commitment is a good first step in ensuring that consumers can make more informed purchasing decisions and is consistent with the evidence we received in the inquiry about the harm of these types of games. Some games contain loot boxes more closely resembling gambling than others and, therefore, have a greater risk of harm. As the government is conducting its consultation, it's worth considering a granular approach to determining the classification of games with loot boxes through the National Classification Scheme. Games containing loot boxes that can be purchased and closely resemble gambling should be given a higher classification. There is also an issue with online app stores. They vary in their age-rating systems—for example, Steam, a popular computer game storefront, doesn't require game developers to classify games at all. There is some work to be done there as well so that ratings are uniform across all platforms and consumers can have clear and consistent information to help them make safer choices. The social policy and legal affairs committee also received submissions about a number of consumer protections that the government could consider to complement changes to the National Classification Scheme when we're talking about loot boxes and simulated gambling. They include things like public information campaigns to educate consumers, parents, caregivers, teachers and young people on elements of simulated gambling, and the need to make sure that warning labels that come with online gambling tools are effective and that people, particularly parents, understand that such warnings mean there's a risk element in the game. We need to consider incorporating effective simulated-gambling warning labels into the National Classification Scheme, and we need to look at what minimum consumer protections for interactive games should be and whether any of them need legislative mechanisms—for example, spending controls, transparent odds and drop rates for items, and algorithmic loot box figures disabled as a default setting, allowing players to opt in. A number of international jurisdictions have looked at banning loot boxes and simulated gambling. The committee didn't feel that we had enough evidence to say whether that's an effective way to address the issue or whether, in fact, it would have more positive than negative consequences. There are examples out there that the government can also monitor to see the outcome of different approaches in different jurisdictions. I'm confident that the minister will look at all of these issues in her consultations. I know that this government is committed to making the classification scheme fit for purpose for the modern time, but it's also committed to putting harm reduction at the heart of how we look at issues like gambling and simulated gambling, which, as I started off, is often a gateway—if I can put it like that—to actual gambling. I'm very pleased that we have a government that's acting on the Stevens review and will be taking classification seriously and working with industry to make sure it works. I commend this piece of legislation and congratulate the government and the minister for their commitment to continuing with this process. 11:37 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is really important legislation, no matter what age group you sit in. I was thinking about classification in preparing for this speech, and I thought back to the 1970s, when I was not allowed to watch Number 96. There won't be many people in here who are of the same vintage, but there are a few of us. Number 96 had a cliffhanger of a season, and I remember my mother and my aunt both agreeing that we were allowed to stay up and watch it, because, even though we weren't regular viewers, we kept up with what was going on. Back then, they were guided very much by the way that show was classified. As a parent myself, in the 1990s, it was quite easy to control what your children were viewing. There weren't computer games in the same way that there are now. There were certain times of the day on the main TV stations—remember when all we had was a single TV station for each network?—when you knew there was very child-friendly programming. At a certain time it would stop, and, if you were desperate, you'd think, 'Okay, I've got a video that I can put on.' The videos were very clearly classified so that you knew the content. The volume of them was much smaller; the range was much smaller, but I really relied on that. I certainly didn't sit down and watch a video prior to allowing my young children to. So the integrity of the system and the confidence that it keeps up is key. As my kids got older, I saw that shift into gaming. It is almost impossible, as a parent, to watch over your child's shoulder as they work their way through a game. For me, that was a time of really needing to trust what the classification said; I couldn't be monitoring it in the same way. But that system was re-established in 1995. It's pretty clear that anything done then is really in need of a refresh for the digital age we are in—for the increase in gaming and for the prolific amount of material and content out there. While there's a need for that to be delivered to audiences and for adult audiences to be able to watch what they like, there are clearly limits, particularly where minors are concerned. So I welcome the work that we've done. We're a government and we have ministers like the Minister for Communications, who says there are things that need updating. There is no shortage of reviews that have informed this piece of work, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report and the 2020 review of Australian classification. In looking at that 2020 review, I note the comments that the system is no longer fit for purpose—that it doesn't serve the needs of all of the users. We're talking about not just viewers and consumers of it but also those who are producing it. Those reviews, as well as thinking about the implications for consumers, were backed by calls from the industry, which has highlighted that reform is long overdue, and I think that's what's really key about this legislation. While it's very important that it's for consumers, this is about making the entire system work better for everybody involved. It's not an 'us and them' mentality; it's, 'This can work better for us all—for all the stakeholders.' I think it's worth reflecting on the principles that guide the scheme, and those are: that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want; that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; and that everyone should be protected from unsolicited offensive material. Those principles were embedded in the 1995 cooperative arrangements that were put together, and they deserve to be continued today. They are as worthy now as they were all those decades ago. But when we think about the pace, and the way Australians access media content—and, it goes without saying, the online content, the digital access that people have—plus shifting community standards, it's worth noting that the scheme isn't serving its purpose. Back in March this year, the government made clear that we were committed to a two-stage process in terms of reforming the classification process, and it was understood that the staged approach really enables some immediate improvements to the current scheme while there's necessary consultation so that we can develop a really contemporary and fit-for-purpose framework going forward. That's the approach that we're taking—that this is about that first stage. As in so many things we do, we say there's a lot that needs to be fixed but there's also some thinking that needs to be done that hasn't been done in the past decade, so we're going to do some immediate things that will make improvements but we're going to put in the work to be able to do the really substantial and systemic changes that are needed. There are two ways right now for industry to have content classified. It's through either submissions to the Classification Board or the use of a minister-approved classification set of tools. With the increase in the amount of content that's now available to Australians, including online, the view is that it is no longer effective, nor is it efficient, to rely so much on the board to classify content. At the same time, it's not possible for every content provider to be able to invest in the automated classification tools that can allow them to do that. So what this bill is doing is really expanding the options that the industry has, to be able to self-classify content. It means that content providers, particularly where there is online content, will be able to comply with the regulations but also to reduce those classification time frames—and, really importantly, to reduce the cost for the business, remembering that many of these game developers are start-ups. They're coming from a low capital base. They're trying to get something out there, that they hope will take off, as quickly as they can. We certainly don't want to restrict the opportunities they have, but we want to make sure that there are clear guidelines so that content is safe for minors to access. At the same time as allowing this self-classification to happen, we're mindful that there must be safeguards and protections. The bill before us provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's quality-assurance powers. They have the power to revoke a classification, where necessary, from any self-classification decision. This is to ensure appropriate checks and balances at the same time as respecting industry's ability to self-classify. Quite frankly, it is in everyone's interest that the right material is reaching the right people. The outcry from a family who notices that something is amiss will not be good for any content producers. I would certainly be encouraging them to look very closely at the tools available, knowing that things will not fly below the radar. We have an environment where these things are exposed very quickly. One of the other elements of this first stage of reforms is expanding the exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in language other than English which are being distributed through public libraries. They would typically be classified at the G or PG level. It also covers content that's displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Then there's a fourth part to this first stage of reforms, which is to improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that's been classified already under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. These are the initial steps to bring this classification system into the 21st century. With the staged process, in this bill we've prioritised the things that are needed to help set the scheme on the right path. It also gives us the opportunity to work with key stakeholders to develop a more comprehensive second-stage set of reforms that will allow us to clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme. It will also help establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and ensure that classification criteria are aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. I will finish where I started. Looking back at the sorts of things that I was restricted from seeing as a teenager and looking at what the community now deems acceptable for that age group to look at shows that, clearly, things are changing in our community. Some people would argue about whether it was for the better or the worse, but the exposure and sophistication of our teenagers is the reality that we live with. At the same time, as a mum—my kids don't require that supervision now, but their children may one day—I want to know that we're building a system that serves us not only if they're watching TV or seeing a movie but if they're streaming content, if it's interactive content or if they're gaming. I want to know that those protections are there and that it is a system built for that future that is coming. We don't know what that future looks like exactly, so our challenge as a parliament will be to ensure these rules have longevity. I have great confidence in the Minister for Communications and that that our second stage of reforms will help set this sector and this classification system in the 21st century. 11:49 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand The classification of films, TV shows, books, video games and other digital content provides important information for Australians, and particularly parents. I was listening to the member for Macquarie's contribution just now, reflecting on the way that my engagement with the classification scheme has changed from my time as a child to, now, my time as a parent. As a child, I railed against the restrictions that my parents imposed on me, in not allowing me to consume the content that I wanted to; but as a parent I look on the scheme somewhat differently, as an important source of information and an important guardrail to help us allow our children to develop at a developmentally appropriate pace. Indeed, Australian families rely on classifications to help them make informed choices about what they and those they care about watch, read and play. Unfortunately, our classification scheme is no longer fit for purpose. The way that content is delivered to Australians has changed enormously in recent years. The creative industries are inherently technologically driven, and we've seen a fair bit of technology change since the National Classification Scheme was introduced. There have been vast changes to how Australians consume content, and the Classification Scheme hasn't kept up. The National Classification Scheme really has remained largely unchanged since its introduction in 1995. It hasn't kept pace with the way that Australians access media content, particularly the rapid growth of online media content and online content distribution platforms. Think about what the media landscape looked like in 1995—the first year that I started high school—a great year for content. Die Hard with a Vengeance was the highest-grossing film worldwide—a great film. Val Kilmer was playing Batman in Batman Forever—probably a less good film. ER was dominating the TV ratings. And, very importantly for me at the time, the PlayStation first launched in the United States and Europe. In 1995 we were a long way off from smartphones, streaming services and online delivery of gaming content—all many of the ways that Australians consume content today. A classification scheme based on rules from the 1990s and the world that we lived in in the 1990s—while I'm told it's becoming cool again in a retro way, which is kind of depressing for how old I feel in this place—isn't fit for purpose. It needs to be updated so that Australians can have confidence in it as a trusted source of information. Several reviews, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report and the 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation, have found that the National Classification Scheme is no longer fit for purpose. We've spent too much time without acting on this. The 2012 ALRC review was a review that I participated in before I came into this place, and even at that time it was obvious that we needed to get moving on reform. These reviews, as well as calls from industry, have highlighted that the reform of the scheme is long overdue, and I congratulate the minister at the desk, Minister Rowland, for grabbing the bull by the horns. The Albanese Labor government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and modern consumers of content in a modern technological environment. We're doing so in a sensible, methodical, staged way. A staged approach allows us to make urgent and immediate improvements to the scheme while the government undertakes consultation. This will enable the government to work with key stakeholders to clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme, to establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements, and to ensure that classification criteria is aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. There's no point in regulating in this space in a way that creates dead letter law, that's not reflective of practice in the sector, that's not implementable and that doesn't reflect modern community standards. Consultation is really important as part of these reforms. This will create a contemporary classification framework that will serve all Australians into the future. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will deliver on key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms. Specifically, it will expand options for industry to self-classify content, to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and to reduce classification time frames and costs for business. It provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality-assure and revoke, where necessary, self-classification decisions. It expands exemptions for classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Finally, it improves the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. It's worth pausing to consider how radically different the classification task is today from how it was in 1995. Just the sheer volume of content available in the Australian jurisdiction means that the old way of classification just isn't viable in the new world. The mode-shifting of content, as well—not something that was really anticipated in the nineties—is the norm now. People consume the same content across different platforms and different mediums. It has the same impact on kids, though, or on other consumers. We need a new way that's not just the top-down, narrow pipe of government classifying, and that's what this scheme delivers. The Albanese Labor government isn't only committed to reforming the National Classification Scheme. We recognise the evolving creative industries and content environment, and we're committed to supporting Australia's creative industries. The Labor Party has a long, proud history of supporting the arts and Australian content makers. It's not just a calling. It's not just a vocation. It's not just an outlet for artistic expression. It's a job. It's an industry. It's an economic engine for our nation. We recognise that. This is not only because Australians are talented, emotive, evocative storytellers who can achieve international success when given the right support but also because it makes economic sense. It's enlightened self-interest. Our arts, entertainment and cultural sector is a $17 billion industry that employs an estimated 400,000 Australians. Unfortunately, it's also a sector that was left adrift after a lost decade of policy and funding neglect under the former government. That's why we announced a new national cultural policy, called Revive, backed by a $286 million funding commitment over four years. This has been supported by the establishment of Creative Australia, the Australian government's new principal arts investment and advisory body backing the creative potential and economic power of Australian artists and creators. I want to give a brief shout-out at this point to one specific sector of Australia's content creators and our artistic industries, and that's the Australian digital games industry. I was very pleased in the last parliament to be the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Video Games. It created some new opportunities for engagement in this place, including running the first Twitch stream from Parliament House with my friend the now Minister for Home Affairs, playing an outstanding Australian game, Moving Out, while also having a conversation with people who joined in to watch the stream and talk about the potential of the Australian gaming sector. You only have to look at the products that Australian video game developers have produced over recent years to see the potential here. We really punch above our weight, whether that's the simple mobile game and video game Florence, which won a swathe of indie awards a few back, about a young woman moving to Melbourne—the greatest city in the world—and falling in love. It's a great creative enterprise expressed through video gaming. Another great Melbourne video gaming product is Untitled Goose Game, the story of a goose that goes wild in a village—not an obvious concept for a video game but a worldwide blockbuster and award winner, the product of four guys in Melbourne coming together to produce something that is not just a wonderful artistic product but a real economic engine. Or there's Moving Out, the game I discussed earlier that the Minister for Home Affairs and I streamed from Parliament House, a video game where you work collaboratively with a partner to move furniture out of a home into a removal van. It sounds prosaic—madcap fun. It's harder than it looks, too; I'll give you that tip. My personal favourite in recent years is The Cult of the Lamb, a game where you establish a blood cult, as a lamb, and have to acquire followers for your cult. It's not to everyone's taste, but it's a really successful game on the international market. Then there are the bigger studios in Australia, like Big Ant Studios, who have produced the Australian Open tennis game series in recent years as well as the AFL game. I was really pleased to be able to visit Big Ant Studios in the last term of parliament, along with the member for Macnamara, in his own electorate, where we were digitised and put into the game in all our 3D glory. I know that the member for Wills will appreciate this: the member for Macnamara and I, in our digital form, played in a doubles game against Rafael Nadal. The digital power of Big Ant Studios enabled us to compete with Rafael Nadal. I mean, that requires some seriously impressive computer engineering capability! The video games industry in Australia is the largest creative industry in the world, worth approximately $250 billion. And the video games industry is a potential billion-dollar industry for Australia—a high-skilled and high-wage industry, involving skills that are transferable to a range of other critical industries, like, significantly, cybersecurity and AI development. But we haven't been capitalising on this potential. In Australia, game development studios employed only around 100 full-time workers in 2021 and generated $226.5 million. On this side of the House we know we need to support and grow the video game industry as an ecosystem. That's why the Albanese Labor government established the Digital Games Tax Offset. The offset creates a 30 per cent tax offset for eligible games developers that spend a minimum of $500,000 on qualifying Australian development expenditure, effective from 1 July 2022. And the Digital Games Tax Offset will help the growth of the Australian video games industry. And I thank the members of parliament from the other side of the House who are in Parliamentary Friends of Video Games for their advocacy on this issue. Hopefully this tax offset will mean that more Australian classics like Untitled Goose Game and The Cult of the Lamb will be showcased to the world. Labor has been supportive of our video game industry for a long time. Indeed, in 2012 we established the Australian Interactive Games Fund, with $20 million in funding to support our domestic video games industry. But while we had a vision for the future of the industry 10 years ago—we saw the opportunity for what investment in the domestic industry could bring—I regret to inform the House that in 2014 it took the new coalition government only six months to tear that up. It's indicative of the decade of lost time that we had under those opposite. It left a massive hole in government support for the industry and really left us trailing our peer nations—competitor countries like Canada, which has strongly backed its domestic video game production industry for quite some time. So, we're catching up on that now. We're investing in it. The bill before the House really recognises that video games, online streaming platforms—the myriad ways that we now enjoy digital content—have changed radically since the establishment of the National Classification Scheme in the 1990s, and we need our classification scheme to respond to this new world. That's what this bill is doing: creating the information parents need in order to guide their decisions on what content their kids consume as well as what content any Australians consume, but doing it in a way that also recognises the incredible economic opportunities our creative industries represent. I commend the bill to the House. 12:04 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Like the member for Gellibrand, I want to acknowledge all of our Australian creatives who are making incredible content, whether that be the video game makers—I'm very keen to see the Untitled Goose Game and give that a crack. I met this morning with Screen Producers Australia, who represent a lot of film and TV content makers, and I've been working closely with children's content producers to look at ways in which we can encourage that sector so that our kids grow up watching Australian content and not all foreign content. Australians know what good content is, but it's important, particularly when it comes to our kids, that they're seeing their own lives, stories, places and spaces reflected in the content that Australian creatives are making and that we continue to encourage screen companies in making that content available for our kids. I speak for my family and I'm sure many other Australian families when I say that we rely very much on classifications to make informed choices. For my kids—Sally, 11 and a bit, and Frank, almost 10—as they start to move into the teenage years, it will become more important that we are supported in making good decisions, informed choices, about what we watch, read and play. The national classification system has remained largely unchanged since its introduction in 1995, almost a generation ago. The scheme is based on the principle that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want but that minors, children, should be protected from material that's likely to harm or disturb them and that everyone should be protected from unsolicited or offensive material. These are all principles very much worth pursuing today—perhaps more than ever, given the changes in the way that Australians access media content, particularly with the rapid growth in online content. But since 1995—a long time ago—the national classification scheme has not kept up with these changes. We've heard a bit about the scheme's inactivity in the last 10 years. I think this threatens the integrity of the scheme and the confidence that Australians have in it as a trusted source of information. The Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report Classification—content regulation and convergent media and the more recent 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation by Neville Stevens, which our government released a couple of months ago, found that aspects of the scheme are no longer fit for purpose. These reviews as well as calls from industry have highlighted that reform of the scheme is long overdue. Our government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and modern Australian families. That's why, in March this year, the government committed to a two-stage process of classification reform. A staged approach will enable immediate improvements to the current scheme to progress now, while the government undertakes necessary consultation to develop a contemporary and fit-for-purpose classification framework, one that reflects the modern media environment and will serve all Australians into the future. This bill supports the implementation of that first stage of the government's classification reforms, by introducing a number of changes to existing classification arrangements, and delivers on key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms. This bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to improve the capacity of the national classification scheme to efficiently manage a rapid growth in the volume of classifiable content, particularly online content, to reduce costs, to promote industry compliance and to increase access to cultural content in public libraries and approved cultural institutions. As an aside: when I was first elected to this place, I started and have now handed on to the member for Bean and his offsider the parliamentary friendship group for GLAM—galleries, libraries, archives and museums—because our cultural institutions are so important. I'm really pleased that this bill is going to see an increase in access to cultural content in our public libraries and those approved cultural institutions. Specifically, it expands options for industry to self-classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs to business. It will also provide for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality assure, and revoke where necessary, self-classification decisions. It also expands exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English that would be classified at the G or PG level being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Finally, it will improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Under the national classification scheme, publications generally do not need to be classified prior to being made available to consumers. Only 'submittable publications' are required to be classified. If you're wondering what 'submittable publication' means, you're in luck because I'm about to tell you. A submittable publication is one that is likely to be restricted to adults because it contains depictions or descriptions likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult and is unsuitable for a minor to either see or read. The director of the Classification Board has the power to call in submittable publications for classification where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a publication is a submittable publication. This bill prioritises immediate first stage reforms, which are needed to help set the scheme on the right path. It enables the government to work with key stakeholders to develop more comprehensive second stage reforms to (1) clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme, (2) establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and (3) ensure that classification criteria are aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. Currently, there are two ways for industry to have content classified: either through submissions to the Classification Board or through the use of minister-approved classification tools. The rapid growth in the volume of content now available to Australians, particularly online, means that it is no longer efficient or effective to rely on the board to classify content. In addition, not every content provider has the resources to invest in the development of automated classification tools. To address this—and it is an issue—the bill expands options for industry to self-classify content. Content providers, particularly online content providers, will be able to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames, which is also going to reduce the cost for business. The bill establishes a new accreditation scheme to enable content to be classified by individuals who are trained and accredited by the government. To support the expansion of self-classification arrangements, the bill introduces a number of safeguards, as you would expect, that are important for this process to have integrity. Eligibility criteria will ensure that only fit and proper people are accredited to classify content—no weirdos. Provisions for accreditation to be suspended or revoked for failure to appropriately classify content will also apply. The Classification Board's powers to quality assure self-classification decisions will be expanded to include decisions by accredited classifiers, similar to arrangements already in place for decisions of approved classification tools. This bill also provides further clarification around the use of consumer advice to ensure that this advice, which is an important source of information for consumers, is appropriately and consistently applied in classification decisions. The bill expands classification exemptions for low-risk content, where it is sensible and beneficial to do so—sensible reforms. Classification exemptions will be introduced for certain films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries, as I previously mentioned. This will improve access to cultural content and ease the regulatory burden on cultural institutions that provide such content to our constituents. To improve the efficiency of the classification system, material already classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 will no longer need to be reclassified for distribution on other platforms. This supports the classify-once principle, where content that has been classified using similar classification guidelines and has not been modified does not need to be classified again. This is another sensible approach, and one that was advocated for in the Stevens review and in the recommendation of the ACCC's 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry for a national uniform classification scheme to classify or restrict access to content consistently across different delivery formats as part of a harmonised media regulatory framework. Our government has pioneered classification reforms in our first year in office. I think this is another example of us doing more in one year than those opposite were capable of doing in 10. We are committed to reforming the national classification scheme to ensure it meets the needs of modern Australia, and this is important. My family and many Australians rely on the classification system to make informed choices about the content that they and those in their care watch, read and play. Continued inaction on modernising the scheme threatens its integrity and the confidence Australians have in it as a trusted source of information, both for themselves and for their loved ones. These reforms will create a contemporary classification framework, one that will serve us all well into the future, in two stages—immediate action and then further consultation for further reforms. I want to finish by reiterating how important this industry is and how important it is that families have confidence in the classification system—that it is updated to ensure it responds effectively to changes in the communications apparatus that our kids have in their hands these days. It is important that we also educate our children. They are able to access a far broader range of information and content than ever before, so we need to make sure that we give them the tools to cope with that. Our government is providing an updated classification system that will protect our kids, and that is really important. 12:18 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. It is a bill that is welcomed by all of us on this side, and it is a bill that hasn't come early enough. I say that because Australian families rely on classification to make informed choices about what they and those in their care watch, read and play. I have grandkids who are very tech savvy—in fact, more so than me—and they play all sorts of games on computers, mobiles et cetera. The national classification scheme has remained largely untouched since its introduction in 1995, so it hasn't been touched in a number of years. When you think of where we were at with technology in 1995, people would have had a TV in their homes and, for very few, a computer. Maybe a few did, but that was about it. Mobile phones were just starting to ascend, and technology was nowhere near where it is today. Technology has moved at a furious pace. We can now access whatever we want from the internet. We can choose to have pay TV or choose channels that we want. There are a whole range of things, such as mobile phones, that have changed the whole landscape, yet legislation hasn't kept up. That's why this piece of legislation is very important. It's important because it brings us up to date to where we are. As I said, it hasn't been touched since 1995. I'll start off from the point that this is good legislation. It's legislation that will assist people to make informed choices of what they and those that are in their care are going to watch, play or read. But I still think the most important aspect in this field is parents themselves. This is, in no way, taking away that responsibility. I think the responsibility remains with parents in relation to what their children are watching, reading or playing and to be monitoring it at all times. That's a very important message. No matter what governments do, no matter what we put in place, I think a responsible parent will always keep an eye on what they're doing, playing and watching, and that is very important. I just wanted to get that message out there. Nevertheless, this will make their job a bit easier, in terms of classifications and knowing the guidelines and where and what is suitable for whom. When you look at this, we haven't kept in pace with the way Australians access their media, gaming et cetera for many years. As I said, 1995 was when we had the last major revamp in this area. What that means is that this threatens the integrity of the scheme and the confidence that Australians have in it as a trusted source of information. So it's important legislation that'll bring some trust back and some guidelines. We know there have been several reviews, including the Australian Law Reform Commission report of 2012 and the 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation. They found that there are aspects of the old scheme that are no longer fit for purpose. These reviews were a basis for this legislation, but these reviews, as well as calls from the industry itself, have highlighted that reform of the scheme was long overdue. This government is committed to reforming the scheme. As we heard the previous member say, for 10 years nothing was done. We're very proud that within our first year and a bit we are reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and today's families. This bill will deliver on some of the key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms. Specifically, it will expand options for industry to self-classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with the classification regulations and to reduce classification time frames and costs to business, which is very important. It also provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality assure and revoke, which is important, where necessary, self-classification decisions, but it expands the exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content. This is important because it will include films in languages other than English, being distributed through public libraries, that will be classified at the G or PG level as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. It will improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified. There's some quirky thing in the legislation where that's currently not the case under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The classification reform process will be a two-stage approach. This stage of the approach will prioritise the immediate first-stage improvements proposed in this bill, which are needed to help put the scheme on the right path forward. It will also enable government to work with key stakeholders to develop more comprehensive second-stage reforms to clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme, establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements, and ensure that classification criteria are aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. Those community standards and expectations will evolve as we see cutting-edge technology produce more and more other ways that we can view our media and gaming. Look at some of the games out there at the moment. The technology that's used is just incredible. I've got a few in my electorate that I've visited that are part of this gaming industry. Some of the content could be very docile—some of the sporting or gaming content that's available in the gaming industry where people are playing either football, soccer or cricket. It takes me back to thinking of what sort of sports we could play without actually playing the sport, and all I can remember is a board game called Test Match, which is a cricket game where you'd flick the players. That's how far we've come from these games to a whole new world of basically being able to play any game or activity you wish through one of these gaming products. So it's important that these are reviewed continuously to keep up with the new technology that's coming out. When you think about it, we have come a long way in ensuring with this bill that we capture things that weren't captured in the past in previous bills. As I said, technology will be moving very, very fast, and I'm sure that this will not be the last bill that we'll see in years to come as technology moves. What we've got to ensure is that we're in front of technology, instead of leaving a 10-year gap, as we've seen, which hasn't covered many of the new games and the different ways that we view our media. I commend this bill to the House. I'd hope that every member would be voting for it. It is a good bill, a bill that makes sense, and a bill that gives families and parents the opportunity to rely on classifications so that they can make informed decisions on what they view as a family or what their children are viewing—and that's always a scary point when you think about it. When I see my grandchildren on the computer or whatever, I always get this feeling of, 'What are they doing on there?' and wanting to look over their shoulder continuously. I'll finish where I started. This legislation is all good. It is a basis and a framework which gives you some guidance. But the most important people are the parents and the family, who should continuously monitor what their children are seeing and what programs they're watching and always have that parental guidance there. 12:29 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I acknowledge the comments of my colleague the member for Adelaide, who has just spoken and who, I have to say, summed up the importance of this legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The legislation, as other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, seeks to modernise the national classification process, given that the changes in the IT sector and society more broadly make the current classification scheme, which is now nearly 30 years old, outdated. This is stage 1 of a two-stage process and follows an extensive consultation process, as well as the report of the 2020 Stevens review. I have to acknowledge, as others have done, that separate to the Stevens review there were the Australian Law Reform Commission report in 2012 and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Digital Platforms Inquiry report in 2009. The fact that there have been other reviews into this issue highlights the need for reform. It highlights that the current process has not been working as expected and that it is time for it to be reviewed. I note that the Stevens report effectively said that we should be guided by three key principles: Adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want, with limited exception; Minors should be protected from content likely to harm or disturb them; and Everyone should be protected from exposure to content of serious concern to the wellbeing of the community. I think that most people in this place would agree with those three key principles. In fact, the Stevens report came up with recommendations that accept those principles and are consistent with them. The bill will not only deliver on key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms but, specifically, will expand the options for industry to self-classify content so as to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs for business. Secondly, the bill provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality-assure, and revoke where necessary, self-classification decisions. Thirdly, it expands exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries and that would be classified at the G or PG level, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Fourthly, it improves the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Acceptable standards of human behaviour and how they extend to content classification are very much a personal matter. Each of us have our own views about them. They vary across different cultures, different sectors of society and across the world. There is a widely held view that being exposed to certain standards of behaviour can normalise that behaviour and, even worse, may corrupt the minds of some people and perhaps lead to criminal activity and even violence. I believe that there have been many examples across the world, and perhaps even in this country, where certain actions arose because the person who committed those actions had been exposed to content that in some way influenced those actions. Society looks to governments to enact legislation which widely reflects the views of society and, in particular, expects that those who classify material, whether it be the Classification Board or the independent classifiers, reflect the standards of society. Only time will tell whether that is the case and whether this legislation achieves those objectives. I expect that this legislation will go a long way to doing that. Nevertheless, I stress that when it comes to classifying there is a difference of opinion. It is not an exact science, and there will obviously be a need to continuously review the current methods that are in place and the very processes that are used to achieve those methods. Over the years, though we have had a classification system which I believe was always very well intended, I have nevertheless had cause to write to either the Classification Board or to ACMA about content that had been brought to my attention and that in the view of those who brought it to my attention contravened acceptable standards. I have to say that in many of those cases where I did write to ACMA I generally shared the view of those who were concerned, and I shared those concerns because, when I viewed the material that was brought to me, I could not disagree with the view that what was being shown or perhaps that young people had access to was inappropriate. Nevertheless, that was my view, and I accept that others might see things differently, because these are always subjective matters. Because they are subjective matters, I simply make this point: a cautionary approach is always preferable. Where any doubt about what is acceptable arises, that objectionable content should be restricted. If in doubt, restrict the material rather than have it out there and perhaps have to review it and pull it back, because, in the meantime, people may have been exposed to material that they never should have been. That is of course of particular concern when we're talking about children and younger people. That, of course, will be the role of the board. I note that we do have a review board and that both the board and the review board act independently. That is a good thing. They need to be independent, and it's important that the review board is not the same board that made the classification in the first place. Again, I think that's a good thing. I note that, whilst this legislation provides for self-classification by accredited persons or by using approved classification tools, there is always the opportunity for the review board to overturn a position and, in fact, review the classification that has been set. Again, I think that that is appropriate, because that enables the community to respond to matters that arise where they have concerns and to have an appeal body that they can go to that they know will be independent of the persons that made the classification. I accept that one of the main driving forces behind this legislation is that, because of the volume of content that is now available, whether it's through the TV channels, in films, or through internet streaming services and the like, the process needs to be sped up because, if it's not, it not only delays the classification but, quite frankly, also begins to incur costs on the producers of the material that become somewhat unfair and restrictive. And so, if we can streamline the process and save costs for everybody, I think that's a good thing, and I believe that this legislation enables that to happen. I also accept the argument as to why public libraries should be given an exemption for films in languages other than English. I well understand that. In a multicultural community that we are all in this place represent, there are many people that quite often go to the local library to access content that is not otherwise accessible to them. It's in limited quantities, which makes it inappropriate or too expensive to have it classified, and so, therefore, the exemption entirely makes sense. But all these matters are matters that over time we will be able to reflect and report back on as to whether they are working as intended by this legislation. If they are not then I'm sure that the minister would again, as part of that review, make whatever changes are necessary. Having made those comments, I say that we live in a world where, whether it's the material that we hear broadcast over the radio that we see on our TV screens, whether we go to films, whether it is the online content, whether it's DVDs or whether it's games—whatever the case is—there is so much access to material that to try to properly classify it and ensure that it is appropriate for whoever gets their hands on it is becoming a difficult issue not just here in Australia but right around the world, and a quick look at what other countries are doing just highlights that each country is trying to grapple with the very same problem. Nevertheless, this legislation comes to us now, after the reviews, as legislation that seeks to bring us up to date with today's acceptable standards across society, and I commend it to the House. 12:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Thank you to the member for Makin for his fine contribution. It comes as no surprise that I rise to speak in favour of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The past sitting weeks have really seen a stretch in the definition of what a short title is, I've got to say! The purpose of this particular bill is to make a number of common-sense changes to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The bill moves to introduce a system of industry self-classification by accredited persons who have the authority to make classification decisions. The bill will also clarify some of the Australian Classification Board's powers, including how they are able to regulate the accreditation process of persons delegated with the power to self-classify content, alongside some minor administrative changes that deal with the current requirement for duplicate classification of materials that are currently approved under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The bill also attempts to ease restrictions when it comes to unclassified material that is shown at a number of exempt cultural institutions, as well as in public libraries. This reform cannot be understated to the ears of many that have been involved in this space for any amount of time. But the Albanese Labor government has listened to the reviews placed on its desk, along with industry groups that have concluded for a number of reasons that it is an area that has been in need of reform for several years now. It is no secret that our current classification scheme is a bit old, to say the least. As it approaches its 30th birthday, if it were human, it would still be joking about the fact that it was adulting all the time to its peers and pretending to understand gen Z humour on TikTok. To extend the metaphor a bit further, both of these things have to adapt to the changing world around them very soon. Luckily, reforming this system has been on the cards for a number of years, which is a relief to many participants within the system because the classification of the various mediums of content that are available for consumption is important. It has been a way that Australians make an informed decision about content that they are about to consume, whether this be film, TV shows or video games. This is important for parents, guardians and schools, so that children are not exposed to age-inappropriate themes or content. Sometimes we don't think about how that combination of letters and numbers appears on the content they consume, oblivious to the work that went on behind the scenes between the publisher, the Australian Classification Board and all interested parties. To many, the National Classification Scheme can seem arcane or archaic, and in some part they are right. But it is also a reason why it is incumbent on all to see amendments made to this system—so it can operate seamlessly for all involved. After all, the National Classification Scheme provides a framework that results in the provision of consumer advice based on the content portrayed in various publications that receive classification through the scheme. It is a product of cooperative federalism, first established jointly by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments back in 1995. The year 1995 was a great one for film, TV shows and even video games. It was a year when, as the member for Lyons has noted, we had Braveheart in our cinemas. It was a golden age, where we had Mel Gibson playing Sir William Wallace. We cheered when he exclaimed, 'But they will never take our freedom!' And we were also far less concerned that what was coming out of the mouth of Mel Gibson was going to be something horrific or regrettable—simpler times, Acting Deputy Speaker, simpler times. The year 1995 was, of course, back in the days of VHS and an era marked by the widespread proliferation of Blockbuster Video stores across the nation. It was a big year, marking the release of the Sega Saturn and Sony PlayStation 1. It was still a year until the release of Nintendo's Game Boy Pocket and the Nintendo 64. This is perhaps only tenuously relevant, for the sake of background, but I'm also using this as a device to make everyone in the chamber feel a little bit older than perhaps they did before hearing this little bit of trivia! Notwithstanding my cruel reminder of grandfather time, it is demonstrative of the changing mediums of how Australians consume content. As the years went on, Blockbuster was relegated to being a relic of the past, as with VHS moving along for DVD and Blu-ray, and with digital consumption being today's norm. Presently, we live in an era of content that is consumed digitally through platforms such as Netflix, Stan, Paramount+, Disney+ and Amazon Prime—I'm sure I'm missing several right now. Any regulatory framework that seeks to regulate an industry that is liable to large tectonic shifts must also adapt to these changes or else risk either succumbing to obsolescence or creating unintended consequences, which would make such a framework unworkable in practice. After all, Australians, as consumers of various forms of media, have come a long way since black and white television sets were the norm. We moved from analog formats to digital ones. We then brought the internet into our homes, and then, almost as quickly as the dial-up sound faded into obscurity, we put the internet into the devices in our pockets, the ones we use the most to stay connected and engaged with the world around us. Despite the many references to the year 1995, the regulation and classification of published content predates the scheme by quite a number of years. The Australian Classification Board was created in the early 1970s, with, at first, only four ratings to choose from: G, for general audiences; PG, for parental guidance suggested for those under 15 years old; M, suggested for persons 13 years and over—which later evolved to M 15+ from the late eighties all the way to 2005—and R, which stood for restricted exhibition and later changed to R 18+ in the late eighties. In 1993, a new classification was introduced, MA 15+, to distinguish content that was stuck in the middle between M and not quite the standard that would be classified as R 18+. Even with that system, video games were only included in this framework within the past 30 years. In the years since, there have been many tweaks to this system of classification, and some were specific to a particular type of publication, such as video games. The ability for a video game to even receive an R 18+ classification was only introduced in 2013, merely a decade ago. Previously, it would have either been MA 15+ or received a 'refused classification' rating and could not be sold or hired out in Australia. Ultimately—much like Sir William Wallace in 1995's Braveheart, charging against those who seek to take away his freedoms—the scheme is one that is based around the principle that an adult should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want. However, when it comes to those who are younger than adults, this is where the scheme plays an extremely important role. When a child asks where Zed is, the answer should be 'next to X and Y' and not a famous line from a movie that hit the silver screens a year prior, Pulp Fiction. There may be a few more references to come in this—so buckle up!—though I may show a bit of leniency to those who are duty bound to be in the chamber right now and move straight into a small portion of the devil in the detail. As I mentioned, the current regulatory framework is one that operates cooperatively between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Commonwealth's part is to classify content, and the states and territories are responsible for regulating the sale, exhibition, advertising and hire of that content, which is enforced by law enforcement or fair-trading authorities in a number of different ways throughout the country. Any change to this regulatory framework requires unanimous agreement between the federal government and the state and territory Attorneys-General. It only takes for one to say no to be back at the drawing board, so, admittedly, sometimes progress can be slower than many may desire, whether they be publishers of content or consumers themselves. It has been observed that the classification of content, whether it be films, television shows, computer games, online and other adult publications, is currently regulated in Australia through a system that has a certain degree of overlap and duplication. It is a system that no longer requires the bottleneck of this duplication to become bogged down, as the sheer amount of new content that is seeking classification through the Australian Classifications Board is significantly larger than what was on its docket a number of years ago. Currently, films and television shows that are broadcast on television—what we traditionally know as television, in any case—are regulated through the Broadcasting Services Act, which is a regulated by ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. However, if that movie or TV show were not broadcast on television, this is where the scheme would come into play. It would also apply to video games and content such as adult publications. This overlap can be an unnecessary burden, as noted in the Stevens review, and is something the bill intends to address. Through item 11 in schedule 2, the bill will insert a new proposed division 3 into part (1)(a) of the act. Within that division, newly proposed section 6HA will provide a means whereby films already classified under the Broadcast Services Act will be deemed as classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 if the publication has a rating of 18 + or lower, has not been previously classified under this act and has not been modified after receiving classification. The 'classify once' doctrine is not just something the industry has been calling for over an extended period of time but is also a commonsense approach to how the law should be applied. This eliminates the need for both the publisher and classifying body to expend additional resources to arrive at the same conclusion reached by another classifying body. It is red tape that has been long overdue for elimination within this regulatory system. Whilst it may not be entirely germane to the bill itself, as it has been constructed, there are other pertinent recommendations made by the Stevens review that have been seemingly omitted from the bill. However, it is worth pointing out that the introduction of this legislation, in addition to being years overdue, forms just a part of the ongoing process of reforms that the government is moving forward with, in consultation with industry stakeholders and state and territory governments. A key part of this additional reform process has been a topic of discussion for many years—namely, the need for stronger classification of video games that portray simulated gambling and loot boxes, which, for the uninitiated, are virtual items that are redeemed in the game for a randomised selection of in-game items and which depend contextually on the nature of the game itself. Loot boxes in various forms are sometimes awarded through regular play but, quite often, work in a hybrid system that further rewards and encourages players who purchase an in-game currency using real-world money through microtransactions that will award a better class of loot box. Well-known and well-loved games such as FIFA, with its Ultimate Team game mode, and the Call of Duty series are notable examples of world-leading games that incorporate loot boxes into their business modes. But the list of games that utilise this feature is a large one that only increases over time. Other jurisdictions have over the years, albeit recently, taken a toughened stance on games with loot boxes or any kind of simulated gambling in them. This applies to new games or even games first published decades ago with a classification denoting that children are able to play—such as the Pokemon series, which featured in-game slot machines. One cannot discount what the impact would be, of exposure to gambling for reward, to children who would have played that game from quite a young age. The only saving grace is that the original series came out long before the relative consoles were able to connect to the internet—thus, no microtransactions. The current state of play for future reforms to this in Australia would be that loot boxes—which have existed in many different video games that children are able to play, with parental supervision for some—would be given a minimum classification of M for 'mature'. This exceeds the recommendations in the Stevens review, which settled on a PG rating. For games involving simulated gambling exclusively, the review sought a minimum rating of MA 15+ to which the government is consulting with states to go one step further, to potentially mandate an R 18+ classification for any game that contains simulated gambling. I note that the member for Clark is a huge advocate for controls on gambling of all forms, but in this context his advocacy on loot boxes and simulated gambling in video games is widely known. Though I imagine the proposed changes currently in front of the next stage of this reform process may not be all that he would have hoped for, it is still a process worth engaging in, just the same. Though you would think measures to increase the classification of themes such as this within video games would be a no-brainer, one cannot always be so certain. This is why engagement in the reform process is important—lest the outcome we all expect to happen is altered by loud proponents on the other side of the coin. I'm glad to see yet more positive reforms occur under this Albanese Labor government. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the next steps taken by the Albanese Labor government to enact further reforms in this space. I thank the House. 12:55 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Firstly, I would like to thank all those in the chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I also thank members of the opposition for their support of this bill in the House. Australians rely on the National Classification Scheme to make informed choices about the content that they and those in their care watch, read and play, but reform of the scheme is long overdue. The government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose in today's online media environment. This bill is part of the government's first stage of classification reforms. It expands options for industry to self-classify content with appropriate safeguards and oversight of these decisions by the Classification Board. It also extends exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content and removes the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified for broadcast television. These reforms will improve the capacity of the scheme to classify growing volumes of online content and make it easier for industry to comply with classification requirements. It also removes unnecessary duplication and introduces a 'classify once' principle for content that has already been classified for broadcast as a step towards harmonising media regulation for a converged media environment. These amendments lay the foundation for the further modernisation of the scheme under the government's second stage of classification reforms. A broad-ranging consultation process will be undertaken in coming months to inform the direction of this work. Once again I thank my colleagues for their contributions and commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 42 12:57 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and, by leave, I move government amendments (1) to (14) as circulated together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 13), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 4), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (3) Schedule 2, heading to Part 4, page 25 (lines 1 to 2), omit "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "certain other Acts". (4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 25 (line 10), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (5) Schedule 2, item 10, page 25 (line 23), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (6) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (lines 1 to 2), omit "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "certain other Acts". (7) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (lines 3 to 4), omit "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "certain other Acts". (8) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 8), after "Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (9) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 12), after "Act 1992,", insert "the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991,". (10) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 19), omit "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (11) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (after line 26), after paragraph 6HA(3)(a), insert: (aa) if the post-classification publisher is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation—at the time the post-classification publisher proposes to publish the film; or (12) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 27), omit "if the post-classification publisher is not such an entity", substitute "otherwise". (13) Schedule 2, item 11, page 27 (line 4), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". (14) Schedule 2, item 13, page 27 (line 28), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991". The amendments clarify the drafting of the bill as it relates to the ABC and SBS. The bill currently provides that content classified under the relevant provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act will be deemed as also classified under the classification act. The amendments will ensure that the ABC and SBS are also eligible for these deeming provisions. These deeming provisions support a 'classify once' principle where content that has been classified using almost identical criteria based on the guidelines for classification of films under the classification act and has not been modified does not require classification again for distribution in another format. This was one of the key recommendations from the 2020 Stevens review of Australian classification regulation and supports the government's objective of making it easier for industry to comply with regulatory requirements under the classification act. The government appreciates the productive and constructive engagement from stakeholders and across the chamber. 12:59 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks We support this bill, which contains several sensible reforms to the classification system as recommended by the Stevens review, which was commissioned under the coalition government. But this amendment shows an appalling lack of competence on the part of the government. It's very important that people understand what's actually happening here. One of the key principles out of the Stevens review was 'classify once'. It's a very sensible principle, and it's in the legislation. Basically the principle is that if you classify something for television it should work on other platforms as well. So, rather than having to classify it for TV and then have a separate classification process for digital and so on, you classify it once. It's a very sensible position, recommended by the Stevens review and supported by the government and the opposition. The problem—and it's a material problem, and it's one the government appears to have worked out only this morning, distributing these draft amendments—is that the principle of 'classify once' entirely neglected to include the ABC and the SBS. So, the classify-once principle, which the bill said would cover the field, in fact does not do that. I will read directly from the minister's second reading speech, because I certainly would not want to misquote in any way. It says: This approach was advocated by the Stevens review and in the ACCC's 2019 digital platforms inquiry recommendation for a nationally-uniform classification scheme to classify or restrict access to content consistently across different delivery formats as part of a harmonised media regulatory framework. That's a lot of somewhat bureaucratic language, but the basic point is, classify it once; it doesn't matter who does it, but it should be consistent. But the government forgot about the ABC and the SBS. So now they bring back to the chamber a request of the parliament to say, 'Well, look, sorry; we didn't think about the ABC and the SBS, so can you please agree with us to include them as well.' Given that it's consistent with the principle, we won't oppose that amendment. But it does raise very serious questions of competence. Normally, when a bill is amended, that occurs because it's been through a process in the Senate perhaps and there's been a whole bunch of deliberation and people have pointed out different points. What's happened here is that the government at some particular point has said, 'Hang on a minute: we forgot to include the ABC and we forgot to include the SBS.' And of course the ABC and SBS have digital platforms, not just broadcast. So, their requirement to benefit from this classify-once principle is exactly the same as for anyone else. Why on Earth the government would not have picked up this issue in the first place is I think is quite remarkable. It does go to a question of competence, and we're seeing that in this portfolio generally—drafting errors. Looking at the so-called misinformation bill that this minister has put forward, it contains some utterly extraordinary provisions—things like: if the government authorises something it can't be misinformation, but if someone criticises the government it can be misinformation. That is actually in the government's bill. There are really serious questions here about what is going on in this portfolio and why the minister wouldn't have picked up something as simple as including the ABC and the SBS—who, after all, represent probably a third of the entire sector—in the original draft. So I've got a number of questions that I'd like the minister to respond to about this mistake. Firstly, how on Earth did this happen? How were the ABC and the SBS not included? Did the minister deliberately exclude them, or just forget? When did the minister first become aware of this mistake? And why was this presented to the parliament literally hours before this bill came before it? What action is the minister going to take to ensure that this level of incompetence isn't seen again? Does it reflect the minister's preoccupation with other issues other than this, such as directing mobile black spot funding into Labor electorates and oppressing free speech through the misinformation bill? And is the minister so preoccupied with those other matters that she hasn't had time to get the basic detail right on what really should have been quite a simple matter? 13:04 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Banks for his contribution to this debate. But he certainly does have a hide to come in here and talk about competence, as a minister in the former government who completely bungled the immigration portfolio. He left it in the mess that it is today, for this side of the House to mop up after him. He was a minister in the previous government who sat around and did nothing about some of the key challenges facing Australia when it came to immigration. I would suggest to the shadow minister, if he wants to get smart in here talking about competence, three things. First, he should get a mirror. Second, he should understand the fact that in 2020, when this review was conducted, it actually wasn't released by those opposite. Nothing happened. It gathered dust along with everything else, every other major piece of review, in this portfolio. The Universal Service Obligation, for example, was subjected to how many reviews, and nothing substantive happened. We had an inquiry into banning credit cards for online wagering, and nothing happened. We had a significant review into the Classification Scheme, and nothing happened. Very clearly, this is a member opposite who seeks to come in here and lecture us about competency. Third is the fact that we are choosing to clarify here under the 'classify once' principal to avoid it going to the Senate and being amended in the Senate when we know that there has been stakeholder feedback for years in this area. For the avoidance of doubt: we are choosing to do this so that classification once applies to all of these players in the sector. Mr Coleman 241067 Why not put it in originally? Why not do it at the start? Ms ROWLAND 159771 If the shadow minister wants to come in here—I can hear him jabbering away—and try to lecture the government on how to conduct itself in this portfolio, I again point out the mess that they left the NBN in and the mess that they left Australia Post in. If he wants to talk about mobile black spots, about how under their priority round 124 out of 125 sites went to Liberal and National party seats, I'm very happy to have that discussion. We're here to ensure that the first stage of these classification reforms is progressed, something that never happened at all under those opposite. We are very pleased that this sector has been engaged in this area, because—I'll give the member opposite a tip—that is what mature governments do. They engage constructively with stakeholders and act on recommendations where they have meaningful and important changes to be made to portfolios. I would have thought that the member would be slightly embarrassed to come in here and start talking about elements of the Classification Scheme that, when he was a member of a government, sat in the Stevens review for the entire remainder of the term. Again, I thank all members of the House for their support of this important first stage of classification reform. It is long overdue, as every member of this House has commented. We are getting this job done. It's up to the member opposite, if he chooses, to be part of that reform or not. All we know is that Australians have trust in the Classification Scheme. They want to ensure that their children and those in their care have access to the best guidance that is available. That is what we are doing through this bill, and that is what this government will continue to do through reforming the Classification Scheme. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 45 13:09 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 45

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

Second Reading 45 13:10 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. Principally, this bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2023 to allow all Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas to be eligible for Commonwealth supported places in demand-driven higher education courses, which means that CSPs are now uncapped for all Indigenous students living in metropolitan and regional Australia who meet the university entry requirements. It will remove the requirement that students pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a CSP and FEE-HELP assistance, and it will require higher education providers to establish and comply with a student support policy, which includes the power to impose a financial penalty on universities for noncompliance. The opposition supports this bill, but our support is not unqualified. Our chief concerns are outlined in a second reading amendment, as circulated in the name of the Manager of Opposition Business. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including that: (1) more than 3 million Australians have a HECS debt or other type of student debt under the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) scheme which increased by a massive 7.1 per cent on 1 June 2023, the highest indexation rate in more than 30 years, as a result of the Government's cost of living crisis and sky-high inflation rate; (2) by proposing to abolish the Coalition's 50 per cent pass rule, the Government has failed to protect students, at high risk of not completing their course, from accumulating debilitating HECS debts and suffering acute financial hardship; (3) the Government's reliance on a 'survey' of 27 universities to justify the abolition of the 50 per cent pass rule indicates that the Government has not been able to access the relevant data as to how many students are impacted by this measure, reflecting a poor adherence to evidence-based policy; (4) in proposing to uncap Commonwealth supported places (CSPs) available to Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas which extends the Coalition's measure to uncap CSPs for Indigenous students living in regional and remote Australia, the Government has not explained how it will hold universities to account for poor completion rates by Indigenous students which currently sees only 26 per cent of Indigenous students complete their undergraduate degree within four years, with 37 per cent of students dropping out during that period; (5) by reason that the Government is proposing to release a consultation paper on its proposed support-for-students policy, it is clear that the Government has not done its homework on this policy nor determined the basis on which universities would be fined as proposed by the bill; (6) the bill fails to impose on universities a strong accountability and transparency framework including fair and just access to student refunds and the requirement that universities must publish all relevant course information including out-of-pocket costs, total costs, completion rates, modes of course delivery, and employment outcomes; (7) the Government needs to be transparent with taxpayers regarding how much its changes to the higher education system will cost and how it will pay for them; and (8) given its deficiencies, the bill should be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry". I will now deal with the bill in sections, beginning with the so-called Australian Universities Accord. The bill implements priority actions 2 and 3 of the Australian Universities Accord interim report, which require legislation. The government has also announced an additional 34 regional study hubs, building on the coalition's policy. The government has invested $2.7 million over two years, from 2022 to 2023, to deliver the accord through a 12-month review of Australia's higher education system, led by a panel of eminent Australians. The objective of the accord is to devise recommendations and performance targets that will improve the quality, accessibility, affordability and sustainability of higher education in order to achieve long-term security and prosperity for the sector and the nation. The government recently released the report, Australian Universities Accord interim report, which outlines five priority actions the panel believes require urgent responses: Extend visible, local access to tertiary education by creating further Regional University Centres … and establish a similar concept for suburban/metropolitan locations. … … … Cease the 50% pass rule, given its poor equity impacts, and require increased reporting on student progress. … … … Ensure that all First Nations students are eligible for a funded place at university, by extending demand driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students. … … … Provide funding certainty, through the extension of the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, to minimise the risk of unnecessary structural adjustment to the sector. Interim funding arrangements must prioritise the delivery of supports for equity students to accelerate reform towards a high equity, high participation system.… … … Through National Cabinet, immediately engage with state and territory governments and universities to improve university governance, particularly focusing on: • universities being good employers • student and staff safety • membership of governing bodies, including ensuring additional involvement of people with expertise in the business of universities. The interim report also outlines about 80 discussion items, which will be fleshed out over the next five months. The final report will be released by the end of 2023. On the 50 per cent pass rule: under the Job-ready Graduates Package in 2020, the coalition introduced a provision which required students to maintain a pass rate of 50 per cent or above for units of study they undertake. Students who have a low completion rate and do not meet this requirement lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance and must either pay for their course up-front, transfer to another course or withdraw from their studies. The rule commence operation on 1 January 2022. A low completion rate is when a student has a fail rate of more than 50 per cent of the units of study attempted after he or she has attempted eight or more units of study in a bachelor level or higher course—or four or more units in a higher education course lower than a bachelor course. The 50 per cent pass rule was introduced to protect students from accruing massive HECS debts under circumstances where it is highly likely that a student will not complete their course, safeguarding students from racking up a massive HECS debt without any university qualification to show for it. On the waiver for special circumstances: students who have a low completion rate can avoid losing their CSP under special circumstances, including where students are suffering financial difficulties, illness, a death or serious illness in the family, changes to employment, a natural disaster or any other relevant circumstances. On the Accord recommendation: according to the interim report, the impact of these measures has disproportionately affected students from First Nations, low socioeconomic status families and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. Yet the Accord panel placed relatively little focus on the impact of imposing a massive HECS debt on students failing their studies. The costs of living are skyrocketing under the Albanese government, exacerbated because Labor has no plan to reduce inflation, which is hitting students hard. More than three million Australians have a HECS debt or other type of student debt under the Higher Education Loan Program scheme, which increased by a massive 7.1 per cent on 1 June 2023, the highest indexation rate in more than 30 years, as a result of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis and sky-high inflation. By proposing to abolish the coalition's 50 per cent pass rule, the government has failed to protect students at high risk of not completing their course from accumulating debilitating HECS debts and suffering acute financial hardship. Let's not forget that Australians with a HECS debt have seen an average increase in their student debt this year of $1,700. Student debt in total now sits at $75 billion, with a large portion of this not expected to be paid. Students and university graduates are paying a very high price for trusting Labor. For the past decade, the average annual indexation rate under the coalition sat at two per cent. The HECS-HELP indexation rate in 2022, Labor's first year, was 3.7 per cent. This year it has come in at 7.1 per cent. In 2024, Australians are expected to suffer another massive increase in their student loans, forecast to be around six per cent. In all, more than three million Australians with a HECS debt are facing a 15 per cent or more increase in their loan over three years, which is, quite frankly, frightening. This has become such a serious situation that HECS debt liability is making it harder for young Australians to borrow money and buy a home. Yet Labor has no solution. It's tone-deaf to the cost-of-living crisis so many Australians are facing. What's also clear is that the proposal to abolish the 50 per cent pass rule is policy on the run. Education Minister Jason Clare has patched together a rudimentary survey of 27 universities, which shows that some 13,000 were impacted by the policy without really understanding how they were impacted. We don't know whether those students went on to do another course, moved to full fee-paying courses or dropped out altogether. It appears the government simply doesn't know how many students were impacted by this measure or for what reason and what happened to those students. Of course, some or all of these 13,000 students may have been saved from incurring a lifetime of crippling debt, protected from failing unit after unit, only to eventually leave university with no qualification and a bucketful of debt. The average amount of student debt is now $24,770 per student, compared with $15,191 a decade ago, while the number of people with debts in excess of $100,000 has also tripled in the past three years. Perhaps they moved to a TAFE course and are now thriving, pursuing their dreams by completing a course better suited to their needs. So, while the government and some higher education providers argue that the practical effect of these measures has been punitive for students, much more information is required to work out what has been going on. This is why a Senate inquiry into the bill is so important. Of course, it might be possible that some universities that are over their funding cap—meaning the university is not receiving any Commonwealth funding for some students—are very happy to see students lose their places because that will save the university money. Over many months the opposition has been calling on the government to do much more to hold universities to account and put students first. It is far easier to enrol a student than it is to ensure that student completes a three- or four-year degree. For too long universities have measured their success in terms of enrolment figures, but this must change. What really matters are completion rates, because only students who complete their degrees can derive the benefits those degrees confer in the open employment market. For instance, 41 per cent of students are failing to complete a four-year degree on time, with 21 per cent dropping out. The opposition has been calling for a strong accountability and transparency framework, including fair and just access to student refunds for deficient courses and the requirement that universities must publish all relevant course information, including out-of-pocket costs, total costs, completion rates, modes of course delivery and employment outcomes. Students deserve to be able to easily access this information so as to make the best decision. This bill fails to deliver these clear minimum requirements. In this bill the government has proposed new requirements that higher education providers must establish and comply with a student support policy to identify students at risk of not completing their units of study and to provide supports to assist. The bill also proposes that a higher education provider may be fined a penalty of 60 units, which currently equates to $16,500, if it fails to comply with this student support policy. By reason that the government is proposing to release a consultation paper on its proposed support for student policy, it's clear that the government has not done its homework on this policy nor determined the basis on which universities would be fined as proposed by the bill. The core business of higher education providers is to ensure they are closely tracking student performance and identifying which students are at risk of falling through the cracks. The 50 per cent pass rule is a strong incentive for universities to ensure they are closely managing student performance so that students at risk of failing are either supported to improve their performance or given advance warning of the opportunity to withdraw from a unit, thereby avoiding a low completion rate and the loss of their Commonwealth assistance. It's astonishing that the government is now proposing to conduct a four-week consultation process on the proposed student support policy, which demonstrates the government does not know what it's doing. While the student support policy framework is a positive step, it remains to be seen whether this requirement will lift completion rates more generally. For example, the requirement cannot stop students simply quitting university before completing their degrees. The bill also proposes to uncap CSPs at universities for Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas. This provision builds on the policy of the former coalition government to uncap Indigenous CSPs for students living in regional and remote Australia as recommended by the Napthine report. In proposing to uncap CSPs available to Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas, the government has not explained how it will hold universities to account for poor completion rates by Indigenous students, which currently see only 26 per cent of Indigenous students completing their undergraduate degree within four years, with 30 per cent of students dropping out during that period. We are concerned that the government has not adequately addressed how it will hold universities to account for these students successfully completing their degrees. We are also concerned that the government has not assessed the basis for preferencing Indigenous students in metropolitan areas, as distinct from other equity groups such as students from disadvantaged or low-SES backgrounds. The main risk associated with this amendment is that it will lead to more Indigenous enrolments but will not address the problem of low completion rates for Indigenous students. There's a high risk that many Indigenous students who fail to complete their course will be left with no qualifications and a massive HECS debt made worse by Labor's cost-of-living crisis. The amendments in part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill to expand eligibility for places in demand-driven higher education courses will mean that the Commonwealth will provide funding on a demand-driven basis for all First Nations students to enrol in bachelor and bachelor honours level courses other than a designated higher education course, currently a course in medicine, at a table A provider as listed in section 16-15 of the HESA. The coalition delivered record government funding of $115.1 billion in total for universities between 2019 and 2024—$95.2 billion in teaching and learning and $19.8 billion in research. In 2020, the coalition announced the Job-ready Graduates Package, of which there were many elements. The package was about far more than just the amount we pay universities for each course. It included a raft of support packages, including wraparound supports for regional and remote students, additional regional university centres and protections for students where they are not succeeding in study disciplines—the 50 per cent rule. The coalition implemented a number of measures to protect students from accruing large HECS debts. These included the Napthine review, the National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund, and the Indigenous, Regional and Low SES Attainment Fund. The 2020-21 budget research package included: $1 billion in additional funding in 2021 to alleviate the immediate financial pressures on universities caused by the lost revenue from international students who were unable to enter the country during the COVID-19 pandemic; $40 million for the Strategic University Reform Fund to bring together universities and local industries to partner on innovative reform projects; $20 million for the Centre for Augmented Reasoning at the University of Adelaide; $157 million in additional funding for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy to implement the 2020 research infrastructure investment plan; the University Research Commercialisation Package, which included $243 million for the Trailblazer Universities Program, to boost research and development and to drive commercialisation outcomes with industry partners; a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program, which backs startup companies; $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 new fellowships; the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs; and $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called valley of death on the road to commercialisation. The coalition delivered short courses leading to an undergraduate certificate or graduate certificate in 2022 and provided $32.5 million to develop and pilot microcredentials, including $8 million to support industry development of globally relevant microcredentials for delivery offshore. It's disappointing that the accord failed to address the biggest priority in education in this country: the urgent need to turn around declining school standards. In the May budget papers, we learned that 11 per cent of year 3 students remain in the bottom two bands in NAPLAN for reading, up from 8.6 per cent in 2018. The Australian Education Research Organisation, a very important initiative of the coalition, found that, alarmingly, 20 per cent of students starting year 7 have the reading ability of a grade 4 student. Review after review tells us that, despite a 60 per cent increase in school funding over two decades, we're seeing school standards slip dramatically. The coalition understands that the key to improved student outcomes is evidence based teaching and learning, including the adoption of explicit instruction and the teaching of phonics in every Australian classroom. The science tells us that this is what works, but the Albanese government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to delivering best-practice teaching methods. Teachers are also being severely hampered by an overcrowded and ideologically driven curriculum which does not allow them to adequately focus on the foundations of education: reading, writing and arithmetic. Notwithstanding my contribution, where I have outlined the opposition's chief concerns for the bill, I reiterate that the opposition will facilitate passage of this bill, which I commend to the House. The 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 48 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS International Assistance Dog Week 48 13:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar This week is International Assistance Dog Week, so I was pleased to see that the occasion is being marked inside parliament by welcoming local veterans and their assistance dogs here. Assistance dogs can help with both physical and psychological conditions, and these dogs have been specially trained to meet standards for public access rights. However, too often there is little understanding of the role of these dogs and the rights of people with an assistance dog. Mackellar constituent Scott is a veteran and co-founder of the NGO Saltwater Veterans, and he has an assistance dog. During a recent meeting he told me he often meets with resistance to allowing his assistance dog to enter public spaces such as beaches or restaurants. You wouldn't ask somebody in a wheelchair to leave it at the door, and the rights of a person with an assistance dog are protected under the federal Disability Discrimination Act. This allows for these dogs to accompany their handlers into all public spaces except those with stringent sterility requirements. As a proprietor, you're also legally allowed to ask for some documentation showing the assistance dog is accredited and serving the person they are with. Assistance dogs can transform the lives of people and their families, so I thank you for welcoming assistance dogs into your businesses and I urge my parliamentary colleagues to consider supporting an education campaign within their communities to support the rights of people with assistance dogs. Homelessness Week 49 13:31 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce This week we acknowledge homelessness week. The annual campaign, held nationally, is aimed at raising awareness and support those impacted by homelessness. I acknowledge a beacon of innovation and determination in my seat of Pearce, located in the heart of Wangara—No Limits Perth, a not-for-profit charity providing essential emergency relief support across the region. No Limits is set up to help members of the community in crisis, with assistance for those doing it tough who may have experienced family and domestic violence and homelessness. No Limits Perth provides food hampers, household furniture, linen, kitchen starter packs, cleaning and emergency packs, stationery kits, back-to-school backpacks, baby furniture, toiletry kits, baby starter kits and children's toys. This year's national theme is 'It's time to end homelessness', which highlights our need to come together to help break the cycle of homelessness. It is worth remembering that the task ahead will not be easy. We know that homelessness includes not only those who are sleeping rough but also those who are sleeping in cars, cramped living conditions or temporary accommodation, and those who are couch-surfing. This is why the Albanese Labor government is dedicated to delivering the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide ongoing investment returns to deliver new social and affordable homes as well as investments to address acute housing needs. International Assistance Dog Week 49 13:33 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay This week is International Assistance Dog Week, and to mark the occasion I recognise a Wide Bay organisation, PTSD Dogs Australia, who believe that every rescue dog can save a human and every human can save a rescue dog. From their base in Cooroy in the Noosa hinterland, founders Angie and Roger Weeks run a charity dedicated to rescuing dogs which go on to rescuing veterans and first responders. Assistance dogs are trained to get veterans out of their heads and into their bodies with interruptive behaviours such as nuzzles or a touch to refocus them. At their first graduation ceremony at Cooroy RSL, we heard from veterans whose recent past had been dominated by suffering. They told us their dogs had given them a life worth living. PTSD Dogs Australia also operate the Animal Assisted Smiles Program, where trained therapy dogs are taken to nursing homes to visit the elderly as well as emergency personnel. It was established in 2018, and to date it has supported the training of 35 dogs and their handlers. Thanks to PTSD Dogs and their friends, volunteers and supporters for changing lives for the better. Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki: 78th Anniversary 49 13:34 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney This week, 78 years ago, one of the most atrocious acts was committed. A second atomic bomb was dropped on Japan from a B-29 bomber from America, destroying the Urakami Valley within the port city of Nagasaki. The 22-kiloton explosion killed nearly 150 Japanese soldiers, but it killed more than 40,000 civilians and injured at least 60,000 more. Afterwards, thousands more died of radiation burns, poisoning and cancer in later years. Nuclear weapons are wrong. They are catastrophic, indiscriminate and cruel. We should commit to putting an end to proliferation of nuclear arsenals. International cooperation should play a crucial role in achieving this. There is a better role nuclear technology can play in our futures—a great example is nuclear medicine—but today we remember the awful act of 1945. We can only honour the memory of the victims and ensure that these weapons are never used again. Queensland: Housing 49 13:36 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Do words no longer mean anything? That's how I felt while listening to Queensland Deputy Premier Steven Miles explain the new 20 per cent affordable housing target for homes in South-East Queensland. Truly baffling. What counts as affordable? According to the Deputy Premier, most affordable housing would be delivered by the market at market prices. I can't believe I have to actually say this: market prices are currently not affordable. This is the definition of our housing crisis. It all begs so many questions. Here are just a few. If only 20 per cent of new homes are required to be affordable for the average worker, what are people earning less supposed to do? How is this target to be enforced? The state government has absolutely no plan for this; are they just going to ask developers nicely? Is it just an excuse to pump further public money to private developers for questionable build-to-rent schemes? The Queensland government, like the federal government, has abandoned any plans to actually build public housing at the mass scale necessary, insisting the solutions lie in the private market. Meanwhile, social housing wait lists blow out, and they have no plans to cap rent increases. There are so many questions, but what everyone desperate for a roof over their head needs now is answers. Middle East 50 13:37 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Last week I met with Nell Potter and Andrew Telfer from the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Network, both of whom had been deployed to Palestine and Israel. The network predominantly consists of Australian Christians from numerous denominations and is committed to freedom, justice and peace for the people of Palestine and Israel. Nell and Andrew noted that between September 1993, when the Oslo agreement was signed, and December 2022, Israel demolished 2,787 structures in East Jerusalem and displaced 5,093 persons. Forty-four per cent of demolitions happened in the last five years, and over the last 12 months violence against Palestinians has skyrocketed. The network's report stated that today Palestinian indigenous residents of the Jordan Valley are the subject of violence and exploitation by settlers and Israeli forces with the intention to take over more land. According to Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, settler violence against Palestinians is 'a form of government policy, aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation'. Understandably, these actions provoke retaliation and jeopardise peace negotiations. Global voices supporting Palestinian statehood and injustice are growing louder while excuses for the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people are rapidly losing credibility. Energy 50 13:39 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Labor continues to perpetuate its false promise of cheaper power bills despite the fact that the economic modelling it relies on is fundamentally flawed. It was Labor's RepuTex modelling that predicted a $275 reduction in household power bills, which has since become a sick joke, as Australian families now pay some of the highest prices in the world. When challenged on these soaring prices, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy points to his 82 per cent renewable target by 2030 while reaching for another economic model, this one called GenCost. I've cast doubt on GenCost before, but the minister expresses ire over this and doubles down, saying GenCost proves that renewables will be delivering lower prices. But it's now been proven that the minister's claims are baseless. It's been shown that GenCost excludes the cost of transmission, storage and backup generation through to 2030. So everything, from Snowy 2.0, the Kurri Kurri plant, Battery of the Nation and thousands and thousands of kilometres of transmission lines, has been excluded from the GenCost analysis that the minister uses to claim that prices are going down. It's a dishonesty. It's a disgrace. Andrews, Caden 50 13:40 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Macquarie Hunter Athletics Club in my electorate is a breeding ground for champions. Many athletes from this club participated in the 2023 Australian Junior Championships in Queensland and took home a heap of medals of all colours. But one stood out above the pack. I'm proud to report to the House that the Hunter is home to a national champion. Under-14s athlete Caden Andrews took home gold and is now the Australian under-15s javelin champion. Caden had four throws of a 700-gram javelin. His first throw was 45.5 metres. He improved with his second throw, throwing it 46.76 metres. Both were huge throws, especially for someone who is 14 years of age. But it was his third throw—a massive 48.26 metres—that secured him the gold. Caden, your coaches, family, friends and all who support you must be so proud. Congratulations on this incredible achievement. Keep working hard on your dreams and never give up. You're already an Australian champion, and I'm sure the future holds great things for you. The 2032 Olympics right here in Australia aren't too far away. If you keep going the way you have been, I have no doubt that we'll see you there in the green and gold and hopefully even see you on the podium one day soon. Turner, Mr Bruce 51 13:42 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders It is my honour to rise today to recognise the president of the Rosebud RSL, Bruce Turner, who was celebrated and awarded life membership of the club in a beautiful ceremony last Friday night. Bruce has had a long and fruitful association with the Rosebud RSL sub-branch, becoming a member of the committee as far back as in 1987 and then of the executive, as vice president, for 10 years. In that time Bruce has engineered enormous changes for the RSL, encouraging a professional committee culture underpinned by the principles of good governance. These are crucial developments for a club which professionally navigates its way through a dynamic environment down on the southern Mornington Peninsula and delivers great value to its members and to visitors alike, particularly after such a long and enduring COVID period. Some of Bruce's great achievements include $7 million that has been reinvested into improving the club's facilities, $6 million in refurbishments and $5 million to veterans and the community. This has all been achieved while maintaining a positive balance sheet. He has also developed innovative ways to support the community and build memberships and overseen improvements in the club's food quality—which I can attest was absolutely delicious last Friday night—which is now a core competency and point of difference from the competition. It recently saw the club get a number of awards, including for Bruce as club man of the year. Bruce has been instrumental in procuring entertainers for the club's demographic as well as for special commemoration events, particularly Anzac Day, which is such an important day down on the peninsula. Well done, Bruce. It was great to be there to celebrate you. Blair Electorate: Basketball 51 13:43 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Basketball is booming in Ipswich. There has been a 50 per cent increase in participation in the last two years. My congratulations go to the Ipswich Force mighty men's team, who took out the NBL1 North basketball title on Sunday. Inspired by final series MVP and Australian Boomer Nathan Sobey, the Force defeated the Gold Coast Rollers two games to one, all played away from home. Courageous and ever versatile, captain Jason Ralph led the Force men's team from the front as always. Sobey averaged 27 points and five rebounds across three games—a worthy MVP. Deng Deng amazed us with 43 points and 13 rebounds in the decider. I congratulate the team; head coach, Chris Riches; his assistant coaches; IBA president, Toni Caldwell; and the new Ipswich basketball general manager, David Jordan. I also congratulate his predecessor, Brady Walmsley, and say: You shouldn't have gone to the Gold Coast, Brady. You should have stayed in Ipswich. I've been to quite a few games this year, and I also congratulate the Force women's team, ably led by Captain Georgia Ralph. In the federal budget this year, the Albanese Labor government committed $2 million to upgrade the Ipswich basketball stadium. This is the kind of grassroots community sport investment that we need in Ipswich. Congratulations to our champion teams. Barker Electorate: Environment 51 13:45 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker In August last year, Minister Bowen announced six proposed regions for offshore renewable infrastructure, including 'the Southern Ocean region off Portland in Victoria'. Until recently, I'm not sure knew this zone also included South Australia. In fact, according to a BlueFloat proposal, the 77 wind turbines will only be located off the coast South Australia, at Port Macdonnell, often referred to as the southern rock lobster capital of Australia. While the minister stood in Portland recently, boasting of how this project would power eight million Victorian homes and produce energy for Portland's industries, I'm not sure that he gave much thought to the community of Port Macdonnell, just 90 kilometres away, who will see absolutely none of the very expensive power generated but will potentially lose their sustainable fishing and lobster industry and tourism industry and have long-term damage to the marine environment. Despite my requests for the minister to come to visit Port Macdonnell and see firsthand the coastline and hear firsthand from the community, I'm here instead in Canberra with a delegation from Port Macdonnell to meet with the minister at his convenience. I facilitated this because it's vitally important that the views of the community are heard not just by the department but by the minister. Let's hope he now has a better understanding of this proposal, where it is and the people it'll impact. National Stroke Week 51 13:46 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On one evening in August 2018, Shazia began to feel dizzy. She grabbed the wall while trying to keep her balance. Her husband, Sadiq, could see that something was seriously wrong and wasted no time in calling an ambulance. He didn't know at that time, but this quick decision saved her life. Shazia found out she had experienced a stroke and had severe bleeding on the left side of her brain. This week is National Stroke Week. Every 19 minutes in Australia, someone experiences a stroke. It's a leading cause of death and disability in Australia. This is because strokes are often hard to recognise. They can have really subtle signs, but recognising these subtleties and getting patients diagnosed and treated quickly is vital. There are good treatments available, and many patients return from hospital after a stroke to lead full, productive lives. However, for those treatments to work, people suffering a stroke need to get to hospital as fast as possible. That is why every Australian should familiarise themselves with the signs of a stroke. My friends at the Stroke Foundation taught me a simple, fast acronym. 'F' is for the face; watch for drooping. 'A' is for arms; check if they can lift both. 'S' is for speech; listen for slurring. 'T' is for the time; every stroke is an emergency, and we must call triple 0 immediately. Recognising FAST signs of stroke, Shazia's husband, Sadiq, acted immediately, and it saved her life. I urge you all to share the FAST message with your loved ones because, when it comes to treating a stroke, every minute counts. Hinkler Electorate 52 13:48 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler The big survey numbers are coming in, and my staff are working hard to do that data entry. There have been 2½ thousand responses so far. What is the true voice of the people saying? On the cashless debit card, with a yes/no question, would you believe there was 65 per cent support? In terms of nuclear power, between somewhat likely to very likely, there was 75 per cent support. How much money do they want to pay to reduce emissions? Eighty per cent of them said zero to $100. Most circled zero and didn't want to pay anything at all. In terms of support for coal-fired power stations, from somewhat likely to very likely, there was 75 per cent support. Now, what do we see from the government? We see them cancelling the cashless debit card against the wishes of the people who actually live there and see what happens. It is outrageous. Coal is being taxed out of existence in Queensland. The Queensland Labor government has increased royalties by $5 billion in a year—$15 billion in taxation, the highest coal royalties in taxation anywhere in the world. Who does that impact? It impacts regional towns, regional Queenslanders and those workers in the industry. They demonise nuclear, and what have they done for emissions? They have driven up the price of power to the people who can least afford it. My people can't pay more for electricity. Those opposite want to continue to put up the price. I'm absolutely opposed. It is the wrong decision and it hurts people. Homelessness Week 52 13:49 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt This week is Homelessness Week. In Australia there are over 122,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night. One in seven Australians experiencing homelessness are children under 12, and 23 per cent of people experiencing homelessness are between the ages of 12 and 24. I am proud of the Albanese Labor government's ten-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan. The Housing Australia Future Fund will be used to build 20,000 social housing units, 4,000 of which will be allocated to women and children fleeing domestic and family violence situations. Ten thousand affordable homes will be provided for our frontline workers, including police, nurses, ambos and other emergency workers, who spend their days keeping us safe. I am also pleased that older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness will also be supported through this fund. Unlike the Greens, who are blocking this important reform, the Labor Party and other Senate crossbenchers strongly support this investment. It is directed towards the increase of housing provisions and will significantly ease the challenges faced by citizens across the country. As this year's Homelessness Week theme emphasises, it is time to end homelessness. Lindsay Electorate: Community Services 52 13:51 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Australia Post has announced that it is closing its Westfield Penrith plaza post office on 29 September, and our community is very disappointed about this decision. Australia Post says the closure is due to a 44 per cent reduction in foot traffic. This data has been taken over four years, including across two COVID-19 lockdowns and recovery periods, when it would be logical that foot traffic would be much lower—including no traffic at all. The next Australia Post post office closest is on the high street of Penrith, which has been identified as a location to take on the majority of customers from the plaza. There are only six car spaces at the High Street post office and one accessible space. Street parking is very difficult to find. The position of the post office, with cars entering and exiting, is not pedestrian friendly. I don't believe the High Street post office is going to give residents and small business owners an adequate customer service experience, based on the above issues. I want to ensure local services are kept to a high standard and that sites are accessible and easy for everyone in the Lindsay community, particularly for our seniors and local small businesses. I raised the issue with Australia Post, and in parliament this week I asked the Minister for Communications to review the decision. This is an important issue for our community and one that is very much worth trying to find a better outcome on. Robertson Electorate: Schools 53 13:52 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to inform the House that six primary schools in Robertson on the Central Coast have been awarded up to $25,000 in much needed funding from the federal government to upgrade school infrastructure and equipment. I recently welcomed the federal education minister to Robertson to announce the six schools who are receiving funding through the $32 million Schools Upgrade Fund. The education minister and I visited the magnificent Pretty Beach Public School, one of six schools to receive this funding. The teachers and students were so kind to allow the minister and I to see some of the great learning that takes place at their school and how ICT technology, like laptops, supports engagement and learning in the classroom. Pretty Beach Public School will be using their funding to purchase and upgrade ICT equipment, including new laptops, to ensure all students are able to have their own device. I want to thank Pretty Beach Public School for the warm welcome of both the education minister and me, and I again congratulate the school on their funding. I would also like to congratulate the other five schools in Robertson who will also receive funding: Yattalunga Valley Christian School, NG Central School, Somersby Public School, Kulnura Public School and Central Mangrove Public School. A special thank you goes to assistant principals at Pretty Beach Public School, Emma Gordon and Gillian Hickey, for organising the visit, as well as student leaders Freddie, Fletcher and Flora—thank you. I'm pleased the Albanese government is investing in our nation's future and supporting high-quality education across Australia and on the Central Coast. Braddon Electorate: Child Care 53 13:54 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Last week the front page of our region's great local newspaper the Advocate read, 'Childcare crush: Tasmania's north-west has become a childcare desert'. A couple of weeks prior to that article appearing, I had the pleasure of hosting the shadow minister for early childhood education. We had a fabulous day visiting Warawyn Early Learning Centre in Wynyard and Footprints Educational Complex in Burnie. Our childcare administrators and educators in fact do an amazing job. They nurture our little ones when we can't. But our childcare centres are experiencing significant challenges. Centres are being hit hard by the rising cost of everything. They're struggling to find and retain staff. They're bursting at the seams and have no availability. That has left hundreds of kids across the north-west, the west coast and King Island wanting and waiting for care. In turn, parents are frustrated and unable to return to work. And, to complete this vicious cycle, families are struggling to pay the bills because they're not working as much as they need to be. The responsibility for this mess sits squarely at the feet of the Albanese government, and they need to fix it. Their cheaper child care promise is in tatters. Reducing the cost of child care means nothing if you live in a child care desert—when you live in the bush. Stryker South Pacific Veterans Association 53 13:55 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Earlier today the member for Menzies and I, as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans, met with Stryker South Pacific veterans association. Stryker is a medical tech company based in Sydney and formed its veterans association chapter roughly two years ago here in Australia with the help of 30 employees who are either veterans themselves or the spouse of a veteran, or someone currently serving. It is so important to have companies like Stryker help veterans transition into civilian life, giving our brave men and women a new mission to focus on in an environment that looks to replicate the camaraderie of the Defence Force. It is fantastic to hear that Stryker has partnered with Soldier On and other organisations helping veterans transition. Thank you to the whole team for taking the time today to speak to us about what matters to you—especially Laura, for sharing your very moving experience of your transition to civvy street. It was a fantastic opportunity to learn a little bit more about just how difficult it is, when your service is over—helping our nation and protecting our nation—going into a new walk of life on civilian street and finding that new spark that lights you up and gives you purpose. So thank you very much to Stryker for your time today. Variety WA Midwest 4WD Getaway 53 13:57 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Last weekend I had the absolute pleasure of joining the intrepid Variety WA Midwest 4WD Getaway participants. Every two years, adults go to a lot of trouble to dress up in fancy dress and also dress up their cars. They then head out bush, have a lot of fun and at times make fools of themselves. I can assure you that I certainly made a fool of myself. Whilst having all this fun, there is the serious business of raising funds to support vulnerable kids and families. Around $140,000 raised on the weekend—absolutely amazing. This year the Variety gang based ourselves at Mellenbye Station. This is a well-run station. The accommodation was wonderful. I want to thank them for looking after us so well. Events like these, which take place in remote locations, require years of planning. The routes that we travelled on are designed and tested, and then tested again, for fun and for safety. The weekend is intended to be an adventure, but at the end of the day we want everybody to get home safely and in one piece. Thanks so much to the many volunteers who helped to the set the route, who were on hand in case of car troubles and who assisted with logistics, running the bar, the set-up and the pull-down and the catering chores, not to forget the two volunteer doctors. I'd like to thank all the wonderful local businesses who supported the event, and a very big shout-out to Jan at Variety who brings it all together. Well done to our mates Dean and Angelina, who joined Brad and I in the 'witch' car. To our 'Priscilla' friends: you'll keep! Papua New Guinea: Kiaps 54 13:58 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Many Australians will remember that Australia had responsibility to administer the Territory of Papua and New Guinea until independence, and representatives of the Australian government, or kiaps, as they were known, were district commissioners, district officers and patrol officers. Over that period, about 2,000 Australians served up in Papua and New Guinea and did a variety of roles. They were the policemen, they were the judiciary and they were representatives of each Commonwealth department. They often worked in very remote locations within Papua and New Guinea. They worked as surveyors, medical officers and agricultural advisers, to name a few of the tasks that they did. They represented the Commonwealth. The service of the kiaps to Papua-New Guinea and Australia, unfortunately, continues to go unacknowledged. There were 2,000 Australians who served in these capacities, and 88 lost their life, which is a loss of about four per cent during those decades. We should remember the Australians who served us in Papua-New Guinea. The Papua-New Guinea government is keen to see these Australians recognised, and I thank the member for Bean, the member for Canberra, the member for Fenner, the member for Werriwa and others who are working to make sure that this happens. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Israel 54 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why his government has taken a decision to unilaterally determine where Israel's borders lie? Does the Prime Minister think it was appropriate for him to hang one of Australia's closest Middle East security partners out to dry as part of a backroom deal to avoid an embarrassing factional fight over AUKUS at Labor's national conference? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler There has been no unilateral action by my government. My government is a strong supporter of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. We also support a two-state solution that includes a Palestinian state. We believe that it is in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians to have a settlement to what has been a substantial dispute in the Middle East that has had implications not just for the region but for the world. My government will continue to engage constructively on these issues. My government has the same position as the Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak, as European governments and as Australian governments historically have had, as well. We regard a two-state solution as being essential. We think that it is in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians for there not to be actions by either side that undermine the potential of the achievement of that two-state solution. National Reconstruction Fund 54 14:02 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What progress is the Albanese Labor government making on establishing the National Reconstruction Fund, and why is a new approach to support our manufacturing industry so important? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker will not interject before ministers speak. 14:03 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I thank the member for Gilmore, who is a very strong supporter of Australian manufacturing and recognises how important it is in our regions in providing jobs and a stronger economic future for the country. Earlier this year, the parliament legislated for the National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund that is the greatest investment in manufacturing capabilities in living memory. The NRF is an investment in Australian firms and Australian workers using their know-how and Australian resources to make things in Australia. Today I announced the next step in delivering on our election commitment to set up the National Reconstruction Fund—the appointment of the independent board to provide the high-calibre stewardship that an investment of this size and importance rightly demands. On any measure, this is a supremely qualified board of eight well-respected, highly experienced members. It is a board made up of different experiences, different skills, different viewpoints from different corners of the country but unified in the view that we can build a stronger economic future for the nation. It is a group of fine Australians ready to help take Australia forward, and I thank them enormously for their willingness to serve. The NRF is a massive springboard for Australian industry. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure and the member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr HUSIC 91219 It's about deepening Australia's economic complexity through value-adding to our natural advantages. In opposition, Labor said we needed to learn from the lessons of the pandemic. These weren't just words for the moment; they provide a roadmap for our economic future, and that's what the NRF will deliver. This new approach is sorely needed after a decade of waste and mismanagement from those opposite. The Liberal and National parties' only energy towards manufacturing is to drive manufacturers out of our country. They abused taxpayer dollars through grant programs designed to deliver political benefit not the national benefit. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, the question was: what progress has happened in establishing the reconstruction framework, and why is a new approach to manufacturing so important? What we've heard this minister do is spend— The SPEAKER 53517 Thank you. The minister has had some time. I'm going to bring him back to the question. Mr HUSIC 91219 I know that history burns like holy water, but the reality is that's what they have to learn from. They abused taxpayer dollars, and there was never an opportunity too big for those opposite to miss. In fact, the Liberal and National parties have done everything they can in opposition to make life harder for Australian manufacturers by voting against the National Reconstruction Fund and voting against the energy price relief at a time that manufacturers needed it most. But what do you expect from the party of robodebt that's only focused on making people's lives harder? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will return to the question. Mr HUSIC 91219 Today is an important step in the establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund, and we thank those Australians who are prepared to serve. (Time expired) Nuclear Waste Management: Submarines 55 14:06 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. In signing up to the AUKUS deal, the Labor government has agreed to establish a domestic nuclear industry and dispose of nuclear waste from nuclear submarines. Is there any state or territory the Deputy Prime Minister can rule out from servicing AUKUS nuclear submarines or storing their nuclear waste? 14:07 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio We've made a couple of things clear in relation to how Australia will move down the optimal pathway of acquiring a nuclear powered submarine capability that will see Australia develop an industrial capacity to build a nuclear powered submarine—not the nuclear reactor, but the rest of the submarine—based at Osborne in South Australia. It will see us evolve the capacity to operate a nuclear powered submarine out of HMAS Stirling in Rockingham in Western Australia. So, obviously, those two states will have a particular connection with the enterprise of Australia having a nuclear powered submarine capability. It's also fair to say, though, that it will be a huge national effort to achieve this, and we will need to rely on the industrial base and the capacities of the entire nation in order to do that. That is relevant in the context of your specific question around what happens with the nuclear waste. We've made it clear that, as part of being a responsible nuclear steward, Australia will take responsibility for the disposal of the nuclear waste which comes from operating nuclear powered submarines, which is both the low-level waste associated with things such as cleaning the submarines and, ultimately, the high-level waste, which will be the reactor itself. We have made clear that the high-level nuclear waste will be disposed or dealt with finally on a Defence site, current or future, and we have said nothing more or less than that. I guess, in addition to that, we've made it clear that the process by which we will determine how that all occurs is underway right now, and we will complete it within 12 months—to be clear on that. That is not to say that in 12 months time there will be a place, but it is to say that within 12 months time we will identify what the road will be to determining where. National Reconstruction Fund 56 14:09 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's National Reconstruction Fund help address some of the challenges facing the Australian economy and drive future growth? 14:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Adelaide—an absolute champion for working people and the manufacturing industries of the great state of South Australia. This was a really important milestone, the board that the industry minister announced today for the National Reconstruction Fund. With the assistance of the finance minister, working closely with the Prime Minister and others, the industry minister has put together an absolutely first-class board. And I want to thank, as he did, the eight very distinguished and experienced Australians for agreeing to be a part of the NRF. The National Reconstruction Fund is all about broadening and deepening our industrial base. It's a $15 billion vote of confidence in our workers, in our industries and in our country, right across manufacturing, renewables, medical, primary industries and critical minerals and in other areas as well. It's all about creating more opportunities for more people in more parts of our country. It's about laying the foundations for a stronger economy and a better future for our workers. And it's all about making our economy stronger and more resilient. Dr CHALMERS 37998 What we learned from the wasted decade, what we learned from the pandemic and what we are still learning from the war in Ukraine is that our supply chains are not resilient enough, they're not reliable enough, they're not robust enough. Because of that, we are more vulnerable than we should be to the sorts of global economic shocks that we are going through. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Barker and the member for Deakin have been continually interjecting, and we're 10 minutes into question time. We're doing things differently today. You're warned. If you interject again, for the remainder of question time, you will leave question time. The Treasurer in continuation. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Thanks, Mr Speaker. The weakness in our supply chains has made us more vulnerable than we should be. Right around the world, countries like ours are coming to this same conclusion, and it's an opportunity for Australia as much as it's a challenge for Australia. In a global economy that puts a premium on what's reliable and high-quality, we have advantages, and the National Reconstruction Fund will help us leverage those advantages and make the most of this moment. Busted supply chains and weakness in our industrial base is one of the key reasons for the inflation we've seen in our economy. So, investing in the supply side of the economy is a key part of our plan to address cost-of-living pressures. In addition to the cost-of-living relief that we're rolling out, and getting the budget in much better nick than we inherited from those opposite, investing in the supply side is really important. It's disappointing but not especially surprising to see those opposite try to block this investment in Australian industry. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will pause. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Macnamara, you're close to being warned. The Manager of Opposition Business, a point of order? Mr L6B On relevance: a serial offender once again couldn't help himself. He starts talking about those opposite. It was a commendably narrowly drafted question: how will this address challenges facing the Australian economy and drive future growth? There was no invitation to compare and contrast. He should be brought back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The point of order was obviously about relevance. The Treasurer was not asked to compare and contrast, and I'm bringing him back to the question. Dr 37998 Let me put it this way. Not everybody in this parliament has learned from the wasted decade of missed opportunities and messed-up priorities. It is a fact that those opposite would rather block our progress than back our workers and industries in the defining decade ahead. Whistleblowers 57 14:14 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Attorney-General. Today the South Australian Court of Appeal is considering tax office whistleblower Richard Boyle's case. Mr Boyle faces trial and a potential prison term because he's not protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Why has the government failed to intervene in Mr Boyle's case? And when will you fix whistleblower protection laws, including by introducing a whistleblower protection commissioner? 14:14 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Indi for her question. I know of her longstanding concerns about the protection of whistleblowers in our country. Her question is about both the prosecution of Mr Richard Boyle and the importance of protections for whistleblowers. The Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to strengthen protections for whistleblowers in our country—whistleblowers who report wrongdoing, whistleblowers who report corruption—and we are delivering through very-long-overdue reform to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which I had the honour of bringing to this parliament when I was last Attorney-General in 2013. On 1 July 2023, priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act came into effect, delivering on the government's commitment to implement key recommendations of the 2016 independent review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM, and some other parliamentary committee reports. It's worth noting the complete inaction by those opposite—since the Moss report in 2016, it was simply allowed to gather dust. We've acted on it. These reforms represent a significant milestone towards a best-practice whistleblower protection framework. They ensured that amendments and improvements to public interest disclosure and whistleblower protection were in place when the National Anti-Corruption Commission commenced its operations on 1 July. A second stage of reforms will include public consultation on redrafting the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address underlying complexity of the scheme, and a discussion paper on the need for additional support for public sector whistleblowers, such as a whistleblower protection authority or perhaps a commissioner. The first and second stages of public sector whistleblower reform demonstrate our government's commitment to ensuring that we have an effective framework to promote integrity in the public sector to protect public-sector whistleblowers who bring wrongdoing to light. The member has also mentioned the prosecution of Mr Boyle, and I will say this: integrity and the rule of law are central to Australia's criminal justice arrangements. The Attorney-General's power to discontinue proceedings is reserved for very unusual and exceptional circumstances and requires careful consideration before that power is exercised. Mr Boyle's proceedings are ongoing, as the member for Indi indicated in her question. It would be inappropriate to comment further. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Tie, Her Excellency Ning 57 14:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Her Excellency Ms Tie Ning, the Vice Chair of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China and accompanying delegation. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Reconstruction Fund 57 14:17 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is for the Prime Minister. How will the National Reconstruction Fund build stronger foundations for the future of Australian manufacturing and what obstacles has the government had to overcome in establishing the fund? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hunter for his question. I thank him also for hosting us in Muswellbrook, which holds an example there at the centre for innovation, right in the centre of town, of exactly what the opportunities are for new jobs and new industries in the Hunter. Building on of the success that the Hunter has had as a region driving our economy, it can continue to drive our economy into the future. The National Reconstruction Fund is about seizing the opportunities that are there. During the global pandemic, we were reminded of the problems that can arise with global supply chains and the need for us to be more self-reliant and more resilient. The need for us to make more things here, the need for us to have a manufacturing industry here, and the need for us to have a future made in Australia, right here is absolutely critical. There's a need for Australia workers, using Australian knowhow, innovation and smarts, and Australian resources to make more products here in Australia. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 The independent board that has been announced today is an outstanding team. I thank the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology and the Minister for Finance for the work that they have done to come up with such an outstanding team. It is chaired by Martijn Wilder, who has decades of experience in sustainable finance. He is one of the founding directors of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has been so successful, was the chair of the board of ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and is someone with an incredible background. I acknowledge the other people from industry and, indeed, Kelly O' Dwyer, with the experience she has in this chamber as a former Assistant Treasurer as well. We on this side of the House understand the need to maximise the capacities and input of all of our Australians. The NRF will revitalise manufacturing and create secure jobs in areas like critical minerals, seizing the opportunities of renewable energy, defence capability, value-adding in resources and value-adding in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, transport and medical science—all of these things being positive. Of course, those opposite interject. They oppose this because they say no to everything. They're addicted to just saying no: no to secure jobs, no to Australian manufacturing, no to new industries, and no to a future made right here in Australia. Uluru Statement from The Heart 58 14:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Professor Megan Davis, a key member of the Prime Minister's referendum working group, has said: The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn't just the first one-page statement; it's actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages. Does the Prime Minister agree? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton is warned. I couldn't hear the deputy leader's question because of the member for Moreton's interjections. I can't be clearer: no-one is to interject while questions are being asked. The deputy leader will restate her question. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister. Professor Megan Davis, a key member of the Prime Minister's referendum working group, has said: The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn't just the first one-page statement; it's actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages … Does the Prime Minister agree? 14:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the deputy leader for continuing to ask questions about this conspiracy that's been out there for a long period of time. Megan Davis said: 'There's been a lot of news this week that the Uluru statement is 26 pages long, but it's one page. That's the statement. That is what we issued to the Australian people.' Indeed, this conspiracy has been around for a while. There was an ABC News Fact Check article headed—and I wonder who they got this off: 'Pauline Hanson claims list of Indigenous "demands" found via FOI shows "dangers" of a Voice to Parliament. What's actually in the documents?' I table the RMIT ABC Fact Check from 21 April 2023 that found that it was a nonsense. I table the AAP FactCheck article headed 'Email misleads with "secret voice documents" claim' from 21 April 2023. But here, in August, they reheat a conspiracy theory based on absolute nonsense. This is what one of their friends has had to say: The very documents Credlin has been highlighting, has been claiming are secret, have been public all along … Not new, not hidden, not a secret statement. They are not proof of some bizarre— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will just pause a moment. The member for Petrie, I'm not sure what you're doing, but you will just cease the interjections for the time being. Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the document, the 'Henry Parkes oration 2018', and page 8, where Professor Davis states, 'The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a very lengthy document of 18 to 20 pages.' The SPEAKER 53517 During an answer is not the time. You're welcome to do it when the Prime Minister concludes his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. As Chris Kenny told Sky News last night, six years ago the Referendum Council took these background papers and published them in a report. Who was in government six years ago? Who was in government? Who set up the Referendum Council? So this is a conspiracy. Tony Abbott establishes a referendum council, it does the work leading up to 2017, they publish a report online and give it to the government that was in office in 2017. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's been available online ever since 2017, but we've covered it up! For goodness's sake. You couldn't make this up. As Chris Kenny said, no-one needed an FOI to get this stuff; that's how uncontroversial it is. Then Scott Morrison was Prime Minister for four years. Did Scott Morrison, too, just pretend that the Uluru statement was one page long and conspire to hide the full Uluru statement? This is absolute conspiracy and nonsense that shows they have become a fringe political party. They're making One Nation look like a mainstream political party with this nonsense. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 Mark Leibler made it clear last night: 'I was at Uluru for the national convention and witnessed the adoption of the statement. It was one page.' Ms Ley 00AMN I seek leave to table the document and refer members to page 8, which demonstrates the 18 to 20 pages of length of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I remind the Prime Minister to refer to those pages in light of the fact that he never answers a single— The SPEAKER 53517 You may resume your seat. The deputy leader just needs to seek to table the document, which she has done. She's entitled to do that. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Moret o n then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The document has been on the internet for six years. Leave is not granted. Critical Minerals Industry 59 14:27 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Resources. How will the National Reconstruction Fund create jobs in the critical minerals sector? 14:27 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Hasluck for her question, and I acknowledge her. She represents the Swan Valley and did an astounding job at the wonderful and very successful showcase of WA last night in this parliament. As many people here would be aware, thousands of millions of years of geological activity has made Australia an offer we cannot refuse. It has provided us with the minerals and the metals needed to secure the earth's future and our own. Our critical minerals are essential for net zero technology, including electric vehicles, wind turbines, battery storage and, of course, everyday products that we use all the time, including mobile devices, laptops and other things. As I have said before, the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector. To get to net zero, we will need more mining, not less. The International Energy Agency recently predicted that under a net zero emissions scenario by 2050, global demand for critical minerals will increase over the next seven years by 350 per cent. That is an extraordinary level of growth, and Australia has the natural resources that will enable us as a nation to respond to this international demand. We are the world's largest producers of lithium, the third-largest producer of cobalt and the fourth-largest producer of rare earth elements. This represents an unmissable opportunity for our nation—one that this government will not miss. To highlight the current demand for critical minerals, I'd like to give a shout out to the annual Diggers and Dealers Mining Forum taking place right now in the Goldfields town of Kalgoorlie in my home state of WA. For over 30 years, Diggers & Dealers has traditionally been a conference of goldminers. However, for the first time in its history, Diggers & Dealers now has a larger official representation from battery minerals and metals companies than from goldminers, as the industry seeks to support that global push for a decarbonised economy. The push for this onshore processing is part of the drive that increased their presence at Diggers & Dealers. Through this Labor government's $1 billion Value-Adding in Resources Fund, part of the broader $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, the Albanese government will ensure a greater share of our raw materials is processed right here in Australia. We will support those businesses in these industries to secure capital, allowing them to expand their workforce, create more complex jobs, and bring manufacturing capability, refining capability and, all importantly, chemical processing back into our country. The critical minerals story of Australia will be one of expanded mining operations and, very importantly, that high-level chemical processing. We will use our own resources to do it. We mined it here; we should make it here. The Labor government will make sure that happens. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 60 14:30 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the minister rule out financial payments being made by the Commonwealth as part of a treaty or makarrata process? Mr Taylor 231027 You could just say no! The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Hume, I remind you about my policy on not interjecting before ministers speak. 14:31 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for her question. She asked about one element of the Uluru statement, and I am very happy to respond to that. This government is absolutely focused on the referendum at the end of this year. I am asked a question, as I said, that relates to the element of the Uluru statement that goes to agreement-making. There is much of that going on around the country. Treaty is being progressed in Queensland with bipartisan support. A treaty is being progressed in Victoria with bipartisan support. Peter Walsh, the leader of the Victorian Nationals, said: The Liberals and Nationals are committed to advancing the Treaty process in Victoria … And in Tasmania a Liberal government has established a pathway to truth-telling and treaty with bipartisan support. Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, said: We are committed to progressing truth-telling and treaty in true partnership with the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Our priority is constitutional recognition through a voice, a voice that will help drive better results for Indigenous people. That is what the Australian people will vote for later this year. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 60 14:33 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What advice does the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme provide to governments about how they should respond to adverse decisions made by bodies hearing appeals? How did the former government respond to legal challenges or threaten legal challenges? 14:33 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for his question. The robodebt royal commission found that an effective merits review tribunal to hear appeals against government administrative decisions is essential to protect the rights of individuals and to hold the government to account for bad decisions. But the royal commission found that successive coalition governments had effectively neutered the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a key protection for Australians during robodebt. We know that robodebt launched in 2015, in circumstances where initial legal advice was that robodebt wasn't in accord with the legislation—we know that. But from 2016 the AAT made a series of decisions that questioned the legal basis for income averaging. Victims would appeal to the AAT, and the AAT made a series of decisions saying the government was wrong. The coalition government at that point had the choice to appeal the decision, because the AAT had got it wrong, or to change their policy, but they took a third strategy: they just pretended the decisions weren't happening. Subsequently, on 8 March 2017, Professor Terry Carney handed down the first in a series of five explosive decisions, giving reasons for concluding that robodebt was unlawful—in 2017. And, again, what did the government do? Nothing. It just didn't happen! In fact, the royal commissioners found no less than 424 cases where the AAT said that the use of income averaging to assess part or the whole of the debt was wrong—424 cases; that's a big number. That's a shocking number. They found that, in 424 cases, when the government had been told, 'You're wrong,' the government had neither the intestinal fortitude to appeal the decisions nor the courage to actually say, 'We're going to stop it.' They just ignored the problems. This royal commission evidence is damning. What these successive coalition governments said was: 'You're the victim. You've gone through trauma. When you finally get to the AAT, get your hush money settlement. Settle up!' But what this coalition government never did—what none of you ever thought to do—was join the dots. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG How many cases does it take before a government realises it's breaking the law? Do you know what the royal commission found out? In over 500 cases at the AAT, not once did the government's lawyers ever argue that they could rely on any law. It was a cowardly government. I'd just ask for one thing from the Leader of the Opposition: admit you were wrong then. (Time expired) Veterans 61 14:36 Mr JOYCE e5d New England My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Over a year ago, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal released the report recognising veterans' sacrifice. That included recommendations on how to better recognise those who died of a service related death and their families. Given this is the last sitting week before the official 50th commemoration of Australia concluding its involvement in the Vietnam War, the date being 18 August, Long Tan Day—though the war ceased before that date—will the government commit to honouring the recommendations that honour the deaths and families of our veterans? (Time expired) 14:37 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for New England, in particular for recognising that next week we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War, on Vietnam Veterans Day, which was traditionally referred to as Long Tan Day, a very important day for Vietnam War veterans across the country. As we saw last week, with the vigils that were held at the many places of memorial around the country, recognising the service and sacrifice of our Vietnam War veterans, veterans again will turn out here in Canberra and in many local services around Australia to commemorate the fallen, the wounded and those that have suffered both physically and mentally as a consequence of their service for our nation. Despite what may have been political controversy at that time, now, as a country, we come together to commemorate that service for all of those people who wore our uniform, to recognise the sacrifice that they made and to recognise the sacrifice of their families as well in supporting them not only when they went away but when they came back. The report that the member has referred to from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is a very lengthy and detailed report. It gives rise to a number of recommendations, but it gives rise to a number of questions as well. So it is going to take some time to work through how that report is to be dealt with by government and how the consequences that may come from some of those recommendations are to be properly put and understood in terms of the breadth of application that they may take. Regardless of how we work through that process, as there are a number of reports coming from that tribunal that we have already taken action on since we came into government, just over the first 12 months, we will consider that report as well. The critical thing the report raises, regardless of how those recommendations may be dealt with in the fullness of time by this government, is the core point—which goes back to what the member was raising and which all members of this House and all members of this parliament agree—when people sign up to join our Defence Force, they do that with a common purpose: to defend our nation; to serve our nation. Some of those people may not come back to their families, whether that's in time of war or in time of peace. Some people may come back to their families wounded, whether that's physical or mental. Certainly, as we have seen with the royal commission that is ongoing right now, there are some who end up taking their own lives as a consequence of their service. That is something that we are working to—and I'm sure all members of this parliament are committed to—ensure we address that national tragedy as well. Energy 61 14:40 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in cleaner and cheaper energy, and why is this important? How does this contrast to the other energy policies? 14:40 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for Higgins for her question and for her climate leadership in this building, which should be acknowledged. The Albanese government's investing in cheaper and cleaner energy through the Climate Change Act; through the capacity investment mechanism, which those opposite promised and could never deliver; through Rewiring the Nation; and, importantly, through investing in the renewable energy supply chain through the National Reconstruction Fund. I want to congratulate the industry minister on his announcement today. They have a very strong board for the National Reconstruction Fund, led by Martijn Wilder, an expert in renewable energy. It's a board that will play a very important role in Australia's renewable energy transformation. I am pleased to report to the member for Higgins and the House that the latest figures show that AEMO connection approvals for the last financial year are up substantially for renewable energy to six gigawatts—up two full gigawatts in 12 months—and seven gigawatts in total. So that's a vast majority of new energy being renewable energy and a big increase in AEMO connection approvals over the last financial year. I'm asked by the honourable member about other policies. And there is a bit to talk about here, too, in relation to the honourable member's question. We saw on the front page of the Australian today a big announcement from the opposition, 'Coalition set to go nuclear on energy'. And we read that nuclear energy is going to be a 'centrepiece' of the coalition's 2025 energy policy. We look forward to this centrepiece. We look forward to the costings and to the locations of the nuclear power stations when the honourable shadow minister releases them. But I have to say that I've been a bit confused about why a party claiming to be economically rational would propose the most expensive form of energy as a way to reduce prices. They say they want to reduce prices. And there's been another update. I've got to tell the House. I was listening to one of my favourite podcasts on the weekend, Sundays with Stoker. You can't think of a Sunday without Sunday with Stoker.The honourable member for Fairfax was on, and he said, 'If you look at Canada, even today, between 50 and 60 per cent of their grid is nuclear; they pay half the energy prices of Australia.' And I had to pause and rewind and listen again because I thought—actually, I know—that 50 to 60 per cent of Canada's power comes from renewable hydro energy. Less than 15 per cent comes from nuclear. As Electricity Canada said, 'Canada's access to renewable natural resources allows for some of the lowest residential electricity prices in the world,' I table the honourable member for Fairfax's transcript, and I table the report from Electricity Canada showing their renewable prices are some of the cheapest prices in the world. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. The member for Fairfax will not use props during question time. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 62 14:44 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Forty-two Australian women have been killed this year, mostly by men. Three have been killed in the past five days. Most are alleged to have been killed by a current or former partner. In Goldstein, 50 per cent of the police caseload is family and domestic violence. It's been 10 months since the release of the national plan. When will we see the action plans, and how is the Commonwealth going to work with the states and territories to meet measurable targets to urgently address this national crisis? 14:44 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Goldstein for that question, and I appreciate her commitment and the way she's worked to raise the voices of women and children fleeing domestic violence. The safety of women and children experiencing domestic and family violence is a national priority for our government. Family and domestic and sexual violence destroys lives. One life lost is one life too many, and it must end. That is why the Albanese government has made ending family and domestic violence a key priority since coming to government. We delivered, with states and territories, the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children in one generation. But we've also been working very hard, in collaboration with states and territories, in the development of our action plans. At a meeting of women and women's safety ministers, just recently, all state and territory and Commonwealth ministers renewed their commitment to ending violence against women and children. At this meeting, all ministers affirmed the importance of the final endorsement of the action plans, which support our national plan. The action plans will detail the actions our government will take, at a Commonwealth level, as well as the shared ambition that each state and territory will also take to help achieve our goal. There will be two action plans, the first national action plan and a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plan. These will be accompanied by an outcomes framework. This will be an important document for accountability for all levels of government to be measured against. Since coming to government, we have made family and domestic violence a key priority. In our first two budgets, we have made a record investment of $2.3 billion, at a Commonwealth level, to ensure that supports and services are available. We have been fixing up the escaping domestic violence payment, because it was taking too long for victims-survivors to access this support. We've secured ongoing funding for states and territories to deliver frontline services. This is funding that was not in the forward estimates and not provisioned by the former government. We are delivering our commitment for new frontline workers, and we've increased the support for temporary visa holders experiencing domestic and family violence, from $3,000 to $5,000—a call from many in the sector. We've legislated 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave for all employees, including casuals. We're investing in educational resources about consent and support for young people. This is a small number of the actions we've taken. We will continue to take this area incredibly seriously as a national priority and work with all of those who wish to work with us. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 63 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS International Livestock Research Institute, National Seniors Australia 63 14:47 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of the International Livestock Research Institute, based in Nairobi, Kenya, led by Professor Appolinaire Djikeng and including Professor Gabrielle Persley AM. Also, as guests of the member for Kennedy, are board members from National Seniors Australia. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 63 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 63 14:48 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What impact have government policies had in improving outcomes in employment and workplace relations? How does this compare with some of the commentary? 14:48 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Reid both for the question and for her advocacy to see more people in work and to see them better paid. It's possible now to have a look at what the average figures were over that lost decade that the Treasurer referred to and compare them with what we're getting now. If you start with unemployment figures, the average unemployment figure over that lost decade, at the time those opposite were in office, was 5.6 per cent. If we had their average unemployment figure today, an additional 300,000 people would be out of work. Instead, this government has had the best first year of new jobs for any Australian government—that is, half a million people in work, half a million new jobs. And the majority of them, overwhelming—how many of them are full time? Eighty-five per cent of those jobs are full time, and the majority of those full-time jobs are held by women. But, not only are there more people in work, not only are there more people in full-time work, people in those jobs are now being better paid than they were under those opposite. Under their time in office, wages grew at an average of 2.1 per cent; 2.1 per cent was the average growth in wages. If you applied that average wage growth to what workers have in fact received, you would see now that people on the minimum wage, had we kept their settings where low-wage growth was a deliberate design feature of their measures—and they knew our policy changes would produce increased wages; they even said that was why they opposed them; the Leader of the Opposition said that's why he opposed them; the shadow Treasurer said that's why he opposed them—minimum wage workers would be $45 a week worse off right now if we had kept those settings in place. On award wages, a retail worker would be $44 a week worse off if we had kept those settings in place. A hospitality worker would be nearly $2½ thousand a year worse off. And the strongest figures of the difference in the change of government in wages is for aged-care workers. An aged-care direct employee level 4, every week, would be $195 worse off if we had kept their settings in place. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There's far too much noise on my left. The member for Casey is now warned, and the member for Hume is warned. The member for Gippsland will stop. I can hear every word you're saying—trust me. Qatar Airways 63 14:52 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Did the minister receive advice from her department recommending that she approve additional routes applied for by Qatar Airways? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Page then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I can't be clearer: before I call a minister is not the time to do it. Is everyone clear on that? Good. 14:52 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the former minister for infrastructure for the question. He would know well that these are bilateral agreements that are made between governments. As with all bilateral agreements that are made between governments, they are international agreements, and we only sign up to agreements that benefit our national interest, in all of its broad complexity. That includes ensuring that we have an aviation sector through the recovery that employs Australian workers. In determining what our national interest is, we have to consider a broad range of factors, and it was not just one factor that led to this particular decision. The government has determined that agreeing to the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request for additional services is not in our national interest, and we will always consider the need to ensure that there are long-term well-paid secure jobs for Australians in the aviation sector when we are making this decision. And I am pretty sure that the minister, when he was in that position, had exactly the same view when faced with the same question. Commonwealth Procurement 64 14:54 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What new information has been brought to the attention of the government in relation to deficient procurements identified by the Watt review and by other reviews of government services procurement? 14:54 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Members will recall that, on 24 November last year, I updated the House on disturbing reports in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald about how the former member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, used his status as a federal MP to assist undeclared Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 to sign up corporate clients. The allegation was essentially that Synergy 360's business model was that Mr Robert was their ace in the hole and could open doors for them. Following these revelations, two agency heads initiated the Watt review of procurement practices, led by eminent former public servant Dr Watt. One procurement reviewed as part of the Watt review was a massive multimillion-dollar contract awarded to software giant Infosys. That was to upgrade the welfare payment software. It was called the Entitlement Calculation Engine. What has also emerged is that Infosys, who got this big contract, had a commercial relationship with Synergy 360. The ECE procurement was meant to transform the way welfare services were delivered in this country, and Infosys and its subsidiaries had been paid $126 million do this, but, after multiple delays and problems, Infosys never delivered what they promised. Services Australia has made a decision to stop throwing good money after bad and it's written off the former Liberal government's project at a total cost of $191 million to the taxpayer. But today, in the SMH and Age, there are reports that Stuart Robert regally met with Infosys beginning in September 2018, when he was Assistant Treasurer, and then as a recycled cabinet minister after 2019. Furthermore, in documents tendered to Mr Hill's committee, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, by Infosys, it's revealed that on no fewer than 11 occasions Mr Robert met with Infosys with no probity adviser or APS representative in attendance. At at least six of these meetings, miraculously, Synergy 360 was in attendance. We know from Infosys testimony at a public hearing that Infosys, who got $126 million from the former coalition government, paid Synergy 360 $16 million. Of course, the other thing that we've learnt here is that, somewhat decently of Synergy 360, in 2017 they gave Mr Robert's chief fundraiser in Queensland, Mr Margerison, whereabouts unknown, a free 20 per cent share of the lobbying company. So this is where we're at now. Mr Robert's left the building. Mr Margerison's left the country. There's been $191 million of taxpayers' money splashed up against the proverbial wall. Now the question for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition is: what steps have you taken to satisfy yourself as to the probity of Mr Robert's contact? Have you asked the Queensland LNP where Mr Margerison is, and is he still an LNP member? Will you repudiate Mr Robert's conduct? (Time expired) Housing Affordability 64 14:57 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. In National Homelessness Week, the stark truth is that housing has become a nightmare for many Australians, particularly young people. I welcome the government 's commitment to working with the states to boost housing supply by improving zoning and planning laws and processes. But, despite the states receiving an extra $2 billion in federal funding, we have no guarantees they will deliver on much-needed reforms. What guarantees of reform is the Prime Minister aiming to get from the states next week, and will the Prime Minister make future funding contingent on them actually delivering more housing? 14:58 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Wentworth for her question. I thank her for her concern about these issues. I have met with the member for Wentworth one on one about some of the ideas she has to address what are the major issues, when it comes to housing supply in this country, that are having a particularly adverse effect on young Australians. The member for Wentworth understands that this is about supply, and that is why, on the issues that she has raised with me, we've been broadly in agreement about the direction in which she wants Australia to go. We have a meeting of the national cabinet next Wednesday, and I've spoken with state premiers and chief ministers about how we move forward when it comes to supply. We have the $2 billion that we brought forward in the Social Housing Accelerator. When we met in June, we insisted that that has to be additional supply. It can be new social housing completely or it can be, indeed, some social housing that's been left derelict and isn't currently occupied to add to supply as well. We know from experience, when the member for Sydney was the housing minister of this country, the big difference that was made in that time was actually from making sure that housing— Ms Plibersek 83M 35,000 houses! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting! Mr ALBANESE R36 which was at that time unoccupied got renovated and made fit for purpose in a dynamic way. Certainly, our housing policy has that as agreed. The other thing, though, that we'll be discussing next week is how we achieve the National Housing Accord. What we want to do is to put in place— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The minister for the environment is warned and will cease interjecting. The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). If you receive a warning and you interject after the warning, you will leave the chamber. The Prime Minister has the call. The mem ber for Barker then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 The National Housing Accord is really critical, and we want to make sure that all states and territories have plans to get there. That's about land release, it's about zoning, it's about density—particularly around appropriate public transport routes—and it is about making sure that we increase supply, because that is what will make the big difference. I must say that first ministers have been very positive and constructive about this, and I'm confident that next week we will have some really good results and outcomes that will lead to what the member for Wentworth wants to see, which is real change making a real difference out there. The other thing that first ministers all emphasised to me is the need to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund, because that's an important component. It's just one, but it's an important component when it comes to increasing housing supply. (Time expired) Regional Australia 65 15:01 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for regional Australia and why was a different approach needed? 15:02 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. As someone who holds the sister seat of two great cities in our great state of Victoria, I know how passionate she is about the regions. I always say that Ballarat is just a little bit better than Bendigo, but we love Bendigo as well—well and truly! Of course, the Albanese government is getting on with the job of delivering for our regions. We look forward to the opportunity to talk more about this at the News Corp Bush Summit that's happening across the country. I know that the Prime Minister will be at the one in Tamworth and I know that the other Minister King will be at one in Perth. We have other ministers going to those bush summits, and that's good to see. I know that other members will be engaging with that. These are great opportunities across Wodonga, Hobart, Perth, Rockhampton and Port Lincoln—I think. But we have a really good story to tell at all of those: a new approach to regional development is being forged by this government. Despite what those opposite keep saying continually, the reality is that those opposite could not have cared less about regional Australia and about developing a fair and equitable approach to all of our regions—not just to some of our regions. Many of those who I meet in regional Australia tell me that they were fed up with the mess that was left by the previous government when it came to funding, particularly of grants programs. There are those things which we've had to clean up, like the Community Development Grants. This was a grants program where no community organisations could actually apply, while those opposite kept topping it up as a slush fund for their own preferred commitments. And there was the Building Better Regions Fund, which the Audit Office found favoured National Party electorates and that decisions were made on rules that applicants didn't know about. Our approach is different. We're investing all the way across—every single one of the ministers on this front bench has responsibility for regional Australia. When it comes to regional health, we've got the Minister for Health investing in our regions, particularly through the bulk-billing incentive—tripling that—and making sure that we get bulk-billing moving again in our regions. We're making medicines cheaper and investing in rural pharmacies. And this goes through to the education portfolio, where we're establishing new university study hubs in our regions— Opposition member s interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left! Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR gaps in access to campuses in universities across our regions. Of course, those regional study hubs are in addition to those that are already there. And through our Powering the Regions Fund, we're investing in the transformation of our regional economies and making sure that we're ready and we're available to actually take advantage of that new economy. With telecommunications, we're investing in new broadband, making sure we're investing in mobile telecommunications. I was in the member for Hunter's electorate, and we saw the cable being rolled out in the streets there. We're investing in all of the regions, far and wide. We're making sure that there's an equitable approach, unlike those opposite. (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 66 15:05 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Prominent 'yes' advocate Marcus Stewart has said of treaty negotiations, 'They could take 10 to 20 years to be negotiated.' Can the minister inform the House as to how long the government expects treaty negotiations to carry on for? The SPEAKER 53517 There are some problems with that question—the minister is not responsible for every single statement for every single person—but the end part of the question is in order. Obviously, the minister can answer that how she sees fit. 15:05 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. The question went to issues to do with an element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the position of the Australian government is that we support the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This is an idea that came from Indigenous Australians themselves, not the government. It is a generous offer to all Australians to walk together to a better future, and this year we have the chance to vote for constitutional recognition through a voice. It is something that I support. It is something the member for Berowra supports. The member for Bass, the member for Calare, the member for Curtin, the member for Wentworth and the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, support it. It is important to understand that recognition through a voice is about a better future. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice: Education 66 15:07 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Education. How will the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice ensure better and fairer education for future generations? 15:07 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the topnotch member for Tangney for his question. Uncle Harry Allie is 80 years old. He was born in Charters Towers, and in 1966 he joined the Royal Australian Air Force, the year before the referendum. Before the referendum, he wasn't counted, but he was there for Australia when it counted. He served in Malaysia. His brother served in Vietnam. He served his country for more than 23 years. A couple of months ago, Harry had a triple bypass. I saw him on the streets of Bankstown in my neck of the woods the other day, handing out for the 'yes' campaign, and I asked him why he was there. In his typical humble way, he said to me, 'For the next generation.' Fifty-six per cent of Australian kids today are assessed as being ready to start school, but only 34 per cent of Indigenous kids are. Ninety-six per cent of 10-year-olds today meet the minimum literacy and numeracy standards, but only 77 per cent of Indigenous students do. Eighty-two per cent of young Australians finish high school today, but only 57 per cent of Indigenous Australians do. Almost one in two young Australian adults have a university degree today, but only seven per cent of young Indigenous Australians do. These are the kids who are missing out. This is the next generation that Harry's talking about, and it's not just them missing out. Education doesn't just change the life of one individual. It changes families. It changes whole communities. It ricochets from one generation to the next. If your parents finish school, you're more likely to finish school. You're more likely to go to TAFE or to university. You're more likely to earn more money and pay more tax, and your children are more likely to live better lives. That's the power of education. But it hasn't reached into every corner of this country or every home. In all the time that we have all been here, this gap hasn't closed. It's barely budged. In some places, it's gotten worse, despite everything that Labor governments and coalition governments have done or have tried to do. This should tell us that, if we want things to change, then we have to do more than just change what we do; we have to change the way we do things. That's what the Voice is about. We've got nothing to fear from listening and a lot to gain: better results; a better use of taxpayer money; more Indigenous kids going to preschool, going to primary school and finishing high school; and more young Indigenous blokes going to university than to jail. That's what this is about. It's about, as my old mate Harry says, the next generation. If that's not a reason to vote yes—if they are not a reason to vote yes—then I don't know what is. Mr Albanese R36 After no questions on the economy or the cost of living from those opposite, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 67 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Climate Change 67 15:11 The 53517 SPEAKER (): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ryan proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for the Government to show global leadership and take profound action on the escalating climate crisis, including committing to no more coal and gas and an immediate end to native forest logging. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than t he number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:11 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Climate crisis: what is it about those two words that just does not compute for this government? On Monday I met with a delegation of Tiwi Islands traditional owners and lawyers from the Environmental Defenders Office. I was so impressed and moved by these remarkable people heroically trying to protect Tiwi traditional heritage and the future for all our children and grandchildren. The Tiwi Islands TOs and the EDO are fighting a David and Goliath battle to stop what can only be described as a climate bomb: the Santos Barossa gas project. Make no mistake, the Goliath in this battle is Santos and the Australian government. The Barossa project is arguably the most dire of all the murderous LNG projects in Australia, supported and indeed encouraged by this government. I describe the Barossa project as the most dire and here's why: the LNG in the Barossa gas field contains far more CO2 than is actually usable. That means millions of tons of CO2 will need to be pumped directly into the atmosphere without even being burned for energy. The Barossa gas field has been aptly described as a CO2 emissions factory with an LNG by-product. It gets worse. This destructive climate bomb project doesn't even stack up economically. The gas from Barossa will be so incredibly dirty that it will be hard to sell to other countries. For this the government is selling out our children's health and future. If that is not a definition of insanity and cruelty, I don't know what is. Even after witnessing a truly terrifying year of this government acting like the political wing of the fossil fuel industry, its support for this destructive project is next-level shocking. The sea dumping bill that passed this House last week, with only the Greens and crossbench opposing, appears designed to directly assist Santos to obtain approvals by using extremely questionable carbon capture and storage technology. The resources minister, who, as we know, receives private jet flights and other gifts from the resources lobby, has also initiated—to add insult to injury—a review into traditional owners' consultation rights after the Tiwi Islanders successfully took Santos and the regulator to court over the failure to consult with them. In Darwin, we have the Middle Arm project, which is receiving $1.5 billion in federal government funding. That's your taxpayer dollars funding a project that will make climate change worse and will, as we've heard from the delegation of NT doctors here this week, affect the health of children. I certainly don't want a cent of my tax dollars financing global warming and the development of long-term serious illness in children while apparently we can only fund a maximum of a mere $500 million a year for housing. These are baffling priorities. Labor tells us the Middle Arm project is about developing new technologies and using gas as a transition fuel—clearly, fossil fuel industry lines gaslighting Australians. FOI documents show that advice was provided to the government that the Middle Arm project was essential for unlocking the Northern Territory's gas fields, including Beetaloo, the beneficiary of bipartisan supported public funding. This is criminal behaviour from a government completely in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. It's not just the corporate donations; It's the revolving door of personnel. It's the infiltration of these corporations right into the heart of government, to their clear advantage. They have had eye-watering profits: Santos made over $3 billion of profit last year; BP made $2 billion last year; Chevron made over $12 billion; Shell made $4 billion last year; Woodside made nearly $10 billion—all profiteering off the worsening climate crisis to little advantage to Australians. They mine our resources and send most of their profits overseas. From 1987 to today, the percentage of revenue the government receives from oil and gas has fallen from 57 per cent to just seven per cent. That is slim compensation for the price we all pay for more frequent and severe bushfires and floods, which will worsen. That's lots of bad news—sorry! The good news is that we still have time to act to prevent catastrophic warming, urgently. We need to stop opening new coal and gas now. Imagine imposing a windfall tax on these companies and investing the proceeds into renewable energy, battery storage, developing green hydrogen and green steel technology and creating new export markets for Australian clean energy and manufacturing. More than anything, for any chance of a safe future, we need to stop opening new coal and gas now. 15:17 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland That was a very lacklustre effort from the Greens, to only speak for five minutes on an MPI. It demonstrates that they're just throwing their arm over, trying to wring political advantage out of climate change. The truth is that that's what they do, time and time again. The speaker could only speak for five minutes, showing their commitment to climate change. In the end, just like housing, climate change is a political issue for the Greens, where they want to wring votes out of it rather than taking concrete action. They count on people having a short memory. I'm happy to inform the previous speaker that I've got a long memory. I remember, in 2009, the Greens political party voting with Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott to sink the carbon pollution reduction scheme. They voted next to Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to sink the carbon pollution reduction scheme. We're all paying the price for that because, if that scheme had been passed, emissions between 2010 and 2020 would have been 218 million tonnes less. That's 218 million tonnes less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if they had done the right thing and voted for the carbon pollution reduction scheme rather than team up for political advantage. How can I demonstrate that it was a political move rather than some genuine deep-seated policy belief? Only two years later, they voted for the emissions trading scheme, which was browner than the carbon pollution reduction scheme. It had more assistance for the steel industry, it had more assistance for the coal sector, and it locked in lower targets. Before the election, to keep climate change as an issue, to win the seat of Melbourne, they sank the CPRS by voting with their mates Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce. After the election, they voted for a browner emissions trading scheme and had the planet pay the price by letting 218 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They genuinely have the blood of the planet on their hands right now. Now they're trying to wring political advantage out of this. It's all about posturing, from a party that would rather have a fight on climate change than solve it, just like they're demonstrating on the housing policy. Maybe they've written an article about it in the Jacobin magazine that I haven't read yet! This is all about winning seats in the inner city, keeping these issues alive, rather than trying to find a solution. If they were trying to find a solution, they'd actually work with us. I'm proud of our legacy and our commitment on climate change. I'm proud of what we've done, as the only party of government to have actually passed legislation on climate change. The Labor Party is the only party that has done that. We've legislated net zero emissions by 2050. We've legislated a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. We are one of only 33 nations in the world that have legislated those targets, demonstrating our deep commitment to these issues. We'll achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. And we're implementing the safeguard mechanism, which will cut 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to 2030. We've legislated a $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund. We've finalised the law to allow offshore wind zones. We're implementing a capacity investment scheme. We're putting emissions reduction objectives into the National Energy Objective. We've signed the Global Methane Pledge and joined the Climate Club and the Global Offshore Wind Alliance. And we've passed the electric vehicle discount. By any account, that is a huge amount of work on climate change. But it doesn't end there. We've got $1.7 billion for the energy savings program. We've established the Net Zero Economy Agency, headed by Greg Combet—the last climate change minister, before Minister Bowen, to get climate change legislation through this parliament. We've funded and are developing the Guarantee of Origin scheme. We've budgeted $2 billion for the Hydrogen Headstart program, starting in my home region of the mighty Hunter. And we've lodged our bid to host COP31, co-hosted with the Pacific. That's concrete action to protect our environment, fight climate change and play our part in global efforts. It stands in stark contrast to the Greens' posturing on this issue. And our action doesn't stop at our border. We've been a really constructive participant in international debate. We've joined the Pacific family in declaring that the Pacific is facing a climate emergency. We've increased official development assistance by $1.7 billion, with a climate focus—so much so that our new international development policy that Senator Wong and I released yesterday has a requirement that 80 per cent of all foreign aid programs have a climate objective, something that Senator Canavan labelled a 'Western eccentricity'. This is the same senator those opposite voted with to sink the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009. We're providing $2 billion in climate finance out to 2025, and that includes $700 million for the Pacific. We're establishing the new Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership. And we've established the $20 million climate and infrastructure partnership with Indonesia. This is significant action to help fight climate change globally. We're also committed to amplifying the voice of the Pacific in these debates, because the Pacific is the region that is most impacted by climate change. Not only should we be taking action to fight climate change; we should also be amplifying their voice and shining a spotlight on their experiences. That's why I was proud, when I represented Australia at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last year, to support the efforts of Pacific countries to get the international laws of the sea changed so that when, unfortunately, islands do disappear due to climate change—some of that will occur, very unfortunately—they preserve their exclusive economic zones so that they don't lose the fishing rights that go with their exclusive economic zone. That's practical action to help with climate change adaptation. I was also proud, when I represented Australia at the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting, to announce that Australia had changed our position and was supporting Vanuatu's efforts to get an opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice—concrete policy to amplify the voice of the Pacific. Another one was at the UN Climate Conference, where I represented Prime Minister Albanese for the leaders day, when Australia actively and aggressively intervened in the negotiations to ensure that loss and damage was put on the agenda for that COP, and we played our part in ensuring that was part of the outcome. At the same time, think tanks aligned with the Greens were briefing journalists that Australia was blocking action on loss and damage. They were deceiving journalists about what Australia was doing; whereas we were proudly fighting for the Pacific, to make sure that loss and damage was on the agenda. The truth is, when it comes to concrete action on climate change, there's only one party that can be trusted because there's only one party that's delivered: the Labor Party. The Labor Party has delivered strong action on climate change. We don't try and divide the community; we try to take the whole of Australia with us. While those Greens are content to vote down climate action, to win petty political advantage, demonstrating their mendacity, we engage in a conversation, in all parts of Australia, to persuade people. That's not just in the inner city, as important as that is; it's when we're in the Hunter region, where the Deputy Speaker, the member for Paterson and the member for Hunter and I engage in conversations about how we grow our economy by investing in jobs for the future through renewable energy and talking to, say, coalminers about what's going on. It's about having honest conversations about what is going on in the world, instead of belittling them, insulting them and cheering when their jobs are lost. That's the truth. It's very easy to lecture from certain parts of this country; whereas the Australian Labor Party is committed to taking the whole of the nation on this journey. I'm very happy to go for my full 10 minutes, on this MPI, because it's got so much to talk about. We're the only party that's passed climate laws twice on this issue; whereas for ever and ever, the history of the Greens political party will be characterised by one action: voting with Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to destroy the climate by voting down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On that day, they demonstrated their true colours. They were more interested in winning Senate seats and the seat of Melbourne than fighting climate change. In the end, all they are is a bunch of massive hypocrites. 15:27 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I want to thank the minister for what was perhaps the biggest heap of garbage I have ever heard in this place. For a bit of context, I think I was 12 years old when the CPRS happened in this country, and the government conveniently forgets that, yes, the ETS went through. We got a price on carbon. We got the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. We got the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We got more action on climate, in that short period of the Gillard government, than we have ever seen from you guys since. I also want to say that we on the crossbench share our speaking spots. That is why the member for Ryan only spoke for five minutes. So thank you for your grandstanding there. The science is clear. We are in a climate emergency. We are facing harsher and more frequent fires, floods, heatwaves and droughts. It threatens the safety of people, our health, water, the ability to grow food and the air we breathe. The stakes could not be higher. A climate emergency requires an emergency response. It means putting the climate crisis at the centre of all policy and planning decisions and mobilising the whole of government to protect Australia's people and ecology. The biggest cause of global heating is the mining, transporting and burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil and gas. In an emergency, the very first action we have to take is to immediately remove whatever is causing the damage. That means keeping all untapped coal, oil and gas fields in the ground. This is not some far-off distant threat. We are already experiencing a shift in climate, with one-in-100-year bushfires and floods every few years. Already, the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences has calculated that each Australian farmer has lost at least $29,200 in average reduced income per year because of climate change. Significant bushfires in Tasmania and New South Wales in 2013 and the Black Summer bushfires in 2019 to 2020 show that an El Nino weather event is no longer needed to produce a bad fire season. Even a neutral phase can now produce periods of extreme and catastrophic fire danger. As the International Energy Agency has made clear, not one new coal or gas project can proceed if we are to stay below 1.5 degrees. To meet net zero by 2050, not a single piece of new fossil fuel infrastructure can be built: no more coal; no more gas. It is simply that straightforward. So what is the Australian government doing to address such an emergency? This is a government that, just last week, passed a sea-dumping bill which paves the way for fossil fuel giants to expand their Australian gas projects. Mr Repacholi 298840 Hear, hear! Mr BATES 300246 Yeah, thanks for that one. The Labor, Liberal and National parties are captured by the donations and influence of coal, oil and gas companies, with tens of millions of dollars donated to them in the past decade alone. We don't need more bandaid solutions from this government; we need strong action. If we continue to mine and burn coal, oil and gas, we will put more than a million Australian jobs in tourism and farming at risk. Food, insurance and health costs will continue to go up. We'll keep paying more for energy and risk further economic loss across multiple industries. The government needs to listen to the scientists, to the communities who have suffered from bushfires and floods and to our Pacific neighbours, all of whom are calling for greater climate action. Mr Repacholi 298840 That's what Pat was talking about, wasn't it? Mr BATES 300246 Yes, and you're not doing anything to address it, so I'm sure they'll thank you in 30 years when their nations are underwater. Drastically cutting emissions is possible with the technology we have today. We have the distinct advantage in Australia of abundant renewable energy resources. We should look to become a renewable energy superpower in this region, and we can develop new export and manufacturing industries, such as green hydrogen. But what we urgently require is action. The government must show global leadership and take profound action on the escalating climate crisis. It is vital that we commit to no new coal and gas, end native forest logging, shift electricity generation to renewables and storage, and increase electricity production to allow the direct and indirect electrification of all energy used by households, businesses and the transport industry. I am sick and tired of being gaslit by this government into thinking they are taking bold and courageous steps to address climate change. In reality, they will not do what the science tells us is needed and they will not stop all new fossil fuel projects. 15:31 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Before the member for Shortland leaves the chamber, I just want to say that you were spot on in your description of the hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the fact that we need to be taking the nation with us. That is exactly what we're doing, particularly when it comes to the Pacific. We have a huge responsibility there, and we are living up to those responsibilities. I'm immensely proud to be part of a Labor government that is taking climate action incredibly seriously. We are delivering the big, visionary and practical reforms that will take the nation with us, such as the safeguard mechanism reforms. This mechanism was put in place by the previous Liberal government—those opposite. It was supposed to 'safeguard' against emissions increases from Australia's biggest emitters, but, after a decade of denial and delay, those emissions had in fact increased significantly and were on track to overtake electricity as Australia's largest source of emissions. In a decarbonising global economy, that's not just bad for our climate but bad for jobs and investment in our nation. That's why groups such as the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group recommended changes to the safeguard mechanism before the last election. The government adopted those recommendations and received a mandate for our Powering Australia policy, including reforms to the safeguard mechanism, at the election, and here we are on the government benches. We are reducing emissions from our top emitters. It is crucial to reaching Australia's updated emissions reduction targets, which we legislated, of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. More than 70 per cent of safeguard facilities and 80 per cent of safeguard emissions are already covered by the 2050 net zero target, which these reforms will help to achieve. As part of the Powering Australia plan, and funded in the last budget, the government is investing in the decarbonisation of existing industries and creation of new clean energy industries through the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund. At least $600 million of this will assist safeguard facilities in reducing their emissions through energy efficiency upgrades, shifts to lower carbon processes or fuel switching to electrification, hydrogen and biofuels. As the member for Hunter has been very wisely interjecting, this is important for our workers—for Australians who are supporting their families—as we go through this transformation. As a party of government that is what we're committed to doing: taking the nation with us. Our government is showing a sense of purpose and urgency in defending the natural environment that all Australians cherish. That's why I welcome the draft decision from UNESCO last month not to list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. Does that mean that the reef is healthy? No, of course it doesn't. But it means that they identify that there is a serious government running Australia that has a plan for reef health. There are a number of ways that both our government and the Palaszczuk government are working to act on climate change and to protect the reef. The rest of the world has taken notice of that. As sources close to UNESCO recently told the French newspaper Le Monde, on climate change and the environment: …the approach (from the Australian government) has changed completely. Between the new government and the old one, it's a bit like night and day. Like night and day. The Australian government is back in international climate fora and showing the global leadership that this motion calls for. The Australian government has invested a record $1.2 billion in the reef and we've invested $150 million to improve water quality through projects such as revegetation, grazing management and engineering work, like gully stabilisation. In the time remaining I'll talk briefly of action in my electorate. Through this government we are revitalising our urban rivers and we're also getting rid of the invasive gamba grass which is a threat to our natural environment in the Top End and to places like the world-renowned Kakadu National Park. I'm proud to be part of a Labor federal government that is taking serious action on climate change, but we must take the nation with us. 15:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Australia faces a crossroads when it comes to the escalating climate crisis. We know what this crisis looks like because Australians have already experienced it: drought so devastating that our hardened farmers are suiciding; floods so savage and rapid that people became trapped in the dark of night in their houses with only inches of air space below their ceiling, between life and death; and a world watching on in stunned horror at the extent and severity of our Black Summer bushfires. The UN Secretary General recently stated—and you can't say it any more clearly—that: … the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived. Leaders must lead. No more hesitancy, no more excuses. Today, Ross Gittins said in an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald: … I fear they lack … the "ticker" to make the tough decisions. The question for the leaders of this country, for our government, is simply this: do you have the courage to lead on climate action and the energy transition that is required for a viable future?—not for us, because we won't be here, but for our children and future generations. It is not about us. Currently we have what, at very best, can be described as modest targets in action on climate change, targets and policy that address only domestic and scope 1 emissions—hardly anything. I would add that it increasingly appears that the Labor government is pushing forward with the expansion of gas exportation on a massive scale: Beetaloo, Scarborough, Browse, Barossa and Liverpool Plains. I believe they are doing so in a way that is not open or transparent with the Australian people. It is devastating. Last week in the media I called the government's proposed Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 a colossal attempt at greenwashing. But let's drill down on this a little bit further. We have seen $1.5 billion of investment going to the Middle Arm Hub. The Middle Arm Hub will, in practice, amongst other things, act as a massive methane gas export hub. However, the government continues—as it has right from the start—to describe it as a 'renewable energy hub'. This is greenwashing on a colossal scale. Just be open and honest, please. Just last week the environment minister brought a bill to the House that will allow the import and export of carbon dioxide for carbon capture and storage—the sea dumping bill. This bill will enable the injection and sequestration of CO2 under the seabed. This is despite the experience of Norway and, with the Gorgon gas mine, Australia, which shows that this is failed technology and unreliable. The sea dumping bill was portrayed as a move to protect the marine environment. In reality, what the bill will do is enable and give the green light to further carbon capture and storage projects, which will in turn allow the government to approve new massive gas export projects in the future. Again, it is greenwashing on a colossal scale. The Australian people deserve a whole lot better. Already, huge swathes of our ocean floors have been opened up by the Minister for Resources for exploration for carbon capture and storage suitability. All the pieces of the chessboard are being slowly, methodically and surreptitiously moved into place, and the aim appears to be the expansion of gas exportation. Additionally, today the Clean Air Task Force's report on methane was released. It revealed that Australia is lagging far behind many other countries in measuring, managing and reporting on methane leaks and intentional venting that occur in the gas industry across the country, and there are still over $11 billion in ongoing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. But Australians are not dumb. They see through the greenwashing. This week 80 doctors, other health professionals and parents from the Northern Territory and around the country came to parliament to express their distress at the progress of the Middle Arm hub and the Beetaloo basin. The question they are asking is: why isn't the government listening to science like it said it would do? Yesterday, I was honoured to meet a delegation from the Tiwi Islands. They described to me the lack of respect and culturally inappropriate consultation still being done by Santos with their elders and the community regarding the Barossa gas mine. They also expressed their fear that the need for fossil fuel companies to consult with First Nations people on future projects will be watered down to favour large fossil fuel companies. The question they asked was: if this government is serious about a voice for our First Nations people, how could the requirements for companies to consult— (Time expired) 15:42 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I'd like to thank the member for Ryan for raising this significant matter of public importance. The Albanese government recognises that we are facing a climate crisis, and the need for urgent action after nine years of denial and delay by the coalition is now. That's why we are acting right now to deliver on our road map to address this crisis, driving investment in cleaner, cheaper energy and, in the process, becoming a renewable energy superpower. We are committed to charting our path to net zero by 2050, nurturing our environment and reaping the rewards that come from embracing renewable energy. That means new economic opportunities, making more things in Australia and creating more rewarding jobs for people across the nation. In tackling the crisis, we also understand that a cleaner net zero emissions future will be significant and that it will bring health and wellbeing benefits. We recognise we must do everything we can to reduce the frequency and intensity of bushfires, floods and heatwaves. These worsening disasters impact not only our communities but our Australian landscape, and they put more pressure on our endangered wildlife. While the Albanese government has set in place a mechanisms to address the climate crisis with purpose and urgency, we must also ensure a smooth transition to renewables and away from gas and coal. I understand the passion of those on the crossbench who want to achieve net zero emissions right now, but in government we need to set targets that are ambitious and that are also doable. One of the first steps our government took when elected last year was enshrining in law our emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 along with net zero emissions by 2050. We are 100 per cent committed to achieving these targets. To achieve these legislated emissions reduction targets, we've committed to a national renewable electricity target of 82 per cent by 2030. This ties in closely with our Rewiring the Nation reform, which is all about ensuring a national power grid has the capacity to handle the transition to renewable energy sources. We passed the safeguard mechanism, an important reform which will see Australia's biggest emitters make a contribution to our emissions reduction target and put the country on the path to net zero. And we have removed the tariffs on electric vehicles to make them more affordable. These reforms have been carefully calibrated to strike the right balance. They allow for increases in production and critically ensure that businesses which operate in hard-to-abate sectors can access high-integrity offsets to help meet their emissions reduction requirements. Further to these reforms, renewables and low emissions technologies will be the priority area for our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. This includes more opportunities to build wind turbines, produce batteries and solar panels, develop new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions, modernise hydrogen power and develop innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. This is important work that has been recognised internationally by UNESCO, who last week released a draft decision to not list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. This draft decision cites significant progress being made on issues like climate change, water quality and sustainable fishing—all putting the reef on a stronger and more sustainable path. Of course, this decision doesn't mean the reef is in the clear. If we don't deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement, every coral reef in the world is vulnerable. But this draft decision demonstrates that our policies are making a real difference. After ten years of denial and delay, Australia is back at the table with our 2030 target, now in line with countries like Canada and Japan. This is climate leadership under the Albanese government. 15:46 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Australians are already experiencing the impacts of climate change on our health and on our wellbeing. In just over a century, our climate has already warmed by over a degree Celsius. Higher temperatures have increased the frequency of extreme weather events—heatwaves, bushfires, floods and droughts. Catastrophic events such as the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires and the 2022 eastern Australia floods demonstrate the growing toll that climate change is having and will continue to have on people's health and lives. Increasing temperatures are making more parts of the world favourable to the spread of food, water and vector borne diseases. Global warming also threatens food and water security. Climate change affects health outcomes through its effects on mental health, productivity and workforce conditions, housing, infrastructure and population displacement. Acutely, heatwaves pose a greater threat to life than any other natural hazard, including bushfires and floods. Most at risk of dying during extreme heat are the elderly, the disabled and those from a lower socioeconomic background. Heat stress exacerbates underlying conditions like diabetes and kidney and heart disease. Research from the ANU suggests that as many as two per cent of deaths in this country are heat related. With hot periods and bushfire seasons starting earlier and lasting longer, that figure will only increase. We're undercounting those deaths because we don't capture them in the homeless, and we don't count deaths attributable to heat stroke that are heart disease related or stroke related. Most heat related deaths occur in older houses. Think about poorly designed public housing or rental homes and what hot boxes they can become. Air pollution is already the single largest environmental risk to public health. Long-term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart disease, asthma and lung cancer. It reduces life expectancy. Air quality in this country is worse in cities affected by traffic pollution, mining and industrial activity. Darwin, we heard from the doctors who came to visit us in this place yesterday, has the worst air quality in Australia. Because poorer people live in places where housing is cheaper—next to main roads and factories—their disease burden from air pollution is twice as bad as that of people who are less socially disadvantaged. Theoretically, the Australian government has committed to the development of Australia's first National Health and Climate Strategy, which is aimed at improving our healthcare system's ability to cope with the impact of extreme weather events. It's also committed to reducing the healthcare system's emissions, which currently make up about seven per cent of our national emissions. But at the same time that the government has made this commitment, it has perversely increased our exposure to climate change by allowing ongoing logging of our native forests and by actively subsidising massive new coal and gas projects which will blow any attempt at emissions reduction or mitigation out of the water. Australian healthcare systems are unprepared to deal with extreme weather events. Last week Australian medical colleges representing more than 100,000 doctors, physicians and medical experts released a statement calling on the Albanese government to urgently ensure that the National Health and Climate Strategy is fully funded and that it has a national cabinet sign-off to enable urgent, coordinated and effective implementation. The strategy also has to be guided by First Nations knowledge and leadership across all aspects, including the stopping of new projects which will affect First Nations persons. I call on the government to act on climate and health in the light of and with respect to the expert guidance provided by our scientists and by our doctors. I call on the government to act with integrity and transparency in shepherding our critical minerals and ore deposits, and supporting their processing in Australia—not overseas. I call on the government to stop subsidising the logging of native forests, which are our very best and really our only means of effective and efficient carbon capture and storage. I ask this government to stop subsidising multinationals while they make windfall profits from our oil and gas reservoirs while polluting our air, our water and our land. 15:51 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I thank all the members who have spoken on this really important matter: acting on climate change. I thank all the members from the Albanese Labor government who have spoken and I thank all the members from the Greens and the Independents, because this is a really important topic. I do note that there were no members from the coalition who wanted to speak on this, and I absolutely understand because if I were in their position I would not be wanting to talk about my record on this policy. After a decade of inaction, I would be avoiding talking about climate change for as long as possible. I welcome this discussion because it is a reminder for us all of why we are in this place. Like many of the speakers before me, I care deeply about our environment, I care deeply about addressing climate change, I care deeply about making our world more sustainable and I care deeply about moving towards a low-carbon future. We've all got a purpose in this place. We are all here for a reason. For me, that purpose and reason is climate. Over the last decade, my frustration grew and grew because of the inaction I saw from those opposite. The coalition did nothing to address climate change. They refused to acknowledge that it was an issue. But I want to do everything that I can as part of the Albanese Labor government to make sure that we are protecting the environment and addressing climate change. I want to be able to say to my son and his generation, and future generations to come, that this is a government that takes acting on climate change and protecting our environment seriously. One of the first acts that we did as a government was legislate to reduce our emissions target by 43 per cent by 2030, and to a net zero emissions target by 2050. That's how seriously we take climate change: it's one of the first bills we passed when we came into parliament. But we are not just about setting targets; we are about taking action. That's the difference between this government and the Greens and the Independents. We are about governing and taking action, not protesting and virtue-signalling. We have introduced key policies that will help us reduce emissions and help us make that target a reality. We have reformed the safeguard mechanism, a measure that will reduce emissions from the heaviest emitters while allowing businesses to remain competitive as the world decarbonises. I'm glad to see that those on the crossbench did, in the end, support the safeguard mechanism. We have set a target to reach 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. But, again, this is a government that is not just about setting targets but is about taking action. We have doubled the number of approved renewable energy projects. A record number of projects are in the pipeline to deliver cheaper, cleaner and greener energy for Australian households. We have set up the National Reconstruction Fund, which will fund projects that will help decarbonise our economy. We have set a goal of protecting at least 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. Again, this is a government taking action, not just setting targets. Under Labor, Australia's environmental policies have fundamentally changed for the better, and there is no better example of that than the Great Barrier Reef. UNESCO says that Labor's approach compared to the former coalition government is 'like night and day'. Just over a year ago, the reef was on the verge of being listed as 'in danger' because of the denial and inaction on climate change and the environment by those opposite when they were in government. Now, UNESCO has released a draft decision to not list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. I urge the Greens and Independents to take note and act because we won't reduce emissions on the back of a wishful hope. We won't protect our environment with a press conference. We won't be able to create a new, clean renewable energy industry with a protest rally. For the sake of future generations, I urge everyone in this place to get behind the actions of the Albanese Labor government to address climate change, because you cannot govern with good intentions and confected outrage. You govern by working with everyone, including industry, community groups and environmental groups, because that's how you deliver real and lasting reform. 15:56 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The science is absolutely clear on climate change and I think members of the Labor Party know it. I think you probably do know that the International Energy Agency is right when it says that, if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, then we cannot open a single new coal and gas project. I think you genuinely know that, but you don't care. That does seem to be the conclusion that any reasonable person should reach. The consequences have caused heatwaves, bushfires, floods, deaths, the destruction of our ecosystem, our dying planet—you do not care. That is the only reason that I can come up with to justify why you can look at the science, understand what you are doing and do it anyway. I would argue it is criminal behaviour by the government to approve coal and gas mines when you know the impact it's having on the earth. You keep doing it. You know the deaths it's going to cause and you know the destruction that it's going to cause, and you do it anyway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Griffith, I'm taking a point of order. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 The question is why does the Labor government— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Griffith! I'm taking a point of order. Please. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Perhaps it might be nice if the new member, who doesn't read the standing orders, refers his remarks through the chair and actually does his job properly, instead of carrying on. You should direct your remarks through the chair. When you say 'you', you're reflecting on— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for McEwen, I'll explain. The standing order requires you to direct your remarks to me, to depersonalise the level of debate, which is escalating somewhat. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Indeed. Thanks, Deputy Speaker, and of course it's escalating. It's interesting to me that the members opposite—the government over there—care more about that sort of decorum than the death and destruction their policies are causing. The question is why the Labor government is acting in a way that financially benefits oil and gas corporations. We have the coalition over here saying I know where I live—let's sum this up. We've got both sides of parliament who act in the interests of fossil fuel corporations regardless of the consequences. It's not a surprise that the coalition appointed Grant King, previous executive of Origin, a massive gas corporation, as the head of the Climate Change Authority and that the Labor Party government keeps him there. Woodside, of course, is one of the large gas corporations that are benefiting from government policy. We have a strong history of that, and we'll speak about the coalition for a second, lest we forget that it was the Howard government that used ASIS to spy on the Timor-Leste government when they were negotiating with the Labor government, ultimately to the benefit of Woodside. Alexander Downer, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, went on to work for Woodside after using the Australian security apparatus to spy on behalf of Woodside, essentially, and to financially benefit them. Then Alexander Downer went to work for them. We also have the Labor Party. I thought I would quote, by the way, to give you an idea of why your party is so deeply corrupted and broken and utterly incapable of tackling climate change. It's a quote from— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Griffith, please take your seat. Mr Rob M3E Show some respect in the House, you fool. That comment was deeply offensive, and he should withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me. It is offensive, but I don't want you calling names across the chamber either. Withdraw that, and then I'll deal— Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I withdraw that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Griffith, you are casting aspersions on members in this House. I would tread a little bit more carefully if I were you. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 I will quote directly from Lindy Edwards's Corporate Power in Australia book— Ms Scrymgour F2S A point of order. I think that the member should withdraw— Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Absolutely not. Ms Scrymgour F2S his comments about criminal behaviour and death in terms of members on this side of the House. He should be made to withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member has been asked to withdraw. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Sorry, Deputy Speaker; I won't withdraw. I'm happy to provide the evidence as to why I think those comments stand. The DEP UTY SPEAKER: Minister, I give you the call. Ms Madeleine King 102376 Deputy Speaker, you will note the member is disrespecting your orders and defying the House, so I ask that you bring him back to order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Indeed. It is quite a serious matter. I am asking you to give it a little bit of thought, Member for Griffith. It would assist the House if you would withdraw. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Deputy Speaker, I won't withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Then you need to sit down. 16:00 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence It's been quite some time since my last MPI—since 15 June, in fact. I've been let off the leash, so to speak, but that is probably where the metaphor ends. Today the member for Ryan has afforded not only me but a handful of lucky members on the side of the chamber the opportunity to speak to— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sorry, Member for Spence. I'm taking a point of order from the member for Monash. Mr Br MT4 It pains me to say this, but under standing orders, if a member refuses to withdraw after being directed by the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker, they should be named. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I will be taking it up with the Speaker later. This is a matter I will deal with personally later on. I am sure we will have another discussion about it, Member for Griffith. Mr BURNELL 300129 This MPI gives us the opportunity to speak to the Albanese Labor government's record on climate and our environment in a holistic sense. I can understand the tone of the member for Ryan's motion; I truly can. The impatience I see etched on every word is completely understandable. The member for Ryan, like myself, has only just been elected to this place for the very first time during this 47th Parliament, and we share some things in common. Prior to our election to this place, on the outside of the building, as mere concerned citizens, the member for Ryan and I have been waiting nine long years for a government that will take climate seriously, a government that will stand up for Australia's beautiful natural environment and its flora and fauna, and a government that will do its part on the world stage. This is something I know the member believes earnestly. The member for Ryan and the Greens want an earnest commitment to act. How could they not? After nine years of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, the dial on progress has swung so wildly in the opposite direction that I can understand why they are crying out for drastic improvements on the course our nation is travelling. Yet the member discounts quite a large number of moves in the right direction made by the Albanese Labor government since Labor was given the privilege of governing this great nation by its people a little over a year ago. I will level with the member for Ryan: as a South Australian I am truly horrified, but at the same time I am seldom surprised that over nine years the Liberal and National parties at all levels, along the Murray-Darling Basin, for the vast majority of that period of time—it's not just coincidence now that the Basin Plan has ended up being an uphill battle to deliver. I do apologise for the elevation of my tone, but the Murray is the lifeblood of South Australia. It's why I understand the frustration shown by the member for Ryan and her colleagues. I am entirely certain they are aware of the environmental and climate record of the opposition. I am sure they are entirely aware of the many attempts at convincing the domestic audience that they were fulfilling Australia's climate and environmental obligations on the world stage. But I reckon we all know better. I know that the Greens remember the Leader of the Opposition joking about water lapping at the doors of our friends in the Pacific islands. It even brought about a very rare smile from the leader. In contrast, one of the first acts of this Prime Minister was updating our nationally determined contribution under the Paris agreement. The contrast is a stark one, but I know the member for Ryan and her comrades are abundantly aware of the history, the facts, the policies and the differences there too. They just want to see those in power do better. I'm sure this isn't just an effort to put up a speech or two on social media in the hope of gaining a few more subscribers or members for their branches. I'm sure Greens members in this place discussed the improvement required by the opposition when they were sitting together in the chamber during divisions on Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund Bill or even the Nature Repair Market Bill, for that matter. I'm proud to be part of a government that is bringing Australia back in line with where it should be on climate, without the rude shock that would cripple the industry—industries such as manufacturing—before such time as our advanced manufacturing and renewables sector can stand on its own two feet again, after being kneecapped by the opposition over nine whole years in government. 16:06 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein The Goldstein community made it crystal clear at the last election that they wanted faster and more decisive action on climate change. I'm not expecting everything all at once, and nor are they, but they have a right to expect more than we've seen from this government. Despite their rhetoric, their repeated record in this place speaks for itself. Labor did legislate a reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030, but that's still less than experts state is needed if we're to have any hope of getting to net zero by mid-century. An amendment that I moved explicitly made that target a floor, not a ceiling, but the climate change minister himself admits it will be a challenge to meet even the moderate target his government has set. Just this week, the Reserve Bank's Carl Schwartz stated that, for clean energy alone to get to net zero by 2050, annual investment would have to be running at three times the current pace by 2030—three times! He didn't disaggregate the figure for Australia, but he did say that financing for sustainable activities would need to increase substantially if we're to decarbonise and meet net zero goals. This is a clear warning. As I've said before, there is less than meets the eye in the specific actions the government has taken since the election. There are real questions, for example, about the effectiveness and accountability of the safeguard mechanism. Will it really require the nation's 200 or so biggest polluters to change their carbon-heavy habits, or will it enable them to use suspect carbon credits to try to account their way to zero? The challenge of climate change is not an accounting exercise. It requires fundamental and rapid changes in the way we act, as individuals, as families, as communities, as companies and as leaders in this place. The same goes for the nature repair market legislation, which runs the risk of not being a genuine market, nor being particularly helpful for nature. It is barely a month since International Energy Agency reiterated its assessment that we must stop the exploitation and development of new oil and gas resources if we are to have a hope of achieving net zero by 2050. And what have we seen since then? The government pushed its sea-dumping legislation through the House, with its cute but misleading subtitle 'Using new technologies to fight climate change'. The technology it depends on—carbon capture and storage—is not new, and, despite the investment of billions of taxpayer dollars here and across the world, it has never lived up to the overheated claims of its proponents. Let's be blunt: the sea-dumping legislation does not fight climate change. It's an excuse for supporting and underwriting the massive expansion of dirty gas developments in the Northern Territory and off the coast of northern Australia. The plans to extract gas from the Beetaloo basin would increase Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 22 per cent. How does that sit with the challenge of meeting even the government's less-than-adequate 43 per cent target by 2030? Not very well. Then there are the Santos plans to exploit the undersea Barossa field, which would yield gas with a very high CO2 content. Neither Barossa nor Beetaloo would be viable unless the so-called sustainable development precinct, a name which represents gaslighting in the extreme, at Middle Arm in Darwin goes ahead. Middle Arm's relationship to sustainability is distant at best. In reality, it would be a gas and petrochemical hub. A recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found: The promises of thriving businesses, job opportunities and substantial infrastructure investment are unlikely to be realized — because the projected revenue and profits would be insufficient to cover its social and physical infrastructure needs. In addition, there are significant health concerns for the people of Darwin, with health professionals concerned about exposure to nitrogen and sulphur oxides, particulate matter and ozone as a result of gas processing, leading to the heightened risk of lung and heart disease—and so it goes on. Intentions are one thing; actions are another. If the federal government is serious about climate change, it should withdraw federal funding for this project. Our children's health, safety and prosperity is at stake. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion is now concluded. BILLS 77 BILLS Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023 77

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 77 Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 77

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

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the following amendment was moved:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including that:

(1) more than 3 million Australians have a HECS debt or other type of student debt under the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) scheme which increased by a massive 7.1 per cent on 1 June 2023, the highest indexation rate in more than 30 years, as a result of the Government's cost of living crisis and sky-high inflation rate;

(2) by proposing to abolish the Coalition's 50 per cent pass rule, the Government has failed to protect students, at high risk of not completing their course, from accumulating debilitating HECS debts and suffering acute financial hardship;

(3) the Government's reliance on a 'survey' of 27 universities to justify the abolition of the 50 per cent pass rule indicates that the Government has not been able to access the relevant data as to how many students are impacted by this measure, reflecting a poor adherence to evidence-based policy;

(4) in proposing to uncap Commonwealth supported places (CSPs) available to Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas which extends the Coalition's measure to uncap CSPs for Indigenous students living in regional and remote Australia, the Government has not explained how it will hold universities to account for poor completion rates by Indigenous students which currently sees only 26 per cent of Indigenous students complete their undergraduate degree within four years, with 37 per cent of students dropping out during that period;

(5) by reason that the Government is proposing to release a consultation paper on its proposed support-for-students policy, it is clear that the Government has not done its homework on this policy nor determined the basis on which universities would be fined as proposed by the bill;

(6) the bill fails to impose on universities a strong accountability and transparency framework including fair and just access to student refunds and the requirement that universities must publish all relevant course information including out-of-pocket costs, total costs, completion rates, modes of course delivery, and employment outcomes;

(7) the Government needs to be transparent with taxpayers regarding how much its changes to the higher education system will cost and how it will pay for them; and

(8) given its deficiencies, the bill should be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry".

16:11 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 An amendment was moved, and I'm seeking a seconder for that amendment. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Coulton HWN I second the amendment moved by the member for Barker and reserve my right to speak. 16:12 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Today I stand before you to express my support for the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. This is a milestone piece of legislation that reflects our commitment to fostering equitable opportunities. The Albanese Labor government will deliver on its promise of providing steadfast support to all students pursuing higher education and contributing to closing the gap with the most disadvantaged. One of the reasons I came to Australia in the first place, and one of the reasons so many come to our country, is academic excellence. I came to Australia to give my children a good education. So many of my constituents in Tangney came here pursuing the opportunity to go to university. Recently I stood before you to share a story of success, the story of a primary school in Tangney, Oberthur Primary School. Through one of two language immersion programs in Western Australia, it has achieved outstanding results in the academic performance of its students. Not only do we have excellent primary and secondary education in the electorate of Tangney; our electorate is also home to Murdoch University, an institution that is truly committed to bridging the gap and addressing the systemic inequalities with our Indigenous brothers and sisters. At its core, this bill addresses two critical recommendations from the Australian UniversitiesAccord interim report. The first recommendation strikes down the punitive 50 per cent pass rule, a measure that has inadvertently hindered the progress of countless students striving for academic excellence. This rule, introduced by the coalition in 2022, was aimed at discouraging students from pursuing courses that they were allegedly not academically suited for. But they failed to account for so many reasons why a student may be facing performance issues. It's impact proved unduly harsh; it disproportionately affected students from our First Nations, from low socio-economic backgrounds and those facing educational disadvantages. We should never try to discourage our youth from pursuing their dreams—never! Never should we tell them they're not suited for it. We recognise that success isn't only measured by grades but also by the determination and resilience displayed in the face of challenges. By eliminating this rule, we affirm our belief in a student's potential to overcome obstacles and realise their aspirations. We put our faith and confidence in them, and we sent a clear message that we will support them. Having problems in achieving academic results can be the result of many factors: living in a household facing job insecurity, precarious housing arrangements, coming from a marginalised neighbourhood or other personal circumstances can wreak havoc on a student's ability to focus on their courses. I have lived this. During the most challenging time of my life—during my daughter's battle with cancer—my youngest son struggled with his studies, worried about the wellbeing of our family. This shows that a government has a duty to show compassion for our people. We don't know the challenges they are facing. To do this, we are also introducing a new policy requirement, mandating higher education providers to outline their commitment to supporting students in their journey to success. This proactive approach ensures that every student, regardless of background, receives the necessary assistance to try, both academically and personally. Moreover, our dedication to equal opportunity is showcased through the second part of this amendment, which extends demand driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students. By broadening the eligibility criteria for Commonwealth supported places we pave the way for more Indigenous people to access higher education, including those living in metropolitan areas. This is a pivotal step towards closing the gap and fostering a brighter future for Indigenous communities. These measures we're taking are not isolated changes; they stem from a comprehensive set of recommendations outlined by the Australian University Accord interim report. Other policies include: creating more study hubs in the regions and also in the suburbs; extending the higher education continuity guarantee in 2024 and 2025; and working with states and territories to improve university governance. We believe that education should be an avenue of empowerment, going beyond geographical boundaries and socio-economic barriers. Our commitment to doubling the number of Indigenous students in university within a decade is not just a promise, it's a declaration of intent to bridge the gap and to uplift our First Nations people through the power of education. As a member of this parliament, I recognise the responsibility we hold in shaping the destiny of our nation. I, myself, emerged from a disadvantaged background, aware of the immense hurdles that can obstruct one's educational journey. It is our duty to ensure that these obstacles do not define a person's potential but instead to help them overcome them, to walk with them together towards a brighter future. It is not to be overlooked that these recommendations are the result of the hard work of a panel of professionals with a combined wealth of experience in STEM, social science, business and public policy. It is a panel that is diverse in its composition. Furthermore, many of our prominent universities and higher education institutions have committed their support to the report. I know firsthand the struggle that many face on their educational journey. I understand that. Not everyone has the same privileges or support network. But that doesn't mean they lack potential. It is our duty as a compassionate society and as a responsible government to level the playing field and to extend a helping hand to those who need it most. When we change our perspective on higher education, when we see it as a place of empowerment and growth, we open the door to a future where every student, regardless of their background, can excel. By supporting this bill we are not just changing the law; we are changing people's lives. We are making a commitment to building an education system that uplifts, that encourages and that propels every student towards their dreams. By supporting this bill we send a resounding message to all Australians that, regardless of circumstances, everyone deserves a chance to thrive, to explore their passion and to contribute to the progress of our country. Our nation's strength lies in the diversity of its people, and it is our collective duty to ensure that this strength is harnessed and cherished. I encourage all my colleagues and members of this House to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. Let us pave the way for a brighter, more inclusive and equitable future for all Australians. Thank you. 16:22 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney A successful higher education system is vital to deliver the kind of forward focused economy the Australia needs to be. In my electorate of North Sydney we are fortunate to have the MacKillop Campus of the Australian Catholic University. But universities across the country ultimately play a role in driving growth in productivity and living standards and help our society evolve and mature. They do this not only by teaching young people how to think but also by driving our economy through their direct employment and contributions to GDP as the nation's leading service export in the form of international education, the research they produce and the amazing graduates they turn out into our labour market. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 is the product of the interim report of the 12-month review being undertaken by the government into Australia's higher education system, known as the Australian Universities Accord. The accord is intended to be a partnership between universities and staff, unions and business, students and parents and, ideally, Labor and Liberal, that lays out what we expect of our universities. The five priority actions put forward in the report, which was released in July, include: to extend visible local access to tertiary education by creating further regional university centres and establishing a similar concept for suburban and metropolitan locations; to cease the 50 per cent pass rule, given its poor equity impacts, and instead require increased reporting on student progress; to ensure that all First Nations students are eligible for a funded place at university by removing the current geographic limitations; to provide funding certainty to universities in this sector; and, finally, to engage with the state and territory governments and universities to improve university governance, particularly focusing on universities being good employers, on student and staff safety, and on membership of governing bodies. The purpose of this bill before us today is to implement two of the five recommendations by doing three things: uncap the number of Indigenous students who can enrol in a Commonwealth supported place; remove the requirement that students successfully complete at least 50 per cent of their units of study to continue as a Commonwealth supported student and be eligible for FEE-HELP assistance; and, finally, motivate those who supply higher education services to provide appropriate support for students by requiring these services to have and comply with a support-for-students policy to assist in identifying students at risk of falling behind and supporting them in completing units of their study. I note Minister Clare's statement that the government intends to implement all five recommendations through other non-legislative mechanisms. I look forward to seeing that implementation happen. However, today, I would like to speak to three issues that are important to the community of North Sydney. Firstly, the issue of equity in higher education. I applaud the interim report's goal to have an integrated tertiary system in place by 2035, with a commitment to access for everyone with potential, aspiration and application. Our economy is currently navigating significant structural shifts, with demand for a more skilled and qualified population coming thick and fast across all industries. The Australian labour market demanded an additional 490,000 people with higher education qualifications in 2022, and the reality is: we are facing serious skill shortages. In this context, I couldn't agree more with the interim report's conclusion that, with Australia's skills, skills trends must be reversed with a sense of urgency. The report concludes the growth in higher education attainment will include students from underrepresented backgrounds. The need to provide greater support to such a cohort is partly addressed by this bill, specifically calling out the need to address the 'greater divide between rich and poor'. This is absolutely a right and noble goal; however, on behalf of the community of North Sydney, I would caution that, in achieving this goal, we need to be conscious of using inclusive language. I myself grew up in rural and regional Australia, and I'm the first of my family to attend university and qualify with a degree. I am eternally grateful for that opportunity. As we move towards solving the skills crisis, I'm not up for engaging in class based war for resources based on stereotypes or assumptions, and I do not want my children or any young person living in the electorate of North Sydney doubting their right to an education. The impacts of the rising cost of living are being felt across the country, including in my community of North Sydney. We know that the cost of education in Australia has almost tripled since 2003, with secondary education up 185 per cent and tertiary education up 121 per cent. Ultimately, all levels of education, from preschool, primary, secondary to tertiary, are now in the top ten fastest-growing household costs in the last 20 years. With just over half the North Sydney population aged 15 and over reporting having obtained a bachelor's degree or above, the truth is that this cohort represents people who are either currently carrying or potentially accumulating a significant debt or supporting family members in the act of accruing one. In any case, these individuals and families are likely to be increasingly feeling the pinch. In delivering the much-needed reforms to the system, we must be careful to remember our education system is based on providing a universal learning entitlement, with the emphasis on the word 'universal'. Secondly, I will touch on the issue of campus safety. In response to the fifth recommendation of the interim report, the government indicated they would work with the states and territories on improving university governance. Of particular interest to me in this recommendation is making sure our universities are safe for students and staff. This past week in this place, we were fortunate to hear from members of the I Deserve Safety campaign, in partnership with End Rape on Campus Australia, the National Union of Students, Fair Agenda Australia and students from WA, Victoria, New South Wales, ACT and Queensland. The 2021 National Student Safety Survey found one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since starting university and that one in six had been sexually harassed. The latest survey shows that 1.1 per cent of the 1.3 million students studying at Australian universities had been sexually assaulted within a university context within the previous 12 months. This equates to over 14,000 sexual assaults per year or 275 sexual assaults each week, every week. Of students who reported sexual assault to their university in 2021, only 29.7 per cent were satisfied with the university's process. This sexual violence is significantly impacting on student wellbeing, educational outcomes and future career prospects. However, the current university regulatory system is failing when it comes to university responses to sexual assault and harassment. The actions universities have taken to address this, to date, have not been good enough. Last week, I was proud to join the campaign in calling for the government to implement a national task force to hold universities accountable for their responses to sexual violence. I am pleased that from that advocacy the minister then met with members of the campaign and heeded their calls, including announcing the inclusion of the CEO for Our Watch, Patty Kinnersly, on the working group and undertaking to continue to consult with the #IDeserveSafety campaign. The government must urgently drive the delivery of an effective system for reviewing complaints about a university or residence's handling of an incident, ensure regular public reporting on incidents in the institutions and reporting on measures universities are taking to address and prevent sexual assault as well as establishing accountability through sanctions for universities that do not comply. Delivering Australian tertiary learning communities that are free from sexual violence must be a priority for us all in this place—no delay; no excuses—as with each week that goes by, another 275 sexual assaults will take place. Lastly, on an issue that is missing altogether from this bill, despite being of deep importance to North Sydney, is the matter of student debt. There are unique burdens that young Australians are subject to, in the current economic environment. The cost-of-living pressures are disproportionately affecting young people and hindering their ability to engage in the Australian economy. The indexation of student debts is unnecessarily adding to this burden and causing real harm. I fundamentally think it's unfair the indexation is applied on 1 June, each year, not to the portion of debt outstanding at that time but to the total amount of debt owing as of 1 July the prior calendar year. This, effectively, means portions of student debt that workers have already repaid are subject to an indexation increase, a circumstance that recently hit more than three million Australians, most of them young working Australians with student debts. Many North Sydneysiders contacted my office with distressing reports of how the 7.1 per cent increase affected both their ongoing debt loads and, subsequently, their future opportunities. Due to an inflation indexed increase in the HECS and HELP debts, the average loan increased by more than $1,000, an increase that could have a lifelong impact on the borrowing capacity and ability of young workers to enter the housing market. In my own household, my son, who had paid down his HELP debt, found that the indexation took more money than he had paid off, and his debt went up overall. In addition to this, the existing scheme also perpetuates gender inequity, with women holding 60 per cent of HELP debts and 58 per cent of the total $74.3 billion debt pool. Tertiary education is more than a cost; it is an investment in our future. A better educated workforce means greater productivity and greater community prosperity. After meeting with the crossbench, the education minister committed to a review of the HECS and HELP debt system, and I call on the government to prioritise this review to ensure young Australians either accruing or carrying debts do not face similar distress in the coming year. There are alternatives that the government could pursue. They could determine indexation based on either the CPI or the more stable wage price index, whichever is lower at the time, as currently occurs in the United Kingdom, or they could tie indexation to the RBA's trimmed or weighted mean that more accurately calculates underlying inflation, which would effectively compensate for the current and future burden of the higher cost-of-living pressures. Either alternative approach would be fairer for young Australians. I urge the government to prioritise this review, to reduce the emotional distress many are feeling with a growing debt hanging over their heads and no clear direction on how this debt will continue to accrue in the years ahead. Ultimately, intergenerational equity is one of the biggest challenges of our time—in the tax system, on climate change and on a forward focused economy, including delivering the skilled workforce that will take our nation forward. I commend the government on this work and I welcome this bill in this place, but I say to everyone in this place: we must work harder and faster to help young Australians navigate this transition and support them as best we can. 16:34 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I support this legislation, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. It makes an amendment to the Higher Education Support Act, which has operated since 2003 in this country. The preface to Australian Universities Accord review's interim report talks about the fact that we need growth through skills and through greater equity, and I quote a paragraph which I think is really germane to this debate: Too few Australians are beginning and completing qualifications. While it is predicted that 90% of jobs created over the next five years will require a post-secondary qualification and 50% a higher qualification, completions and demand for places are actually falling, with completions of a first bachelor degree at their lowest since 2014. This combined with existing skills shortages means a sense of urgency for change is needed. This particular legislation before the chamber today is about change, and I know it's supported by my alma mater, the University of Queensland, and supported by the University of Southern Queensland, which has campuses in Ipswich and Springfield in my electorate. This particular bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and implements a couple of recommendations in the interim report under the accord. The bill contains reforms to allow First Nations students, including those in metropolitan areas, to be eligible for Commonwealth supported places in demand-driven higher education courses. It will also remove the requirement that students must pass half of the units they study in order to remain eligible for a Commonwealth supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. This government is making changes. We are delivering 20,000 Commonwealth supported places and hundreds of thousands of fee-free TAFE places, and that's absolutely crucial. This bill will insert a new requirement that higher education providers must implement a policy that addresses the support that providers will provide to their students in order to assist them to successfully complete the units of study in which they are enrolled. In June 1990, barely 130 days after almost 10,000 days in prison, in Madison Park High School's stuffy gymnasium in Boston, Nelson Mandela rose to speak. He could have addressed any topic, but being at a school he spoke on education and he said this: Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. I think that is absolutely apt, brilliant and succinct. Of course he's right. What he said has currency today. The extension to his words is not only that we may use education to change the world but that education is essential for surviving and thriving in an ever-changing world. This is especially true in a world of eight billion souls. There are several international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. They create and support the right to education. It's mainly found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The covenant requires primary and secondary education to be available and accessible for all and for higher education to be made equally accessible to all on the basis of capacity. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that the capacity of an individual should be assessed by reference to their relative and relevant experience. Concerning part of this present bill, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains provisions relevant to the rights of Indigenous people to education. The declaration directs governments to engage with Indigenous people to protect their rights to education. Federal public servants are directed to consider the right to education when working on legislation, policies or programs that: relate to standards which must be met by educational institutions, resourcing of such institutions, access to education for certain groups of people who face barriers to education—such as Indigenous people or people with disabilities—or qualifications for entry into higher education institutions; or impose restrictions on the ability to study. It is a fundamentally important right which Australians should enjoy. The proposed amendments will expand the eligibility of places in demand driven higher education courses. The Commonwealth government will provide funding on a demand driven basis for all First Nations students, regardless of where they live, to enrol in bachelor-level courses. There is no cap on the number of First Nations students who may enrol in Commonwealth supported places and eligible providers will receive Commonwealth funding for all First Nations students. Expanding demand driven funding for all First Nations students will increase First Nations student participation rates, and will lead to a significant increase in First Nations people with tertiary qualifications. As the minister has, aptly, pointed out on many occasions during question time in this place, if you're an Indigenous male then you're more likely to go to jail than go to university. We've got to address that in closing the gap. This supports the government's commitment to closing the gap. We have a tertiary education target to increase the number of Indigenous people aged 25 to 34 who have completed a qualification of cert III or higher to at least 70 per cent by 2031. This measure will double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. The proposed amendments will remove the requirement for students to maintain a pass rate above 50 per cent of the units that they undertake. This is assessed after they have completed a certain number of units. Currently, students who cannot maintain this pass rate lose eligibility for Commonwealth government assistance. They must either pay for their course up front, transfer to another course or, even worse, withdraw from study. The pass rate measures were originally introduced with the intention of dissuading students from continuing courses for which they were not academically suited, to avoid accruing large higher education loan program debts without successfully gaining a qualification. The practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students, and they have not necessarily motivated higher education providers to provide better support to students with academic difficulties. These measures have disproportionately affected students from underrepresented and educationally disadvantaged cohorts, including First Nations students and those with limited financial and other resources. To encourage higher education providers to provide appropriate support to assist students to complete their studies successfully, this bill will insert a new requirement that higher education providers must implement a policy to assist students to successfully complete the units of study in which they are enrolled. Providers will need to indicate how they're supporting their students who are experiencing academic difficulties. And I might digress to give praise to the University of Southern Queensland—and universities all around the country as well—for the work that they did to help students during COVID and those difficulties. They really had some challenges in financial support for themselves, loss of familiar contact and isolation from loved ones. Universities stepped up, whether it was about money, or a helping hand, or an arm around them or practical assistance. The universities did a great job around the country. Particularly, I want to praise the University of Southern Queensland in my electorate. There are many students there from First Nations backgrounds, people living with disability and from poor communities—from what we would previously call a 'Bradley' cohort, low socio-economic backgrounds—and the University of Southern Queensland did a mighty job supporting them during COVID, and this has continued. Under this bill, providers will need to put in place specific processes to identify students at risk of not successfully completing their studies. I'm sure the experience during COVID will help, and the support available to students to successfully complete their studies. These measures are not onerous, especially for providers who are already fulfilling their obligations under the law and in line with community expectations and based on the values, the ethics and the morality of the wonderful people who run our universities in this country. These measures will ensure that mechanisms for monitoring student progress are maintained, along with appropriate support for students. Providers who do not have such processes or support in place will need to implement a quality student support policy in order to be compliant with their obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report, which was released in July by the minister. This government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more students to go to university and will implement each of the interim report's recommendations and priority actions. This means that we'll create more university study hubs. We'll scrap the 50 per cent pass rule, as I said. We'll require better reporting on how students are progressing. We'll extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to cover all Indigenous students, irrespective of where they live. That's really important in places like Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide and in places like Ipswich as well. I'm really pleased that we're doing that. We'll provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, with arrangements that prioritise support for equity students. We'll work with the states and territories to improve university governance when necessary. The expansion of demand-driven places is estimated to cost about $34.1 million in underlying cash terms over the period from 2023-24 to 2026-27. The removal of the 50 per cent pass rule and the new requirements on higher education providers are expected to have an underlying cash impact of $1.1 million over the forward estimates. In the context of the Commonwealth government's budget, that's not a high amount, but it will make a difference. It'll make a difference to disadvantaged people, people living with disabilities and people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds—backgrounds like mine. I was the first person in my family ever to go to university. My parents didn't go to high school, and their parents didn't go to high school before that. So I know the value of higher education and what it's done for me and my two younger brothers. The measures to support people from poor backgrounds are really critical. I don't think my dad, who was a cleaner at the meatworks, and my mum, who was a shop assistant, ever envisaged that their three sons would go to university and run businesses. I ran a law practice in Brisbane's CBD, and my brother Darrin has a huge physiotherapy practice. My other brother, Regan, was assistant director-general in the Queensland education department. We all did well from university. University helped us. One of us even got to federal parliament by some miracle and by the good consciences and votes of people in the electorate of Blair! Universities are important. They are cathedrals of learning, and they equalise opportunity. I'm a bit of an old-fashioned Labor person who believes that education is the key for redistributing wealth. I really believe that. I genuinely believe in social justice, equality of opportunity and a fair go for everyone, and education's absolutely the key. I know these measures have great support from universities. They build on our commitment, which we announced in the campaign, to support Commonwealth supported places and fee-free TAFE. The accord comprises some of the most eminent Australians who've worked with significant experience across education, business and public policy. I'm looking forward to the next report they do. There are people like the chair, Professor Mary O'Kane AC; Professor Larissa Behrendt AO; the Hon. Fiona Nash, who made a great contribution to parliamentary life and life in this country; and the Hon Jenny Macklin AC, who many of us know in this place and who's deeply respected for her commitment to social justice. And there are others, so there are some great people on this committee who are looking at all these issues. Following extensive consultation, the accord panel recommended a number of priority areas, including the two to which this bill refers. So it's really important that we do this. I'm looking forward to the additional report that will come down. We're committed to making sure that we have people going to university, passing their courses, contributing to Australian community life, building businesses and contributing as employees, no matter where they live. It's a social justice thing to which we're committed. I look forward to this bill going through the House and the Senate, ensuring that students can finish university. I commend the bill to the House. 16:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Education is the great enabler, and, indeed, it is very much a component of society which enables people to be their best selves. Certainly, we want the very best outcomes for our regional students. At the outset, I want to pay tribute, as the member for Blair just did, to that new committee being set up and the work that Fiona Nash will do on that committee, as well as Jenny Macklin AC—congratulations to her on her recent award in the honours. I also want to pay special tribute to Samantha Beresford, Head of Government Relations and Regional Engagement at Charles Sturt University. Indeed, the work at Wagga Wagga and other campuses is making students, creating students and giving our best and brightest students wonderful opportunities that they would otherwise potentially and possibly not have. I'm very pleased as well that the amendments, very important as they are, to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 have been moved by two regional members—the member for Barker and the member for Parkes, both of whom have large electorates in South Australia and New South Wales, respectively, and both of whom know that young people—and some not so young—in their electorates deserve the very best and the very same opportunities that, indeed, are afforded to those who seek higher education in metropolitan areas. I've said many times that the HECS loan, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme loan, is the best loan you'll ever get. Indeed, that is true. I know that the threshold in February 2021 was $46,620 before you started paying it back. I know also that this can be something that is like lead in the saddlebags for those people who are just entering the workforce, particularly in this time where there is difficulty with the cost of living and where there is difficulty, particularly, for those in regional areas in meeting the day-to-day costs of rent, accommodation, groceries, fuel and energy—and of everything else. I know that more than three million Australians have a HECS debt or other type of student debt under the Higher Education Loan Program, the HELP scheme, which increased by a massive 7.1 per cent on 1 June 2023—the highest indexation rate in more than three decades. This, coupled with the cost-of-living crisis and the ever-increasing inflation rate, is making it difficult for young people in particular. By proposing to abolish the coalition's 50 per cent pass rule, the government has failed to protect students at high risk of not completing their course from accumulating debilitating HECS debts and then having acute financial hardship on top of that. The government's reliance on a survey of 27 universities to justify the abolition of the 50 per cent pass rule indicates that the government hasn't been able to access the relevant data as to how many students are going to be impacted by this measure, reflecting what I believe, and what the opposition believes, is a poor adherence to evidence based policy. We want, as I said at the outset, the very best outcomes for our students. In proposing to uncap Commonwealth supported places available to Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas, which extends the coalition's measure to uncap CSPs for Indigenous students living in regional and remote Australia, the government hasn't explained how it will hold universities to account for poor completion rates by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, which currently results in only 26 per cent of Indigenous students completing their undergraduate degree within four years; 37 per cent of students drop out during that period. I appreciate that the government wants to allow all Indigenous students who are living in metropolitan areas to be eligible for Commonwealth supported places in demand-driven higher education courses. But, as an aside, just as disadvantaged in some instances, in many circumstances, are non-indigenous students who live in remote areas. I know there is help available for them. I appreciate that. But we do need to consider some of those people and the options they don't have—the remoteness that causes difficulties for them when they want to complete courses. That is why I also pay tribute to those non-sandstone universities, for the work they do in rural areas. By reason that the government is proposing to release the consultation paper on its proposed Support for Students policy, it becomes abundantly clear that the government has not done its homework—pardon the pun!—on this policy or determined the basis on which universities would be fined as proposed by the bill. This bill fails to impose on universities a strong accountability and transparency framework, including fair and just access to student refunds and the requirement that unis publish all relevant course information, including out-of-pocket costs, total costs, completion rates, modes of course delivery, and employment outcomes. This government has come to office saying that it's going to be transparent. This government has come to office saying that it's going to be accountable. Well, let's see the government being transparent with taxpayers regarding how much its changes to the higher education system will cost and, furthermore, how it will pay for those changes. That would be a very, very good start. Given its deficiencies, the bill should be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry. That should be a minimum. We do pay tribute to those young people who take on higher education opportunities. But, at the same time, I have always said that a certificate from TAFE—the piece of paper that you get from TAFE—is worth every bit as much as a diploma from a university. I say that; I've got a few certificates from TAFE, and I don't have a university degree. I remember, when Warren Truss was Deputy Prime Minister and he was making his farewell speech, that he indicated he would probably be the last deputy prime minister of this nation to never hold a university degree. Lo and behold, not that much later, along came yours truly. But I do admire those people who knuckle down and do the work, do the study and get their diploma—but, moreover, then pay for it. It is a struggle. It is hard. And it's even harder now than it was before. I do appreciate that. And we do need, as a Commonwealth—and the government, as a government that said it will place education as one of the key pillars to its governance, needs—to do everything possible to support our students, be they at university or at TAFE, and also those young people who go to neither, who decide they are going to just go and work, and well done to them, too. The government recently released the accord's interim report. It outlines five priority actions that the panel believes require urgent responses. Given those, it is important that the outcomes are met by transparency and accountability. That is why the members for Barker and Parkes have put forward their very worthwhile amendments. Under the Job-ready Graduates Package in 2020, the coalition introduced a provision which required students to maintain a pass rate of 50 per cent or above for units of study they undertake. Of course there are always going to be provisions and circumstances, and if those pass rates are not met then individual students will be looked at and their explanations examined. But students who have a low completion rate and who do not meet this requirement lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance and must either pay for their course upfront, transfer to another course or withdraw from their studies. The rule commenced on 1 January 2022. As I said, there is a waiver for special circumstances, and you can understand that there will always be special circumstances—hardship, health and all manner of reasons. That is understood. But Labor's abolition of the rule increases the risk of financial hardship. The cost of living is skyrocketing, and we hear so much in this place about things which, quite frankly, out there in the real world are not being discussed at barbecues. They are not being discussed at weekend social and sporting events. Yet we seem to just go back and forward across this chamber, and our friends in the media seem to think these are the most important things of all, but they are not. Sometimes—other members must get this too—when you go back to your electorate, they say 'What was discussed in federal parliament this week?' I must admit that sometimes I scratch my head and think to myself 'Yes, what really was discussed that had merit?' This does have merit. Higher education is important, and I say that as someone who is very proud of his three children. My wife, Catherine, and I and our three children all went to CSU and graduated from very different courses: teaching, accounting and policing. Charles Sturt University is one of those regional providers that this nation should be very proud of. I pay tribute to the former Liberal member representing Wagga Wagga at both state and federal levels of government for 36 years, the late, great Wal Fife. He and Cliff Blake helped transform what was the Wagga Wagga Teachers College into the Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education and eventually into Charles Sturt University. It has campuses at Wagga Wagga, Albury and elsewhere. Renee Leon is now doing a great job heading up that university. I am also very pleased that Charles Sturt University is one of the regional universities which is providing, as well as UNSW, the rural medical school network throughout the Murray-Darling. It is providing doctors for the future. Whether you go to university to study to be a doctor or an accountant or a teacher or a police officer, it matters not. You are going there, and you are going to give of your best self. You want to be sure that the government which is running this country is going to have your back. That is why I commend very much the amendments that have been put forward by two outstanding regional members, because they will strengthen this bill. They will add clarity to this bill and make sure that its shortfalls are met with good, solid policy. That is why I commend these amendments. I say to the government that it needs to do everything in its power to combat the cost-of-living crisis. Stop talking about things that don't matter. Stop talking about things which, quite frankly, do not relate to average, ordinary, everyday Australians. Get back to what you promised before the election and make sure that students, when they start having to pay off the threshold cost of their HECS debts, are protected, get the very best opportunity and that they can make the most of their courses. With that, I do commend the amendments put forward by the members for Barker and Parkes, and I look forward to those being passed. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 85 Membership 85 17:05 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Ms Murphy to be a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in place of Mr Perrett. 17:05 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley by leave—I move: That Mr Perrett be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Ms Murphy be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 85 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 85

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

Second Reading 85 17:06 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Education is the key to success, and it has been front and centre among my priorities since being elected as the federal member for Holt. I am proud to support a government that has embarked on the monumental task of fixing Australia's higher education system. This is taking place through several initiatives, including fee-free TAFE; the inquiry into the status and perceptions of vocational education and training by the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training; and, most importantly, the Australian Universities Accord. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 implements the priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report by amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003. On 19 July 2023, Minister for Education Jason Clare brought forward a giant leap for the Australian higher education system by releasing the Australian Universities Accord interim report, which is the biggest and broadest review of Australia's higher education system in 15 years. The accord is a result of careful and considered deliberations by a number of pre-eminent Australians. In particular, the accord team consists of the chair, Professor Mary O'Kane AC, who was formerly the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide; Professor Barney Glover AO, the Vice-Chancellor of Western Sydney University; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, the first female Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Macquarie Group; the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, the former Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Professor Larissa Behrendt AO, the first Indigenous Australian to graduate from Harvard Law School, a professor of law, and the Director of Research at the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology Sydney; and the Hon. Fiona Nash, who was formerly a senator for New South Wales, the Minister for Regional Development, the Minister for Regional Communications and the Minister for Local Government and Territories and is now Australia's first Regional Education Commissioner. Together, they bring to bear their enormous experience in our universities, business and public policy and a mix of experience in STEM and humanities. From our cities and our regions and across the political divide, their terms of reference are also broad. They have been tasked to look at everything from access to affordability, from teaching quality to research, and from governance and employment conditions to how higher education and vocational education and training can and should work more closely together. I am proud that the Albanese Labor government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. Thirty-six per cent of the current Australian workforce has a university qualification today. When we narrowed the sample to those in their late 20s and early 30s, this figure jumps to almost one in two. However, this is not the case everywhere. In the outer suburbs of major cities, including the communities I am proud to represent, only 23 per cent of young adults have a university degree. As per the 2021 census, just over 20 per cent of Holt residents have educational attainment at the bachelor's degree level and above, compared to 26 per cent of Australians and 29 per cent of Victorians. That's right, compared to the rest of Victoria, residents in Holt are almost a third less likely to be qualified with a bachelor's degree or more. I welcome the accord team's recommendations that 'the only way to significantly boost the percentage of the workforce with a university qualification is to significantly increase the number of students who are currently underrepresented in our universities'. This includes students from outer suburbs, like those in my electorate of Holt; students from poorer backgrounds; students with a disability; and Indigenous students. We simply cannot delay action on such a crucial issue. We need to act now, and I am proud that the Albanese Labor government has been firm in doing so since the day we were elected. The first part of this report makes five recommendations that are prioritised for immediate action ahead of the final report. I am proud the government has confirmed that it will implement each of the five interim recommendations, namely: 1. that we create more university study hubs—not only in the regions but also in our outer suburbs; 2. that we scrap the '50 per cent pass rule' and require better reporting on how students are progressing; 3. that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; 4. that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and 5. that we work with state and territory governments, through National Cabinet, to improve university governance. This legislation is necessary to affect two recommendations, 2 and 3, contained in the interim report. Specifically, this bill will amend HESA to remove the pass rate requirements for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance and introduce new requirements on universities and other providers to support students to successfully complete their studies and extend the current demand driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nation Australian undergraduate students studying bachelor or bachelor honours level courses other than courses in medicine from 2024. Students are currently required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units they undertake to maintain eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units in a bachelor's degree or higher or four units in a shorter course. Of students who fail, more than half currently lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. These pass rates were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as a part of its job-ready graduates program to discourage students from continuing courses they are not academically suited for. However, the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students. The impact of the pass rate requirements has disproportionally affected students from First Nations, low socioeconomic statuses and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts, like those in my electorate of Holt. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by the rule. Removal of the rule has been called for by universities right across the country, like the University of Adelaide, Monash University, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, the Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. We should be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit. The bill introduces requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Under these policies, universities and other providers would be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with support services to help them. In addition, the department of education will issue a discussion paper to consult with universities and providers on the content of these policies. They are expected to contain measures such as: processes for identifying students who need help; assessing a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert; connecting students to support and identifying students who have not engaged with support before their census date, whenever possible; providing sufficient non-academic supports for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports, which is important as many students struggle because of non-academic issues; having appropriate crisis and crucial harm response arrangements; providing access to trained academic development advisers who can help a student identify what's holding them back and come up with the right response for that student; ensuring that academic and non-academic supports are age and culturally appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students; proactively offering 'special circumstances' arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student; providing access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports; providing provider-driven and evidence based additional support, such as peer support; and targeted course support for academic staff, such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements. Compliance with their student support policies will be mandatory for universities and other providers, with civil penalties applicable for breaches. Besides introducing changes that will support more students to continue their education, this bill also makes major changes to ensure Indigenous students are encouraged to study at university. Only seven per cent of young Indigenous Australians possess a bachelor's degree or higher. In fact, the rates of completion among Indigenous students are so low that a young Indigenous man today is more likely to go to jail than university. The existing demand-driven measure was implemented in 2021 in response to the National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy, the Napthine review. Under the current legislation, only Indigenous students from regional and remote Australia can access demand-driven places. In other words, only First Nations students living in areas like Gippsland are eligible, excluding those in locations like Cranbourne or Hampton Park. The proposal aims to increase First Nations enrolment numbers by expanding the eligibility of demand-driven funding to include metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses, except courses of study in medicine, at Table A universities. In other words, this change will ensure all Indigenous students are eligible for a funded place at a public university if they meet the entry requirements for the course. This means that, where a student meets the entry requirements for a course, they are able to access support in the form of a Commonwealth supported place and a HELP loan. It is a proven mechanism to increase access to university for under-represented groups. This bill means that demand-driven places for bachelor level courses, excluding medicine, will now be available to all Indigenous students regardless of where they live. Consequently, there will be no cap on First Nations students enrolling in Commonwealth supported places. Table A providers will also receive Commonwealth funding for all Indigenous students as outlined in part 2-2 of HESA. This measure directly supports efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap target 6: By 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25-34 years who have completed a tertiary qualification (Certificate III and above) to 70 per cent. The Department of Education estimates this may double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. Similar to the Jobs and Skills Summit, the Australian Universities Accord represents a landmark review set to influence our country for generations of Australians to come. I support the passage of this bill. I am proud the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitment to deliver a better future for every Australian. 17:20 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan After a long-overdue 12-month review looking into our troubled university sector, the Australian Universities Accord Panel has handed down an interim report, with five recommendations for urgent action, and it's great that the government will act on these. The first recommendation is to create new regional study hubs. The second is to improve governance at universities—totally urgent in my view—by working with the states and territories through the National Cabinet. It's good to be reminded that National Cabinet can do things to influence and incentivise state and territory governments, although the government claims it can't necessarily do that in relation to other issues, like rent caps. The third recommendation is to extend a grant program for another two years and require universities to spend the remaining funding on supporting underprivileged students. These three recommendations don't require legislative change. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 was introduced to legislate the last two recommendations, the first of which is to scrap the 50 per cent rule, which saw students lose government funding if they failed more than half of their subjects. This heinous rule was originally introduced by the Morrison government as part of the Job-ready Graduates Package, which also hiked fees for humanities, arts and other courses unfavoured by the coalition. The bill also inserts a new requirement that universities must have a policy aimed at supporting students to successfully complete their units of study. The last of the five recommendations of the accord interim report is to ensure that all First Nations students are eligible for a funded place at university by extending funding to metropolitan First Nations students, rather than only regional First Nations students. We welcome this. Overall, this is a positive bill, and we support those recommendations. However, it goes nowhere near far enough to address the fundamental systemic problems with Australia's tertiary education sector. We're missing an opportunity here to retune, to act on many urgent issues in Australian universities. There are serious issues around students' experience and rights, and they're just not addressed by this bill. Student debt—we need to wipe student debt, or at least abolish indexation and raise the minimum repayment income to the median wage. Stipends for PhD students—a constituent of mine, in Ryan, spoke to me about this just last week; they need to be raised to at least the minimum wage. The age of independence and student social security payments—the independence age needs to be changed from 22 to 18, and student social security payments must be raised above the poverty line, to at least $88 a day. Mandatory placements—students need to be paid for these. Fee hikes—the fee hikes introduced as part of the Job-ready Graduates Package need to be reversed. Housing—all international students, indeed all students, must have access to safe and affordable housing. And safety—students must be kept safe from sexual assault. There are also very serious issues, again not addressed by this bill, around the governance of our universities and the appallingly poor treatment of the academic staff as well as students. The support of students and staff, rather than just administration, should be a core priority of government and universities. Without that, they cannot possibly deliver the quality education and research we need for a thriving future in Australia. In February this year, I had the great privilege of addressing an NTEU rally and strike at the University of Queensland, speaking alongside my wonderful friend and colleague Senator Mehreen Faruqi, Deputy Leader of the Greens, who for many years has been a staunch advocate for the rights of students and university workers. Like me, she has deep lived experience within the university system. The University of Queensland is a huge institution and employer in my electorate of Ryan. It's been a big part of my life since 1974, when I first started my studies there. I've tutored and lectured, and I'm still an adjunct professor there. My husband has been a head of department and professor. My kids have been students and are now both professors. We've lived it from the inside, as it were. In 1974, I was one of the first incredibly fortunate Gough Whitlam era uni students, the grateful beneficiary, as were many others in this place, of fee-free university. Wow, there has been a lot of change over those nearly 50 years, but I'm afraid it's been retrograde change. What was different in 1974? That was the first year of free university that lasted until the end of my degree. We had a very diverse cohort as, finally, tertiary education was accessible. There were healthy student-teacher ratios, properly paid and better-respected staff with career advancement opportunities, including tenure. We know what has happened since then. Now we have both struggling students and struggling teachers. I strongly supported the NTEU in their strike action for better conditions. They were suffering under the abominably poor governance and conduct of the Australian university sector. Most other workplaces could certainly not get away with the poor employment conditions, poor conditions for casual staff, inadequate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment targets, inadequate salary increases, unsustainable academic workloads, forced redundancies, outsourcing, poor progression for casuals, problems around long-service leave and reproductive health and wellbeing leave, and simplification of casual rates—which basically means staff have to negotiate with managers how much prep time they should be paid for, and it is likely to result in less pay for casual staff as there'll no longer be a minimum. UQ, like most other universities, has been behaving like the most venal of corporations. This has dire negative effects on both students and staff, and I'm afraid current legislation and regulatory frameworks do not address this broken system. UQ, to use it as an example, purports to be a revered institution. UQ ranks among the world's top universities. UQ says they have 'a strong focus on teaching excellence'. In fact, UQ's teachers have won for UQ more national teaching awards than any other Australian university. UQ needs to support its teachers. To do that, UQ and other universities need to model fair working conditions, to be in alignment with broader public expectations to provide high-quality education. This is clearly hampered when universities treat teachers like slaves and students like cash customers. Governments and universities need to support the aspirations of all students and the rights of their workers and, importantly, increase representation of First Nations people—and more broadly, act in accordance with the basic principles of social justice. These are just baseline requirements of any company or employer these days. You can do it, universities! It's about priorities. UQ and other universities continued to generate very healthy profits and returns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and they still do. We have vice-chancellors earning frankly ridiculously stratospheric salaries while students starve and teachers are treated like slaves. In a harrowing report released that same week in February, we discovered that wage theft has shamefully become an endemic part of universities' business models. This report uncovered the staggering value of wages stolen in the university sector. An analysis of cases conservatively found that $83.4 million was owed to staff across the higher education sector. Further cases will almost certainly top $90 million—a shameful indictment. So what we need to demand on top of this bill is a major, urgent response from governments and universities. The NTEU has recovered many millions of dollars in stolen wages. Shamefully, some universities have chosen to pursue expensive litigation to fight the staff whose wages they have stolen. That's how the teachers and researchers are being screwed over. Now, back to the students. If this government is serious about improving access to universities, it needs to stop ignoring the giant elephant in the room—student debt. Spiralling student debt is an absolute scourge, disproportionately disadvantaging First Nations students, women and young people. Yet, on 1 June 2023, this government indexed student debts at a staggering 7.1 per cent, up from 3.9 the year before. Based on Parliamentary Library estimates, in just two years of the Labor government, student debt could increase by an astronomical 15 per cent, rising faster than it can be paid off. The Greens attempted to stop this indexation increase, but Labor blocked that, ignoring desperate pleas for relief and causing untold long-term pain for people who are being locked out of the housing market, denied personal loans and rethinking dreams of further study. Education should not be a debt sentence. The student loan system is broken. It's time to wipe all student debt and make TAFE and uni free. That's what the Greens are fighting for. There's so much more the government should be doing, like addressing mandatory unpaid placements, where students are required to work countless hours without pay or compensation. This is especially common in feminised fields, like nursing and teaching, thus further entrenching gender inequality. A teaching bachelor degree mandates four months of unpaid full-time hours to qualify; nursing, five months; and social work, more than six months, pushing students to their physical, emotional and economic limits. It's an absolute travesty that a Labor government is allowing this to go on. If this government was really serious about supporting students, it would take action to address student poverty, lower the age of independence from 22 to 18, and raise student social security payments above the poverty line, to at least $88 a day. Students are struggling to pay rent and to afford food and transport costs. This is an appalling situation in a wealthy country like ours. It's about priorities. The government cannot argue that a healthy education system is unaffordable, when they're giving $313 billion in tax breaks to the wealthy and spending $368 billion on nuclear powered submarines. An education system that pushes students further into inequality is a broken one, and a welfare system that doesn't lift people above the poverty line to ensure that they're living in dignity is an utterly cruel one. So come on, government: legislate and regulate a new framework in which our universities operate as responsible employers and institutions, prioritising education not profit. Support the students and the teachers, who are the engine of our education system. If not, the stated vision for the future of our tertiary education system is mere marketing spin. 17:32 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. If the modern tertiary sector has a father in Australia, it's my predecessor in Werriwa, the Hon. Gough Whitlam. In his pre-election speech in 1972, Whitlam said: We believe that a student's merit, rather than a parent's wealth, should decide who should benefit from the community's vast financial commitment to tertiary education. Gough fulfilled his commitment to the Australian public, and in 1974 tertiary fees were abolished. This one act changed Australia, as we heard from the member for Ryan. My family was also a beneficiary of this act. This one act has had a remarkable impact, even now, almost 50 years later. The former member for Werriwa has made it all the more likely that bright, studious, working-class students will have their intellectual abilities recognised. It's for that reason that I'm delighted to acknowledge students in the electorate of Werriwa who have been recently awarded scholarships to attend the University of Sydney. These students are the first recipients of the MySydney Scholarship program. The scholarship is valued at $8,500 a year for the duration of an undergraduate degree. In total, 682 students have been awarded the scholarship, 60 of whom live in suburbs across the electorate of Werriwa. Recipients live in Green Valley, Bonnyrigg, Bonnyrigg Heights, Macquarie Fields, Lurnea, Ashcroft and Hinchinbrook. The purpose of the program is to enable scholars and gifted students from low socioeconomic parts of Sydney to pursue their goals of a university education. The program will provide personalised assistance to each student to help them complete their studies to the best of their abilities. This is a life-changing level of support. It will give people from my community a chance to fulfil their potential—a potential they might not otherwise be able to fulfil. I'd like to thank the University of Sydney for their foresight in doing that for students in my community. During the Hawke and Keating governments, Australian high schools significantly changed. Labor governments have continued to ensure the potential of students can be realised. More students were finishing year 12, necessitating an increase in the number of places for university enrolment. As a result the Dawkins review was conducted and a vast suite of reforms were implemented. The result was another education revolution. The two-tiered system of colleges of advanced education and universities was abolished, new universities were formed and the gates were opened for massive increases in student numbers. My own electorate was one of the great beneficiaries. Local colleges like the one in Macarthur joined with those in Hawkesbury, Nepean and Milperra to become what is now known as Western Sydney University, and HECS was introduced. The basis for HECS was simple: students would pay tuition fees only when they earned a decent salary. Whitlam and Dawkins' policies are not as far apart as you may think, for at their core they were taking away the need for people to have money to attend university. The bill being debated today continues the work of Labor's commitments to education policies that provide opportunities for everyone. Announced in November last year, the Universities Accord is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to review Australia's higher education sector and to transform it so that it works for 21st-century Australia. It has brought together Australians from a broad range of areas: universities, business and public policies. Much like Labor governments before, the Albanese government is committed to ensuring higher education is not just for those who can afford or access it, and this is what the accord seeks to do. Today's bill acts on the interim report of the Australian Universities Accord panel released recently. The report lists five actions as a matter of priority: (1) that we create more university study hubs in both our regions and outer suburbs, (2) that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule, (3) that we extend the demand-driven funding provided to Indigenous students—I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 90 BUSINESS Member for Griffith 90 17:37 The SPEAKER 53517 Earlier today, during the matter of public importance at approximately 4 pm, the member for Griffith made remarks which offended members present, and they asked the Deputy Speaker to have the member for Griffith withdraw the remarks. The member for Griffith twice refused the Deputy Speaker's request to withdraw the remarks. The matter was reported to me for consideration. After discussing the matter with the member for Griffith, he has indicated he is seeking the call, and I give him the call now. 17:37 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith During the MPI the Deputy Speaker asked me to withdraw comments. I hereby withdraw. BILLS 91 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 91

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

Second Reading 91 17:38 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa In continuation—(4) that we ensure there is funding certainty during the accord process and (5) that state and territory governments are involved in improving university governance. The Albanese government has responded and has committed to implementing each of these recommendations. In response to the first recommendation the government will establish up to 20 additional regional university study hubs and establish up to 14 suburban university study hubs. For the last several years students in Werriwa have had the benefit of campuses of Western Sydney University and the University of Wollongong in Liverpool, making it accessible for students to travel. That means it is less costly for those seeking a university education, especially if you have caring responsibilities, making a university education so much more accessible in my community, so these hubs will make a real difference when they're implemented around the country. The government will also extend the higher education continuity guarantee for a further two years in response to recommendation 4, providing funding certainty while the accord process is ongoing. Universities will also be required to invest the remaining funding from their grant for the year into additional support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and groups, as well as those from the regions. Recommendation 5 will also be implemented so university governance works better for both students and staff. The bill will implement recommendations 2 and 3, which require legislative amendments. The first aspect of this bill is to remove the punitive measures introduced by the former government that require students to pass 50 per cent of their units of study in order to remain eligible for a Commonwealth-supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. In addition, there will also be new requirements and formal obligations for providers to support students in successfully completing their units of study. To strengthen this requirement, financial penalties will be applied to universities that fail to comply with their support obligations. Research has shown that disadvantaged students are disproportionately impacted by the 50-per-cent rule. More than 13,000 students have been affected. The Australian government should be helping students succeed, but this rule seeks to discourage and punish them. The abolition of this rule, in addition to the new requirements for providers, will assist those who need it to help them get through their course. The second aspect of this bill relates to extending demand-driven funding to metropolitan Indigenous students. Currently, all Indigenous students living in regional and remote areas are eligible for demand-driven Commonwealth-supported places where they meet academic entry requirements. Under this amendment, all Indigenous students, regardless of where they live, will be eligible for these places—that is, there will be no cap on the number of Indigenous students who can enrol in Commonwealth-supported places. It is estimated that this measure could double the number of Indigenous students at university in a decade, and what a wonderful outcome that would be—a transformative outcome that would change our nation for the better. It will work towards Closing the Gap outcome 6—that is, increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples between 25 and 34 who have completed a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent by 2031. This measure has the backing and support of the sector and will benefit First Nations people across the country. This bill will assist the disadvantaged to complete their university courses and open up our universities to Indigenous Australians—two of Gough Whitlam's great causes; two of Labor's great causes. The amendments in this bill are welcome not just for the changes they will bring but also for the message they convey: that is, education is front and centre of this government's agenda—always was, always will be. I commend the bill to the House. 17:42 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls It is a real privilege for me to talk on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I am going to talk about some recent study I have done on education, and links between education in Europe. I will also talk a bit about my story with tertiary education. I hope that can bring a positive contribution to this debate. I want to start by saying well done to the minister for education. We have got a few amendments and we have got some suggestions, but I think his approach to this policy has been consultative and thoughtful, and I think he is on the right track. I mean that most sincerely, and I would like to see a bit more of that from some other ministers in their approach to issues such as water and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Be that as it may, just before the pandemic started I was the recipient of a Churchill Fellowship. The reason I applied for that fellowship is because in my region the big issue we have is a lot of kids aren't motivated in school and a lot of the businesses can't find people to drive those businesses forward into the future. I wanted to go over to Europe, particularly Germany, Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom, to see how they did it and what their approach was to make sure that the links between education and industry are really strong. I think I've got some great learnings, and I look forward, as I get my thoughts together and write my report, to sharing those with all people in this place. I will talk a little about universities and why I think I have a contribution to make. I started three university degrees, and I completed two of them. I did what a lot of young people did. I was okay at school: 'Sam, you're a good student. You've got to go to uni.' I was 17 when I started at uni. As my first-year grades will attest, I had neither the maturity nor the understanding to be doing a university degree at that age. I did not pass, and I went into the workforce for a number of years. I worked in agriculture. That first degree was an arts degree, and then I worked in agriculture, because that's the employment in my home patch, which is now the electorate I have the great honour of representing. When I decided that I was ready to go to university, the University of Melbourne had a campus very close to Shepparton called the Dookie campus. At the time, they offered a number of degrees, one of which was a bachelor of applied science in agriculture. I completed that degree and did quite well because I already had some understanding from having been in the workforce. I was 22 years of age, so I was old enough and had the maturity to approach tertiary education. It was an excellent degree. The degree doesn't exist any more, which is a point I've very often discussed with the university. It was an excellent degree, well rounded, giving all sorts of great learnings that helped me not only in my agricultural career but in my career as a politician. Then, when I was about 40 years old, I wanted to get a postgraduate degree. Fortunately for me, La Trobe University was offering its MBA, a Master of Business Administration, regionally, in Wodonga, Bendigo, Mildura and Shepparton, as well as in the city. That meant that I could go down to my local La Trobe campus in Shepparton after work—six o'clock till nine o'clock—and study my postgraduate degree. I got that after three years of toil and my kids sleeping outside the lecture theatre sometimes—but it was great. The point I want to make from my experience is that university needs to be there for when people are ready, not kids coming out of school being told they need to go to university no matter what. Have it there for people who are ready and, as they go through their journey in life and their work journey, if an academic qualification or academic study is what they want, then they'll be much more successful if they move into it when they are ready. My own experience tells that story. I will give you the key take-outs from the Churchill Fellowship I went on. They are that, here, we seem to have an obsession with telling kids that if they're smart they go to university and if they're not they do something else. In Germany and Finland, particularly, the esteem in which vocational education and training is held is on a par with university education. A lot of the businesses I spoke to said, 'We need some people who've got university education and training for some professions, but for other professions, we much prefer the kids who did the vocational education and training.' In Germany, for example, I spoke to Mercedes-Benz. There were some incredibly bright and brilliant technicians who never went near a university. They got an apprenticeship with a company, in this case Mercedes-Benz. The tech schools are so good, that they are seen as good as university. These technicians had gone into technical education and then gone on to great careers with Mercedes-Benz. This is a fascinating statistic from Finland that I wasn't aware of. We stand and say it's a great milestone that we've got more university enrolments than ever before. I'm not against university enrolments. For the right kids at the right time, it's brilliant. Finland has not increased the number of university enrolments in the last 20 years. The education department is proud of that because 40 per cent go to uni, 20 per cent go to work and the other 40 per cent go into vocational education and training. They're so proud of their vocational education and training, and it's such a great pathway, that they're very happy with the status quo, as are their businesses. So I think there are some lessons for us here in Australia, to look at the way we talk about university and about vocational education and consult with business and industry as to what they need and what they think will get the best and most creative approach for a student in their business, because that's what's going to drive us forward with the innovation that we need. I'll share something else with you, because I hear in this place discussion of university debts and funding models. Germany and Finland both have free university education. When I explained to them our system, which was originally called HECS—I think it was introduced by the Hawke government; correct me if I'm wrong—and is now called FEE-HELP, of which I was a beneficiary with all three of my degrees, one unsuccessful and two successful, the Europeans thought that was a pretty good approach. They thought it made sense. I think they're thinking of doing it as well. They said to me, 'We've got to make sure the university sector is sustainable, and therefore someone has to pay for it.' They thought the process of charging people after they finish their university degrees, when the higher income they're earning as a result starts to kick in, was a good model. Probably the other thing—and this goes to one of the elements of the bill that bears closer scrutiny and discussion as to why I support the amendments, and I'm an example of this myself—is that you value something more if you have to pay for it. I just wonder, if people are looking at free university education—people have talked about Gough Whitlam; they don't talk about Hawke so much, but I think he was on the right track—if you have to pay for something, even if that payment is delayed, you value it a bit more and you're likely to try harder and make it work. I think the free university system, where it exists in the world, means that sometimes people can sign up because they think, 'It's not going to cost me anything.' Regarding the recommendation in this bill to overturn the previous 50 per cent pass rule, where if you didn't pass with 50 per cent you didn't get the funding from the Commonwealth anymore, I sometimes think young people—and I was one of them—need to be saved from themselves a bit. If you're not passing all your subjects with 50 per cent in a university year, then I think everyone has to have a look at whether you're ready for university. I don't know if it's a responsible approach to say, 'Look, you failed to get 50 per cent, but keep going, don't worry about it, the money will keep rolling in; we'll just lend you more.' I think that bears closer discussion and scrutiny. I want to finish by talking a bit about Indigenous people and education. I've got a great and proud and wonderful bunch of Indigenous groups in my electorate, and I've seen some amazing things happen. I just want to pay tribute to, in particular, five Indigenous women who were given a PhD place by the University of Melbourne to study various theses. They completed those, and some of those Indigenous women have told me that when they were in year 9 at school the thought that someone would call them 'Doctor' one day never occurred to them. It's great, and I really believe in encouraging Indigenous people who, as with all of us, are ready to go to university to be supported. I've seen some really good outcomes in my patch. I couldn't be prouder of those women who did that, and I'm also proud of the University of Melbourne for making it happen. So, I'm all for that. I suppose it's just really important to make sure everyone, whether they're Indigenous or not, goes to university because it's right for them and goes to university when they are ready and gets supported through university. When I went, and I wasn't ready and I didn't get supported, it wasn't such a great outcome. When I went the two other times, and I was supported and I was ready, there were great outcomes. I got a Bachelor of Applied Science and a Master of Business Administration, which I'm very proud of. I'm sure many people who have those qualifications are very proud of them. I'd love us to be a country where our vocational education training system is as good as the university system and seen to be held in the same esteem as a university degree, and I would love to see kids encouraged towards that. I think we can work much more closely. Education systems—not just universities but also TAFEs and secondary schools—can work a lot closer with business, to understand the skills of the future. We can encourage people to approach university when they are ready and support them so they have a successful experience at university. That includes all students, but I support encouraging Indigenous people into some sort of training. For some people, that might be vocational education and for others it might be universities. I want to finish by congratulating the minister and the government on us having this discussion. I really wanted to contribute positively to it, and those are my contributions for the moment. 17:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Like the previous speaker, I too am very passionate about education. I was a high school English teacher for 11 years and left that sector for law, still loving education. Teaching a lesson in that democracy unit in the schools in my electorate is one of the best parts of this job, getting back in front of kids. I believe in the opportunities that flow from the pursuit of education after high school. Australian universities and vocational education providers, especially TAFE, are some of the best in the world. Education can transform lives. It is the great hope of this nation and a wonderful export product. Therefore, I particularly welcome the fact that a key milestone in the Australian Universities Accord was reached last month. That milestone was the release of the accord panel's interim report outlining a vision for the future of Australia's higher education system. The process undertaken by the panel will culminate in a final report due for release this year. Nevertheless, this interim report is an important first step for us. The report says that in the decades ahead more jobs will require the minimum of a university qualification. Right now, around 36 per cent of the current Australian workforce has a university qualification—that's just over one in three. The interim report estimates that that could jump to as high as 55 per cent by the middle of this century, a mere 27 years away. To put that 27 years in context, 27 years ago was when John Howard was elected PM or when the current PM was elected to the parliament for the first time. Both occurred on the same day. Fifty-five per cent in 27 years is only a bit of a rough guesstimate, but it gives the country an idea of the skills challenge we face now in the years and decades to come. What the accord team argues in this report is that the only way to significantly boost the percentage of the workforce with a university qualification is to significantly increase the number of students who are currently under-represented in our universities—our smartest people that aren't getting into a lecture hall. They're students from the outer suburbs and the regions, students from poor backgrounds, students with a disability and Indigenous students. Today almost one in two Australians in their late 20s and early 30s has a university degree, but this is not consistent across the nation. In the outer suburbs of our major cities, only 23 per cent of young adults have a university degree. However, in the regions, in the areas traditionally represented by the National Party, the rate is lower at just 13 per cent, and, sadly, only 15 per cent of young adults from poor families have a degree. If you're a young Indigenous Australian, it's even lower, again, at only seven per cent. I'm ashamed to say that, after around 21 of the last 27 years of having coalition governments in control of this nation, we're left with the fact that, if you're a young Indigenous man today, you're more likely to go to jail than to go to university. To quote from that magnificent one-page document, the Uluru Statement from the Heart: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Clearly, all sensible Australians, all proud Australians, all patriotic Australians and all caring Australians know that this is a fact that we need to fix and a situation that we need to change. What we're currently doing is not working. We need to do it not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's what we must do. If we don't significantly boost the number of students from the outer suburbs and regions and the underrepresented groups at university, this nation won't have the skills it needs and the workforce it needs for the decades ahead. This interim report is in two parts. The first part sets priorities for immediate action. It makes five recommendations and says the government should act on these now ahead of the more detailed final report. The Albanese government is committed to act on these recommendations as a priority. Two of these will require legislative amendments, which is what this bill will do. One of these amendments will be to extend demand driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students. This amendment will allow all First Nations students, including students living in metropolitan areas, such as Moreton in Brisbane, to be eligible for demand driven Commonwealth supported places in eligible higher education courses. Currently, all First Nations students living in regional and remote areas are eligible for these demand driven Commonwealth supported places, where they meet the academic entry requirements. The amendments for the demand driven measure will expand eligibility for these places to all First Nations students, regardless of where they live, if enrolling in bachelor and bachelor honours level courses other than a designated higher education course such as medicine. This means there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students who can enrol in CSPs and that table A providers will receive Commonwealth funding for all First Nations students they welcome to their university. It is hoped that this measure could double the number of Indigenous students at universities within a decade. So we want to flip on its head the current situation where a First Nations man is more likely to go to jail than to university. The other component of this bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to cease the 50 per cent pass rule. This amendment will remove the requirement that students must pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. This change will have the largest impact on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The former government introduced this rule as part of its job-ready graduates package, and it has seen a disproportionate number of students from poor backgrounds being forced out of university. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by this coalition change in the last two years, and most of these 13,000 students are from disadvantaged backgrounds—the battlers. Minister Clare noted that he'd been told by Western Sydney University that, in 2023, 1,350 students had lost their funding and then withdrawn from their courses. We don't want people dropping out of university. We want them to stay the course and graduate, especially if a helping hand is all that they need. We should be helping students to succeed, not forcing them to quit or engineering a situation where they are more likely to quit. I stumbled in my first semester of teacher's college. I was a 17-year-old from the bush, trying to make sense of the big smoke, far from my friends and family. My wife experienced a similar hiccup coming down from Cairns to go to university in Toowoomba. Between us, we now have seven degrees. She has four; she's much smarter than me. So these early hiccups are not uncommon. The six months after the last day of high school are some of the most traumatic and dramatic times in any young person's life. They go from the school rules and routine, and perhaps the family home, to independence, driving, working, money, sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll and politics—all of those wonderful things you embrace appropriately as an adult. That first swirl of adulthood is a heady mix that can be too rich for many young people. Liberty is exquisite but it is also scary. So I am glad that this bill also requires universities and other providers to do their bit as well. Universities will be required to put in place a dedicated plan to keep their students engaged and completing their studies. Something as simple as a helping hand or a kind word can make the difference. There will be a support for students policy, under which they will be required to proactively identify students who are at risk of falling behind and set out what they will do to help them succeed. This could cover matters like processes for identifying students who need help; assessing a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert; connecting students to support; and identifying students who are not engaging with their support before that census date wherever possible, when struggling in a subject will show up as a fail. It could cover providing sufficient non-academic support for students such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health support. All of these are important because many students struggle because of non-academic issues. Something as simple as providing a safe place for study or a supportive hand can really change a person's life, particularly in that first semester at uni, I would suggest, as can having appropriate crisis and critical harm response arrangements. As we have seen lately, university campuses are full of all sorts of people, including some ne'er-do-wells. A student support policy could cover providing access to trained academic development advisors who can help a student identify what's holding them back and come up with the right response for that student. It could cover ensuring that academic and non-academic supports are age and culture appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students. It could cover proactively offering special circumstances arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student. Something as simple as the death of a grandparent can dramatically change a student's life. It could cover providing access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports. It could cover providing provider driven and evidence based additional support such as peer support. Hooking people up with the right colleague can make a difference as well. It could cover providing targeted, in-course support from academic staff such as check-ins, and flexibility on assessment arrangements that considers a student's work and family situations. Those are 11 suggestions that could help. There will also be financial penalties applied to universities that fail to comply with these sorts of support obligations. These changes are about tearing down the barriers that keep Australians from completing their higher education courses. We need to have a well prepared, educated and skilled workforce to meet the needs of this nation's future, and we know that education leads to better life outcomes and more money in the pocket. The other three priority actions recommended in the interim report don't require legislative changes. They include creating further regional university centres and establishing a similar concept for suburban metropolitan locations. In response, the Albanese Labor Government will double the number of university student hubs. There are currently 34 in regional Australia, including one in my hometown of St George, out in south-west Queensland. I was out there for a book signing recently, and I can attest that the locals are very proud of their centre. The mayor of Balonne Shire, Samantha O'Toole, told me she hopes it will help the shire fill some of the many local job vacancies they have—training locals up and connecting them with universities, but then keeping them local rather than losing them to the cities. The government will establish 20 more in the regions and, for the first time, establish 14 in the outer suburbs of our major cities, where the percentage of people with a university qualification is low. I say, particularly as a Queenslander, the most decentralised state, that this is a significant boon. The next recommendation is to extend the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, which the Albanese Labor Government will do. As part of that, we will require universities to use any funding remaining from their grant each year on things like enabling courses and extra academic and learning support for students from poor backgrounds, from the regions and from other underrepresented groups. The last recommendation is to engage with state and territory governments and universities to improve university governance. I know Minister Clare has written to the ministers responsible for higher education in each state and territory to convene a working group to be led by Ben Rimmer, the deputy secretary from Higher Education, Research and International from the department. This group will provide advice to the minister and other state and territory ministers on the immediate actions they should take to improve university governance. All these important changes are about ensuring more Australians, no matter where they live and as long as they're smart enough, have the opportunity to attend university and, importantly, have the best opportunity to complete their studies. I commend this legislation to the House. 18:10 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 and very much commend the second reading amendment from the member for Barker, which lists some very pertinent points of consideration and concern regarding the bill that's being brought into the parliament right now. This, of course, includes reforms recommended in an interim report, where we have not seen the completion of a process which is looking at something pretty significant—the entire reform of the higher education system in continental Australia. But, evidently, the reforms in this legislation are so urgent that the completion of the accord process cannot be waited upon and we cannot see the full body of work that that process will do that might justify the changes that are being suggested here. That can't wait; we have to make these changes now, apparently, which I've got a little bit of suspicion around. When it comes to higher education, you would think they would be applying some of the thorough, comprehensive principles of investigation—of testing their assumptions and, certainly, completing the body of work—before making any recommendations whatsoever. Nonetheless, we've got a circumstance where the minister has said there's an interim, urgent set of changes that can't possibly wait for the whole process to be completed so that we as a parliament can reflect on the entirety of that body of work that the Universities Accord is undertaking and then consider recommendations, including the ones that are before us in this legislation, in their totality. There's some irony that, on the topic of tertiary education, we don't have that kind of robustness of process in place around the reform of it. This is very much captured in this second reading amendment, but I also make the point that we in the coalition are very interested in reform to the sector that is driven by the interests and welfare of students, not necessarily the institutions or the people that work at them or derive their livelihood from them—they are incidental to the tertiary sector. The tertiary sector is there to educate our next generation and make sure that our economy has the talent and skill and that our society has the talent and skill that it needs for the future. So we certainly hold a concern that the approach towards reform is not as well informed as it could/should be for current and prospective students, who the tertiary system is actually there to serve. I also raise a general concern about a suggestion that comes along at times in these debates, which I think is regrettable. All young people are given the message in our society that to be successful they have to aspire to go to university and that, apparently, that's the only pathway of success in your career. That's complete rubbish—absolute rubbish. Frankly, there are some economies that really demonstrate the value of the robust sector of vocational education and training, which can absolutely provide very fulfilling, worthwhile career paths for people that, I might also add, can be much better remunerated than traditional tertiary education. 'Go to university and get a degree because that's the only way to be successful': I think bringing that principle to the concept of tertiary education should be pushed back against. I certainly take the opportunity to say to young people that are thinking about their career path: by all means, university might be the pathway for you, but it just as soon might not be. Don't get bullied or pushed around by anyone into thinking that you have to go to university. I don't think we should be designing systems in this country that try to force-feed students into the university sector at the end of secondary school, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate for them or whether they've got the capacity. There are two reforms that are being implemented, thanks to this interim urgent, desperate need to make change before we can see the conclusion of this body of work. One is my concern that people are being pushed into university who might not necessarily be suited to it. This is the repeal of the issue around people who are failing subjects at university. What this does is say that the reforms we brought in in government, where, if people weren't passing at least 50 per cent—I was a little surprised that it was only at 50 per cent, to be honest—of their subjects in the first eight units, that the universities shouldn't be encouraged and supported, through government policy, to keep people in university who are probably looking like having a very difficult likelihood of completing those studies. Not to be boastful or arrogant, but when I went to university I had no friends or fellow students who were failing 50 per cent of their subjects. Sometimes someone might not have put in the right amount of effort, and done the famous supplementary exam a few weeks after the finals. When I was there it was certainly not the culture of university that there were people with that kind of failure rate—which is not to suggest that they're a failure as a person; just that they are clearly struggling to a significant degree in the discipline they've chosen to pursue at university. The real risk, as we point out in this amendment, is that when you fail a subject you still get charged for it. If you're consistently failing, you're probably heading down a path of being unlikely to complete your degree. If you do complete it, you've had to retake so many subjects that, if you continue at that rate, you're getting either a huge HECS debt with no qualification or a HECS debt twice the amount it's meant to be. This is because it's taken you so much longer, in the investment, in the cost of additional subjects, due to that failure rate. Everyone can think of a particular example of someone who had a rough start at university but then came good and is now winning Nobel Peace Prizes or what have you. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the more common likelihood is that people who are struggling, to that extent, at the start of their university degree are more than likely to have those problems continue or even exacerbated. We know the pressure and the challenges of student debt in this country. We know what's happened recently because of the dramatically high inflation rate and, therefore, the indexation of HECS debt. It's hard enough for those who have a standard HECS debt. But for those who have an even higher HECS debt because of the subjects that they haven't passed, that they've had to accumulate into their costs—particularly when they haven't ended up with any qualification at the end of that process but have a lot of student debt and a difficult low income earning capacity as well—it would be very daunting, quite cruel and unnecessary to have government policy that facilitates that, rather than the policy we introduced that puts a lot of pressure back on universities not to use people as an ATM. That's just a way of earning money through the Commonwealth subsidy when that person might not be appropriate for the university. The second measure regards the expansion of the demand-driven program to all Indigenous applicants who meet the entry requirements in the system. This is something that's already in place, but with a geographic delineation. This removes that geographic delineation. I'm open-minded to the principle. I really find it interesting that we have people in this debate contributing about how helpful they think this will be in addressing challenges around Indigenous disadvantage. At the same time, when we sit through question time, we're told that unless we have a Voice to Parliament we can't possibly come up with solutions to any of the challenges that Indigenous people are facing. How in the world is it that we're in here doing something that we could not possibly know anything about because we don't yet have a Voice to Parliament telling us whether or not this is a good idea. Yet we're here making this change that speakers in favour of it from the government say is going to be transformative for Indigenous Australians. That is very confusing to me. Do they have their own Voice already? Apparently, the good decisions, good policy and good reform for Indigenous Australians could only possibly come from this Voice that may or may not be created through a vote within a month or two. If the Voice is to be created, maybe we should be waiting before discussing this legislation any further to see what the Voice thinks of it. Surely, the Voice would have a view on this change regarding Indigenous Australians' access to Commonwealth support to study at university. I thought that would be very, very significant and relevant for a Voice to reflect on and give us some advice on. So here we are, as a parliament, being told that we should make a major change to the way in which we support Indigenous Australians without a Voice advising us. This might be a good and sensible reform to make and it might be a very good example of how we can in fact, as a parliament, do things for Indigenous Australians without necessarily having a constitutionally enshrined Voice to the parliament. We are seeking support for the amendment to this second reading which importantly makes it clear that we think we need to look at this much more deeply through the Senate committee process. As I say, we've been given a piece of legislation that seeks to implement part of other reforms that may or may not emanate from this accord process which is not finished yet. The two things I have talked about are apparently so urgent that we can't wait until the end of the inquiry process. We can't see the body of work that is going to be produced by that process. We can't see all of the reforms in their entirety to understand and assess them all together. We can't see the parts the government might recommend, bring forward into the parliament or reject before being asked to consider this legislation. I'm not necessarily convinced that anything about it is particularly urgent, unless this accord process is running much later than the government indicated. I thought it was around a 12-month process. They're obviously well and truly into it, given they've got interim, urgent recommendations in this bill that we have to immediately pass through the parliament. I'm not necessarily convinced it wouldn't be worthwhile for us to see this whole process in its entirety and consider everything that's being recommended together. I urge the House to consider and support the amendment to the second reading that has been moved by the member for Barker. I'm sure this bill will pass through this chamber and go to the Senate. I hope the Senate have the opportunity to look more deeply into some of the issues that are being raised in this bill, because I really don't feel that we in this chamber have been given the opportunity to properly understand the urgency of this. I don't think the data has been presented to explain why it needs to happen. The data either doesn't exist or it does exist, and it's going to be in this report that we're not allowed to see yet because they haven't finished it. Those are all good reasons why I think a Senate committee process is very worthy of looking more deeply into the consequences of what's being asked for here. We've indicated that, hopefully, with the successful amendment to the second reading in this chamber, we are comfortable with the bill progressing into the Senate. They can do what they do best, which is slowly but surely reflecting in great detail, through their committee processes, on some of those questions we are not in a position to get answers on in the debate here in the House of Representatives. With those comments, I commend the amendment from the member for Barker to the House. 18:24 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act of 2003 to implement priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report released by the Minister for Education on 19 July 2023. On the bill before the House today, I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Minister for Education and his commitment to engaging strongly on this issue. The minister has proven himself to be a very passionate advocate of education and the opportunities that it affords. I want to thank him for the work that he's doing in his portfolio. As a former teacher myself, I also have a very strong interest in education and the power of opportunity it presents. I want to commend the work of the minister, especially for his consultative approach and his commitment to engaging broadly with his colleagues, with the education sector, with business and with the public. This has been a wide-reaching, wide-ranging consultation. This broad based commitment to the issue is reflected by the make-up of the accord team, comprised of pre-eminent Australians with enormous experience across our universities in business and in public policy. It is, of course, bipartisan in composition, as it also has the membership of the Hon. Fiona Nash and the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC. Both were known to us in this place for the tremendous amount of work they have done and continue to do. The Albanese government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. I welcome the government's commitment not only to that but to take immediate action on this front. Part of this immediate action means acting on the priority actions of the interim report. There are five recommendations in total. Firstly: that we create more university study hubs—not only in the regions but also in our outer suburbs; It's quite a coincidence that just recently that my constituent, Aarif, who lives in Craigieburn, in the outer areas of the electorate of Calwell—Craigieburn, along with many other peri-urban suburbs, is a fast-growing suburb—reminded me of calls for the provision for a university in Melbourne's northern suburbs. This has been a point of discussion for some time now. I have long maintained, as have many of my local constituents and our local council, that there is a strong case for a university hub in Melbourne's north-western suburbs. As with all considerations, demand is a critical factor, as Melbourne's northern suburbs have indeed grown and continue to grow exponentially. It's something that I support strongly. I'm joined in my support by my local community and look forward to the opportunity of being able to progress such a vision of a university hub in Melbourne's northern suburbs. Secondly, the report calls for the scrapping of the '50 per cent pass rule' and requires: …better reporting on how students are progressing; Thirdly: that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; Fourthly: that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and And fifthly: that we work with state and territory governments, through National Cabinet, to improve university governance. The government has confirmed that it will implement each of the interim recommendations. The first two recommendations require legislative amendment, which this bill provides by amending the higher education support amendment to extend the current demand driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nations undergraduate students studying bachelor or bachelor honours level courses from 2024, to remove the pass rate requirements for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance and to introduce new requirements on universities and other providers to support students in successfully completing their studies. Education is a fundamental pillar of equality in our society. It is, as many have said before me, an enabler of a life lived with purpose and contribution. Quite often, university students in my electorate have spoken to me about the additional pressures they face in having to work to meet the additional demands that come with being students and being involved in higher education. Often this coincides with a time in their life when responsibilities and commitments have taken hold. They have worked very hard to secure their place in a higher education institution, but they are new to some of the financial demands that come with being a young adult, such as having to work to financially support their education. In many cases, this can extract a price at the expense of education results for a period of time. The balance between the need to work and commitment to education can often be challenged, and the fundamental equality test is challenged with the 50 per cent pass rule. That rule means that, currently, students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to continue eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units in a bachelor degree or higher, or four units in a shorter course. Currently, students who fail more than half lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of its Job-ready Graduates program, to dissuade students from continuing in courses they were deemed to be not academically suited for. However, the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students. The impact of the pass rate requirements has disproportionately affected students from First Nations, low-socioeconomic status and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been affected by the 50 per cent rule. Removal of the rule has been called for by universities right across the country—universities like the University of Adelaide, Monash University, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. The bottom line is that we should be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit, especially those who have worked very hard to win a place at an institute of higher learning. This government is putting responsible education governance back into the sector. The bill introduces requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Under these policies, universities and other providers will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with support services to help them. The addition of new student support requirements will place formal obligations on providers to support students in successfully completing the units of study in which they are enrolled. This will require higher education providers to demonstrate how they will support their students who are experiencing academic difficulties, particularly students who are at risk of not successfully completing their studies. It will serve to ensure that universities are not just merely transactional—accepting fees and leaving students to incur debts—but will bring about a situation where universities and providers have an active responsibility towards their students, with processes that identify students who need help and that assess a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert. Importantly, these measures are expected to contain policies which connect students to support and identify students who are not engaging with support before their census date and to provide sufficient non-academic supports for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports. This is important because many students struggle with financial commitments and with personal issues often related to health issues, relationship issues and other factors which are non-academic issues but which do impact on the student's academic performance. The bill also means that appropriate crisis and critical-harm response arrangements are made, and it provides access to trained academic development advisors who can help a student identify and understand what might be holding them back and come up with the appropriate response so as to assist that student. It also ensures that academic and non-academic support is age and culturally appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students. Proactively, the bill is obliged to offer 'special circumstances' arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event that would be affecting a particular student. It provides access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports. It provides provider-driven and evidence-based additional support such as peer support. It provides targeted in-course support from academic staff such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements. Ignoring the realities of the complexities affecting young people who are studying in higher education does not help improve our education outcomes, nor does it improve the integrity of our higher education system. What it does serve to do is entrench inequality and the skewed accessibility indicators against those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and makes places of higher learning more often than not spaces for the children of more financially and socially endowed families. This is why we need policies that reflect the practical realities on the ground and serve to deliver for everyday Australians—policies that go beyond rhetoric and actually afford people real opportunities. Many of those people are the young people in my electorate. This Labor government offers Australians—and young Australians in particular—an opportunity of a fresh start. This Labor government has seized opportunities, and in particular has seized upon Australia's educational opportunities and the jobs of the future. It's estimated that by 2050 approximately 55 per cent of all jobs will require a higher-education qualification. Why are these details behind Labor's policy framework particularly important? Because it speaks to the need of the many in my electorate who find obstacle after obstacle thrown in their way—especially the young, who are at a disadvantage when trying to tackle the demands of work and study. At a time when this country is confronting a massive skills shortage, this amendment is critical to addressing opportunity in Australia and the potential of education as a key driver of Australia's future prosperity. The damaging years of the coalition government was not a good time for the people of my community, especially when the previous government reduced the availability of relevant pathways for new skills for young people, and destroyed opportunities for people looking to reskill or even upskill in emerging industries. The measures found in this bill build on the government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth-supported places and fee-free TAFE. It's not just about the damage done to the university sector under the previous government—if we want a contrast between the leading role this government plays in securing the future of our higher-education sector and that of those opposite, we must remember that billions were ripped out of TAFE and vocational training that offered pathways and opportunities for work. The previous government not only presided over 140,000 fewer apprenticeships than when they first came to government; they actually compounded the problems by ripping away the pathways that could address the crisis that they helped create. To that end, I commend the bill to the House. 18:39 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I do take great pleasure in joining the debate and following my friend the member for Calwell, whose speech I would say I agreed with up until about the last 90 seconds, actually. It wasn't too bad. Of course it's worth reminding the House that the coalition actually delivered record government funding for universities of $115.1 billion in total between 2019 and 2024, so while I appreciate the member for Calwell's more substantive remarks in the debate, I do take exception to and perhaps contradict her view in relation to the former coalition government 's commitment to the university sector. I do want to acknowledge from the outset the Minister for Education's work in this regard, and I took a great deal of interest in his presentation to the Press Club and the interim Australian Universities Accord document when it was released, because I do believe the minister has identified challenges and entrenched disadvantages which were also recognised by the previous government in relation to the participation rate for rural and regional students in tertiary education and also addressing some the entrenched disadvantage the more vulnerable sectors of our community face, in particular our Indigenous community. I do acknowledge his speech at the Press Club was very much in the frame of 'never forget where you came from' in its message. It was a reminder to us all that the work in this particular area—higher education and training for our young people, giving them every opportunity to achieve their full potential—I fear will never be completed. The previous government made some good inroads. My friend and colleague Senator Nash, who is a part of the framework now and coming forward with good solutions for regional areas; the member for Forrest, Nola Marino; the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey; I and many others have worked in this space, particularly around access and affordability issues for regional students, for much of the past decade, and I see a lot of progress in that regard. Notwithstanding that, I do acknowledge the job will perhaps never be fully complete. I don't think you can have this debate in relation to rural and regional communities without actually having a holistic understanding of some of the factors that contribute to our comparatively poor participation rates and our comparatively poor completion rates for regional students at tertiary level. The member for Calwell touched on some of the challenges students in her own community face in terms of having to earn an income while also excelling in their studies and taking on some of those rights of passage of a young adult: getting their own licence, being allowed to go to a licensed venue and drink alcohol and some of the coming-of-age issues that everyone faces. If you compound that with the big challenge for regional students—moving three, four, five, six, seven, eight or 10 hours away from home and being expected to excel in a strange environment, a city environment which they've never lived in—it can be a difficult time in a young person's life. One of the challenges we have in this place is making sure where possible we reduce some of those obstacles for rural and regional students and make sure they also have every chance to achieve their full potential, so I do like some of the measures the minister is talking about and I do like some of the broad themes in his address and the direction he's trying to take. Unless you fundamentally believe country kids are dumber than city kids, there must be other reasons why students from rural and regional areas don't achieve at the same level in terms of completion of secondary school and tertiary education, and I believe there are some entrenched obstacles we have to deal with. Understanding this holistic issue is something that sets us apart in the National Party because we live this every day, and unfortunately for us in rural and regional communities it can start as early as three and four years old with access to child care, access to early education. The government has made quite a song and dance about its commitment to child care in this place but has failed to recognise still that actually accessing child care in rural and regional communities is the challenge, rather than this question of the amount of subsidy you're paid if your child has access to a childcare place. The places simply aren't there for our smaller regional and rural communities. Linked to that, the issue then becomes how we attract and retain a skilled workforce in a regional community if that workforce does not have access to child care. It's another complication. A more holistic understanding of some of the issues we face in our rural and regional communities plays into this conversation about how our young people go on to achieve their full potential. We need to make our regions a more attractive place to live, to work and to raise a family. That's something I think all members who live outside of the capital cities would agree on. We need to invest in infrastructure and services. We need to invest in those communities in a way which allows them to attract and retain a workforce, which then has a flow-on benefit for things like education. I'll give an example. If you have a regional town with relatively poor education opportunities, it becomes very hard for that town to retain doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers and local government officials. Once their own children get to an age where they need to attend school, those highly employable people with very mobile skills will move to places with more opportunity. The bill before the House today is important. It addresses some of the issues that we talk about on a regular basis, but we do need to work in a more holistic way, looking at the whole picture of rural and regional communities and the opportunities they present. I would argue that this government, in its early days, is missing opportunities to invest in rural and regional communities. We've seen the abolishment of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure fund. We've seen the cancelling of the Roads of Strategic Importance program. We've seen a greater focus on a Canberra-knows-best approach, rather than devolving decision-making to local communities, who are best placed to make investment decisions. In a competitive environment, keeping a skilled workforce is a challenge for rural and regional communities. As much as access to university provides a pathway to future financial security for an individual, we must also remember that achieving trade training or technical skills, without necessarily going to university in the first place, is something equally worthy. It should be equally celebrated in our nation, and I don't think that's the case today. I fear that we have an undue emphasis on university qualifications above all else, when trade and training in technical skills also offer great career opportunities for young people. I would caution the government about that. I don't think the minister and I would have any disagreement at all on this point; I think he sees the value in trade training and making sure those technical skills are recognised and supported, but I would add to the debate a caution against putting all our focus on university participation rates and not necessarily recognising the value of trade training at the same time. As much as there are economic barriers that we need to deal with in this place, through things like the tertiary access allowance and supporting disadvantaged students to give them the opportunity to go to university, there is also a challenge, for those of us who live in rural and regional communities, to make sure we're doing everything we can to build aspiration amongst young people. The minister himself reflected on this in his National Press Club address. I think he was the first in his family to finish year 10 and 12. I had a similar experience in my family. Not completing year 12 wasn't that big a deal in rural and regional Victoria at the time I was going to school. One of our challenges, as leaders in our own communities, is to encourage that aspiration amongst our young people and ensure they understand the opportunities that are there for them, whether it's to finish year 12 and go to university or to finish year 10 and get a trade. Whether it's an apprenticeship in hairdressing, building, plumbing or electrical work, they're all skills that can hold a person in good stead for the rest of their lives. As we move amongst our school communities, as we talk to young people, we need to encourage them to aspire to go on and achieve additional qualifications. The bill before the House is important in the sense that it recognises those regional challenges, but I have some concerns about where the government is heading. I think there's a fine line here, with the proposed change to the 50 per cent pass rate. I do believe we have to set expectations for our students—that passing their course matters when they get to university, and that there are consequences if they don't achieve significant progress. When I say there's a fine line, I also mentioned earlier that there are additional challenges for a regional student relocating, in particular. They may not necessarily excel in the early days of their career. I can understand where the minister is attempting to go in this regard, but I am concerned that removing the 50 per cent pass rate from the expectation of the student may set them on a trajectory where they could incur more HECS debt and accumulate it with no real prospect of obtaining a degree and no prospect of any monetary benefit from achieving a tertiary qualification. With the HECS debt increasing in the order of seven per cent this year, thanks to inflation, accumulating more debt is not in the best interests of the young people involved, so there is a fine line to draw with young people, particularly from regional areas. If they are failing at university, accumulating more debt is not necessarily in their best interests. The other point I have some hesitancy about—and we need to reflect on exactly what this means and its practical application—is uncapping the allocations for Indigenous students, regardless of their background. I still need to be convinced by the minister that there is an actual disadvantage we are addressing here. You could sustain an argument that an Indigenous student living in a metropolitan area, say, Melbourne, actually experiences less disadvantage than a rural and remote student living some distance from a university centre. So I remain to be convinced by the minister that this is a good idea. The previous government focused this particular measure on Indigenous students from regional communities, but I remain to be convinced that uncapping this particular feature is in the interests of all students. There is an intellectual inconsistency in the debate right now. We had the minister at the dispatch box today saying: 'We must implement a Voice to Parliament. It must be enshrined in the Constitution before we can make any changes to education.' But we are debating a bill tonight which makes quite significant changes to address an issue of disadvantage in our Indigenous communities. So there is a bit of an intellectual inconsistency. I say to the minister: when you identify these challenges and opportunities, don't wait for a referendum about the Voice to make those decisions. I encourage him to go ahead and make those decisions now and not wait on a vote in several months time. There is another issue that I want to raise briefly. While I welcome the government's commitment to double the 34 study hubs which were delivered by the coalition government—our model, the Regional University Centres model, was a proven and highly effective way to provide greater access for regional and remote students—I am concerned about the government's decision to provide 14 of those hubs in metropolitan suburbs and only 20 in regional areas. Given the disadvantage the minister talked about in his National Press Club address and the access issues that we all experience in rural, regional and remote communities, I would have thought those additional 34 study hubs could all have been easily allocated to regional communities. I question whether saving a metropolitan student a train ride into town is quite the same as saving a regional student from relocating three or four hours, setting up accommodation somewhere in the order of $20,000 per year and then having to work part time to offset some of those costs for their family. I'd question whether the priorities are quite right in that regard. I think having 14 hubs in metropolitan suburbs is questionable at best. We could easily have used those full resources to increase the number of study hubs right across rural and regional Australia and deliver more benefits to those regional students. As I said at the outset, I commend the minister. I think the minister has correctly identified some of the real challenges we face in terms of access to tertiary studies. I certainly offer him my support and feedback in good faith, and will very willingly work with him to achieve great outcomes on behalf of regional students not just in my seat of Gippsland but right across rural and regional Australia. This is an area of work where I think governments should be able to find a bipartisan approach which is in the interests of making sure every young Australian has every opportunity to achieve their full potential. I thank the House. 18:54 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Education is the most powerful weapon against disadvantage. Higher education, including university and vocational training, has been described as 'the ticket to the show', according to our education minister. The average annual income for a university graduate is $100,000, compared to $70,000 for someone whose last year of education was year 12. The jobs of the future will require higher education qualifications. There is not a parent, school student or uni student in Higgins who is not invested in the quality of our higher education system. The 2021 Census revealed that, for people in my electorate aged 15 years and over, 61 per cent have a university degree or diploma, while 13 per cent have a vocational qualification or are doing an apprenticeship. That's over 70 per cent in total. These figures are in stark contrast to single-digit rates of university attainment in some parts of Australia—swathes of it, in fact. Such inequity is unacceptable when our Commonwealth rests on unlocking the talent of our people, young and old alike. The Albanese government is well aware that our higher education sector is an engine for ideas that imbues industry, business, science the arts and culture. The engine, however, needs more than an oil change. It needs an overhaul. The higher education sector is simply not enabling our nation in the way it could. Not enough Australians are getting a foot in the door. In fact, not enough Australians even aspire to the heights of attaining higher education. Too many students, having walked those halls, are being booted off due to poor grades or to external factors like an inability to make ends meet. The student experience has become an afterthought, a poor cousin to research output which, in itself, has generated perverse outcomes that are not meeting the national interest. Publications over impactful, real world outcomes. Academic and support staff among our brightest enjoy all the security of gig workers. Financial viability of universities is excessively linked to vulnerable flows from international students. Parents fret about their daughters' safety on campus, with sexual harassment and victimisation—and worse—rife. Student services, the scaffolding run by student led unions, have been hollowed out under those opposite, but, had they been healthy, they may have thinned out those breadlines of young people we saw during the darkest days of the pandemic. Why this sector was allowed to drift speaks to the culture of 'set and forget' we inherited following a wasted decade under those opposite. However, the Albanese government does not shy away from the hard work of reform, especially when there is so much at stake. We established the Australian Universities Accord to drive an enduring alignment between our higher education sector and the intellectual, cultural community and economic development of our nation. As described by Jenny Macklin, a panel member: Accords bring people together to discuss challenges and agree on a joint path forward. In high education this could mean a continuous and dynamic process of government coming together with universities, higher education providers, students, business, unions and community leaders to agree on the best way that higher education can meet Australia's economic, cultural and social aspirations and allow them to be continually developed over time The accord is about taking what's good and making it better, ensuring that our universities can help Australia tackle the big issues facing us over time. It is an investment in our greatest asset: human capital. The accord is being led by a panel of pre-eminent Australians from education, business and public policy, with metropolitan and regional representation, and it has bipartisan support on the panel. The panel members are: Professor Mary O'Kane, who I've had the pleasure of meeting; the Hon. Jenny Macklin; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake; Professor Barney Glover; Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt; and the Hon. Fiona Nash, a champion for regional Australia. After months of a travelling road show of consultation in regional and metropolitan communities, the highly anticipated University Accord Interim Report was released on 19 July. I would like to thank the panel and support staff for their time, generosity and guidance. The amendments proposed today seek to implement priority recommendations from the interim report. These were deemed too important to wait, and they include: that we create more university study hubs, not only in the regions but in our outer suburbs, to reduce the tyranny of distance and cost; and that we abolish the 50 per cent pass rule for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance. This hurdle disproportionately affected students from underrepresented and often poorer backgrounds—the very people we want to open the door to. The pass rate is assessed after students have completed eight units of a bachelor's degree or higher or four units in a shorter course. Students who fail more than half currently lose their Commonwealth assistance. This punitive measure was introduced in January of last year by the former Liberal government, as part of its jobs-ready-program thought bubble, to dissuade students from undertaking courses that they were not academically suited for. Rather than birthing aspiration, it killed it. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by the rule, with their futures cut short—what a loss. Universities and other providers will now be compelled to provide the scaffolding to aid successful completions. They will have to demonstrate how they are identifying struggling students—I'll give them a hint: ask them—and how they will connect those students with support services. Here's another tip: invest in student services—they actually work. Civil penalties will apply for compliance breaches. Universities from all around the country—including Monash, the University of Adelaide, UTS, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, QUT and Western Sydney University—have been calling for this change. We have listened. We will extend the demand driven funding—meaning it has no cap—currently provided to Indigenous students from the regions to cover all Indigenous students undertaking a bachelor's or bachelor's-honours level degree, other than medicine, from 2024. We need to create pathways that lead Indigenous students into learning and away from jail. This speaks directly towards Closing the Gap outcome 6—to increase the number of Indigenous young adults aged 25 to 34 years who have obtained a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent by 2031. We intend to shore up funding certainty for universities by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024-25, and we will work with subnational governments to improve university governance. Part of the governance mandate is a commitment to stamp out sexual harassment and victimisation. This is why we have appointed the CEO of Our Watch today to lead a working panel to intervene, not navel gaze. We can't afford to wait when one in 20 students has been sexually assaulted and one in six sexually harassed. These students have been met with grossly inadequate responses from universities that are confusing and retraumatising. It has taken far too long to act on this issue. Previous Liberal governments could have acted, but they dithered and delayed, so we are making this an immediate, not deferred, priority. The interim report is an invitation for feedback. What should stay? What should go? Bold ideas and tweaks are welcome. A key outcome of our Jobs and Skills Summit, including the one I held in Higgins in September of last year, was the need to fast-track skills acquisition to help people find their niche. As one attendee said: We need flexible, accelerated training programs to develop intersectional expertise—the future lies at the intersection of multiple domains. Hence we are investing $18.5 million to deliver microcredential courses in areas such as IT, engineering, health and education. Rather than having six career changes in your lifetime, a somewhat dubious claim, these short courses will enable people, young and older, to upskill or reskill with targeted work-ready skills. A future focused economy demands securing pipelines free of leaks, from every corner of this country to our universities, for the enablement of a skilled workforce, and we will need that workforce for the renaissance of Australian industrialisation in green energy, our defence program and onshore manufacturing. The only ticket should be a burning desire to spread your wings, with universities providing the uplift to help our young people soar. I commend this bill to the House. 19:04 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Education is life changing. It opens doors for people, no matter their background, if they get the chance to engage in it. My higher education, from my bachelor degree to my PhD and everything in between, has given me opportunities I could never have thought possible back when I was a little girl at my 15-student, one-teacher primary school in the tiny little community of Eurack—the very same little school that my dad went to; he travelled there on horseback and was forced to leave when he was 13 after his father died, a story that remains familiar for many kids in economically difficult situations. Obtaining a higher education degree is becoming more and more important. In the next five years more than 90 per cent of new jobs will require postschool qualifications, and over 50 per cent of these jobs will require a bachelor degree or higher. To meet these figures, we're going to need around 53 per cent of our students in the education system to come from rural, regional and remote areas of this nation. But there are very big challenges to regional Australians accessing higher education. It's a problem that really has been persistent, long before my dad and long after. In regional Australia we are less likely to complete year 12, less likely to gain a certificate IV qualification or above and less likely to apply for and accept a university offer. Indeed, in my electorate of Indi we have persistently low rates of applying for let alone completing university. According to the ABS, less than 20 per cent of people in regional and remote areas have a bachelor degree or more, compared with over 35 per cent of people in our major cities. And if we're going to improve this number, regional Australians simply must have better access to quality education opportunities and facilities. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 implements some of the priority recommendations of that interim report released just last month. I am so pleased to see the accord, so pleased to see it truly acknowledge the importance of and the barriers to education faced in rural and regional Australia. And I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Fiona Nash, the regional education commissioner who's on the accord panel and who I've had the great honour of speaking with many times about rural and regional education. I will closely read the recommendations in the final report, and I want to use its findings to work with the government on improving regional higher education outcomes. I can think of no greater thing to work on, actually, because we know that if we get that education piece right then our income levels rise and our health improves. This bill implements two of the five recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. It uncaps the numbers of Indigenous students who can enrol in a Commonwealth supported place by extending eligibility for demand-driven funding to all Indigenous students rather than only those living in regional and remote areas, and I welcome that. The bill also removes the requirement that university students successfully complete at least 50 per cent of their courses in the first year of a bachelor degree to continue being eligible for FEE-HELP assistance and to continue as a Commonwealth supported student, and I really support this. We know that those students who are unsuccessful have pretty good reasons for being unsuccessful, and we need to wrap our supports around them. In place of this rule, the bill will require higher education providers to have a support-for-students policy to help them identify those students who are at risk—and many of them are rural and regional students—of falling behind, of failing, and to support them to successfully pass their course. I did part of my education in Sweden, and if anybody was failing, the teacher was brought in to explain why their students weren't doing well. Imagine if we had the same here—and I say that with the greatest respect for our teachers, knowing the pressure that they're under and the lack of resources they have. But that applied in the university system. In fact, I sat a series of exams once and many people in the class failed, and the lecturer had to come back, quite red faced, and explain to us why she hadn't taught the course well enough. I couldn't believe it at the time, but it's maybe not a bad idea. Providers face financial penalties for failing to comply with their support-for-students policy. The Department of Education will shortly release guidelines for what a policy should look like. I note that this bill reverses two parts of the former government's Job-ready Graduates bill. I have to say that when I voted on this bill in 2020 it was, at that time, the very hardest decision I've ever had to make on a piece of legislation, and of course, as an Independent, I have to make a decision on every piece of legislation that comes before the House. The thing is that that legislation implemented several of the recommendations of the Napthine review into regional and remote tertiary education. I had been a steady visitor to the education minister's office calling for those recommendations to take shape. One of the things in that were included in that bill was providing scholarships to help young people move out of home if they needed to for university. That support is absolutely critical for rural and regional students when 70 per cent of students from the regions have to relocate to undertake tertiary study. I voted in support of that bill because I could not in good conscience vote against a bill that involved significant new measures to support regional universities and give them some funding certainty at the time, but—gee!—I had serious questions about the evidence base for the other measures in it that bill. It really was a heartbreaker for me, I've got to say. The accord panel has since heard concerns that aspects of the job ready package are having a negative impact on students and the higher education system. The panel found that the 50 per cent pass rule, which this bill is abolishing, is 'causing undue harm to students'. They said it disproportionately impacts students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As a conscientious legislator—I hope I am—I support reversing harmful measures when the evidence says so. I support the abolishment of the 50 per cent rule because I want to see support, not punishment, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are struggling, and I emphasise that I want to see support for our teachers, our lecturers—our university staff—many of whom are on a difficult employment contracts, to help those students succeed. I support extending to demand driven funding to all First Nations students, not just those in the regions. Indi has almost 200 tertiary students who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The government says this measure could see the number of First Nations students double in the next decade. I really, really look forward to seeing that happen. I want that to happen. So many of us do; I think all of us do. In addition to the two recommendations this bill implements, the Universities Accord Interim Report made three recommendations for the government to implement as a matter of priority. I'm really pleased to see that the first priority action is to extend visible local access to tertiary education by creating further regional university centres. The accord panel heard that proximity and connection to a place of learning is a critical decision-making factor for students when determining future study options, but on the flipside, location is also a significant barrier for accessing higher education. Regional university centres, also called country university centres, are a clever, innovative solution to this problem. I'm very fortunate that we have one country university centre in Indi that has three satellite sites, at Wangaratta, Mansfield and Corryong, and they are doing amazing work. The three centres at the moment are supporting 118 students who are enrolled across 37 different institutions and in 19 different areas of study. Importantly, 50 per cent of these students are the first in their family to study at university. That straightaway to me is a success factor. The centres allow someone who is enrolled in any university across the country to access a quiet study space with fast internet—and I can't underscore how important it is, if you live in rural and regional Australia, to have access to fast internet—and printing at any time they need. But they are much more than a physical space. There's study support there too. With half of the students enrolled in these centres being the first in their family to study, the centres, really importantly, offer learning skills advisers to help students navigate what is often very unfamiliar university language. These centres are making sure that higher education isn't just available to students in the big cities. It's quite remarkable. I had the great honour of being at the Mansfield centre and cutting the ribbon at its opening last year. I was really moved to hear the story of one of the local students who was there. Her name is Alicia Follett. Alicia told me about her study journey through her psychology undergraduate degree. That is so important; we desperately need psychologists in rural, regional and remote Australia. Alicia told me about the difficulty in finding somewhere quiet just to sit her exams while juggling work, being a parent and living in a regional area. While studying her psychology masters degree, Alicia was one of the first to enrol in the centre, in Mansfield, in February 2020. She said that the centre is convenient, has reliable internet and saves her time commuting to and from home. And the importance of a quite place, with that reliable internet, when sitting an online exam cannot be underestimated. Alicia's experiences echo mine. I was a parent to young children and studied remotely, years ago, and had to go to the local high school to have an invigilator on my exam. It was all pretty tricky, pretty difficult. We got through it in the end. I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of the CUC Ovens Murray chair, John Joyce, the CUC Ovens Murray centre manager, Mark van Bergen, and all the wonderful staff at the centres I've visited, across our region, who are helping these regional students succeed. It truly is fantastic. The government are saying they will fund 20 additional university centres in the regions. I congratulate them on that. They should fund one in the town of Benalla in my electorate. In Benalla, fewer than 14 per cent of people have completed a bachelor's degree or above. Benalla doesn't have regular reliable public transport. The kids there can't get to Wangaratta or Mansfield where these centres are. This transport problem between towns holds young people in regional Australia back if they don't have a licence or a car, and there's no train and very infrequent buses. They must seek out online studies in isolation or leave home, if they can. I want to highlight that down in Benalla the community foundation Tomorrow Today is leading the Education Benalla Program to tackle some of these barriers. They fund bus trips to Melbourne, for years 10 and 12 , to show them what university is like, because that is a key factor here. Many of these kids don't know anyone who's been to university. They have no sense of what it could be like. But after the trips to the city, the students often ask, 'How will I afford living out of home?' Accommodation, while studying in the cities, is a huge barrier for obtaining higher education. A Tomorrow Today survey of students who attended one of these university bus tours found that 45 per cent of the students said that being in the country is important to them when it comes to choosing a university. They didn't want to leave home. Mature age students with young children want to support study, and students want to stay connected to their sports team and community, and some families simply don't want to see their young people move away. So we really do need to support our young regional students to study closer to home, if they can. Albury Wodonga Health, on the border in my electorate, are proposing a collaborative education and research centre, bringing together regional universities into one place so that we can create a sustainable pipeline for young rural students to enter into medicine, nursing, allied health, get the clinical training they need close to home and the university training they need close to home as well. This is a program that this Universities Accord could be speaking to, in this regard. It would help solve our workforce shortages and would address that other big gap in rural and regional education, the research piece. We'd like to see this collaborative centre, on the border, supported by this government, to bring this home in a really important way, to make Albury Wodonga Health the clinical education and research regional centre of Australia. I have an example of that. Right now, there is a cardiac catheter lab in Albury-Wodonga, but to train a nurse to work in that lab they need to go to Adelaide to get that education. So that cardiac catheter lab that's so desperately needed can only open a few days a week. A local training facility bringing our universities together, addressing these issues that rural, regional and remote students face in accessing high quality education, is a model that I want to see. I certainly will be contributing to the submission process for the rest of this accord. The interim report acknowledged that regional universities provide essential infrastructure and facilities for the wider community. This is exactly why we need to support more regional universities, to make them centres of excellence. I have spoken to the education minister about that particular project in Albury-Wodonga. I've spoken to the infrastructure minister, the health minister and the assistant health minister, and I really want to see that delivered. Finally, I want to touch on HECS indexation, and the Australian Universities Accord is considering recommendations to review student contributions. We know that with HECS debt facing 7.1 per cent indexation, those students who've been lucky enough to make it to university are facing a debt burden that is putting them off completing their studies. I congratulate the government on this bill and I commend it to the House. 19:19 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I'm very pleased to speak tonight in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I'm happy to say that I'm absolutely committed to advancing the cause of higher education and championing the aspirations of our young and mature-age people. This is why I'm supporting the higher education support amendment bill 2023. This is a bill that will help steer the future of education in our country in a positive direction. The Albanese Labor government recognises the power of education to uplift individuals and entire communities, and I do too. Where I live, on the South Coast of New South Wales, access to education is vital. It's the difference between being able to have a secure, well-paying job, a profession you care about and being able to provide for your family. It's about a thirst for more knowledge regardless of age or background, and being able to see things differently, which ultimately benefits our communities. As a former TAFE teacher at the Nowra campus and a tutor at the Shoalhaven campus of the University of Wollongong for over a decade, I certainly have seen the immense benefits that learning pathways can provide for local people. It can be truly life changing. It's why I will always champion the opening of more doors of opportunity, ensuring that more people can access all the benefits of higher education. I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is helping to enact the changes that will make education more accessible and more equitable. Our commitment on this is plain to see. In our short time in government we have done a lot. We brought in fee-free TAFE in skill shortage industry areas. Not only that, but we've continued to increase our commitment. The Albanese Labor government is investing in 300,000 fee-free TAFE places to address areas of need. That's directly benefiting 2,700 apprentices in my electorate of Gilmore. As a former TAFE teacher and also a work-placement coordinator, I certainly understand how vitally important a quality TAFE and vocational education and training system is to developing a skilled workforce, re-engaging an unemployed and underemployed workforce and providing essential upskilling to mature-age workers. I've seen the benefits of fee-free TAFE in my community. Earlier in the year I visited Nowra TAFE and spoke with students who were participating in the fee-free TAFE program. The opportunities that these students now had access to were life changing. I spoke to a young woman from Bawley Point who was retraining to be a chef. She told me that there were employment opportunities near her home for apprentice chefs. She wanted to do the work, and people wanted to employ her for it, but she couldn't afford to retrain until she got a free-free TAFE spot. Now she's retraining and she's employed near her home. She told me point blank that if it weren't for fee-free TAFE she wouldn't be there. There were so many more stories just like hers. That shows how serious and effective the Albanese Labor government's approach to education and training is. There were businesses in need of chefs near Bawley Point, and there were people who lived in the area willing to do the work. All they needed was a little help getting retrained, and we've provided them with the avenues to do this, and that's just in TAFE. We've also created an additional 4,000 university places over the next four years to support graduates from STEM disciplines. We've invested $72 million to build and retrain the early childhood education workforce nationally. We're investing to help around 75,000 early childhood educators to complete professional development training. We're providing support to 6,000 current early childhood educators to complete more study. We're connecting 2,000 early childhood education students to complete placements and strengthen workforce supply. That's just some of what we've already done, but we're far from finished. This brings me to the higher education support bill 2023. This bill will further the Albanese Labor government's improvements to the higher education sector. It will improve access for those who need and deserve it, and it will get better outcomes. These improvements to the sector come from consultation with the industry itself. We've taken the expert advice. What I mean by that is that we've embraced the recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. This was a comprehensive document crafted by a team of leaders who are experts in their respective fields. I'm proud to acknowledge the outstanding members of the accord team, including the chair, Professor Mary O'Kane AC; the Hon. Jenny Macklin ACT; and Professor Larissa Behrendt AO. Their combined and bipartisan expertise has guided us in crafting a bill that reflects our shared commitment to excellence and inclusivity in higher education. The accord's recommendations show our dedication to the core principles of fairness, equity and support for all students. What are the recommendations of the accord? The first recommendation is to create more university study hubs, not only in our regions but also in our outer suburbs, ensuring that no Australian is left behind due to geographic constraints. This is a brilliant recommendation and one I'm happy to support. I know from experience how life-changing these university study hubs can be. In my electorate, we have a university hub. It's the Country Universities Centre Southern Shoalhaven Ulladulla campus—and it's brilliant. I've been there many times and have seen how these services can change lives. The Country Universities Centre at Ulladulla is a dedicated learning and study space. All people in the Shoalhaven region who are studying higher education at any Australian university or non-university higher education provider can study at the Country Universities Centre. The centre has the space and facilities to support students in completing their studies. It removes the barriers to education all too often faced by people who live in the country. Whether a student needs a broadcast studio, a quiet study, break-out rooms or just an internet connection, the Ulladulla hub helps people who live in my region achieve their educational goals. It has been designed by regional people for regional people, and it's working. But our electorate is a large one. It takes over four hours to drive its length. So, while the Country Universities Centre in Ulladulla is fantastic, we need more. And I'm going to advocate for more in my region. I'll be able to do this because the Albanese Labor government committed $66 million to establish 34 new hubs in areas without a significant physical university campus and where the percentage of the population with a university qualification is low. That will benefit so many who live in the regions. Communities like mine will receive study hubs to combat some of the challenges faced by those in the regions enrolling in education programs. Adopting the recommendations of the accord to create more regional study hubs shows the Albanese Labor government's commitment to education. But this bill will also support the other four recommendations of the interim report. Another recommendation of this report, which the Albanese Labor government will implement, is to scrap the 50 per cent pass rule. The 50 per cent pass rule was introduced in January 2022 by the former government. It was part of their job-ready graduates program—and it has been a failure. The former government's measures were unnecessarily punitive and disproportionately impacted marginalised students. The rule removed students' Commonwealth supported study assistance and access to HELP loan assistance if a student couldn't fulfil a 50 per cent pass requirement. In its short time in operation, the 50 per cent pass rule has been so damaging. Already 13,000 students have been directly impacted by the 50 per cent pass rule—that's thousands of students who have had their education taken away all because the former government didn't understand the intricacies and complexities of higher education. Well, either they didn't understand or they didn't care. Either way, the rule was unnecessarily punitive and poorly thought out. The 50 per cent pass rule disproportionately impacted regional students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and students who are otherwise underrepresented or disadvantaged—the very people who stand to gain most from higher education. This was unfair and unnecessarily cruel. This is one of the reasons I am proud to support this bill, which is going to remove the 50 per cent pass rule. The Albanese Labor government recognises that success is not measured by arbitrary thresholds but by the progress and determination of each individual. I want to see students helped to succeed, not be forced to quit. This bill doesn't just remove the 50 per cent rule, though; it will help students succeed. The higher education accord bill will introduce requirements for universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students complete their studies. They will need to be able to identify students who are struggling and then help those students connect to services to help them. These services include providing housing information, mental health support, crisis support and financial assistance because many students struggle in higher education due to non-academic issues, and supporting them to get the best outcomes they can is the right thing to do. Universities will be required to comply with— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 108 ADJOURNMENT Energy 108 19:30 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Well, we're 16 months into the Albanese Labor government, and all we have are half-truths and flat-out obfuscation. Australians crunched by the cost of living have good reason to be bewildered by the policies this government is legislating. Renewables are apparently the cheapest form of energy, yet we learn that the statements so blithely repeated by the energy minister rely on inaccurate information supplied by CSIRO, based on the GenCost report, which fails to mention sunk costs and relies on information dating back to 2005. Who knew? Meanwhile, the Labor government vehemently opposes nuclear, when in fact nuclear is cheaper, we find out, than renewables. In a paper published in the Journal of Energy, German-American energy economist Robert Idel reported on the full cost of renewables in an energy system, finding that solar is 14 times more costly than nuclear, and wind is 4.7 times more costly. Labor's blatant dishonesty on the cost of renewables ignores the full development and life cycle of renewables, from raw materials to manufacturing to steel and concrete, to their construction lifespan and return to landfill—the cost and poor planning of 10,000 kilometres of transmission poles and wires by 2030 reliant on coal for manufacture. And that is a distance that will expand to 28,000 kilometres by 2050. While Australia retains a politically motivated ban on nuclear, other countries, such as Sweden, are walking away from renewables and heading to nuclear. Australia has the second-largest natural resource of uranium in the world, and we manage waste exceptionally well. Indeed, I stood next to three cylindrical waste silos at the Lucas Heights reactor recently. They will last for 100 years. Newer reactors will re-use nuclear waste, reducing the storage requirements by substantial measures. Why does Labor want us to apologise for our abundant sources of uranium, coal, minerals and gas, which we happily export to fund our welfare, health and education of the nation? If we continue blindly down the renewables railroad, we will still require firming power that keeps lights on and heaters working when the sun goes down and the wind fails to blow. The Prime Minister is also yet to give a direct answer to his repeated election promise that power bills would go down by $275. Labor made this promise in the election 97 times, and the Prime Minister and the energy minister consistently blamed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began 18 months ago. The Prime Minister continued to make the claim that power prices would go down after the war began. Obfuscation and blame shifting does not help Brendan Reinheimer in my electorate, whose power bills have risen by $978. Businesses in Mallee, such as Mildura Fruit Juices Australia, have seen their electricity costs rise by $500,000 in a year. Yet Labor does not apologise or acknowledge their pain. Seriously, does the Prime Minister think the Australia public are 'useful idiots', as Marx did? He owes Australians more respect than that. While mum-and-dad families are hurting under this Labor-induced cost-of-living crisis, the Prime Minister is focused on his pet projects, such as the Voice. We have so many half-truths from the Prime Minister and his ministers regarding the Voice constitutional change that it's no wonder people are confused or discombobulated. The Prime Minister tells us the referendum is just a modest proposal for recognition in the Constitution—no argument here—but asks us to forget that he is actually committed to the Voice, treaty and truth and the full Uluru Statement from the Heart, which seeks all of the above and more, including reparations. So, which is it? When we ask for details of the outcomes of the constitutional change, once again we are given nothing substantial. Why? Is it because the Prime Minister knows that the truth would see support for the Voice plummet? We find that Labor has committed $26 million on the Makarrata Commission, with almost $1 million already spent since the budget. 'On what?' the Prime Minister is asked. He treats us as though we are stupid. Why can't he give a straight answer? Voters will not be taken for mugs and they can see a tricky government distracted from the real crises from a mile away. Housing 109 19:35 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair This week is Homelessness Week. In the 2021 census there were more than 122,000 homeless people in Australia. Alarmingly, 23 per cent were children and young people. We know that over 16,000 First Nations women and girls were seeking housing help each month, and women aged 45 years and over are the fastest-growing cohort of homeless Australians. Think about that. A few years ago we were talking about women aged 55 years and older. This statistic is moving in it the wrong direction. There is a significant gap in wealth accumulation between men and women across their lifetimes. Feminised poverty is an issue that calls for innovative solutions. During Homelessness Week, particularly, you must remember who these numbers represent. They are people. We must continue to humanise these numbers so we are reminded of the true cost of housing insecurity. I commend the many dedicated community housing and service providers across Blair. On Friday they will be holding a Homelessness Week Q&A at the Riverview and District Community Centre. I particularly commend Ipswich Community Youth Service, Hannah's House, St Vinnies, IRASI and so many more. The National Housing and Homelessness Plan will set out reforms needed to improve outcomes from homelessness and rental stress to home ownership. It will be a shared vision on tackling our housing challenges across levels of government. Housing is a big issue in Blair, discussed across kitchen tables, in pubs and clubs and workplaces. If you listen to those opposite, particularly the Greens political party, you would think they were the only ones concerned about the issue. Let me tell you, on this side of the chamber it's a high priority for us. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a key part of this government's ambitious agenda to improve housing outcomes and reduce housing insecurity in Australia. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill be the largest single Commonwealth investment in affordable and social housing in more than a decade. It will help tens of thousands of Australians in desperate need of the housing security they need to build a better life and realise their full potential. The fund will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings for those in need, with 4,000 of those homes reserved for women impacted by domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. This afternoon I met in my office with Jackson Hills from Q Shelter, who implored me to get this bill passed. I assured him the Albanese Labor government is in lockstep with Q Shelter. We know that safe, secure and affordable housing is one of the biggest issues for all Australians, especially in my home city of Ipswich, where 17 many people are moving in every day. This is the fastest-growing region in South-East Queensland. The population is set to more than double in the next 20 years. The HAFF will help tens of thousands of people, including people in Ipswich, to a better life through addressing the housing insecurity. Labor inherited housing and homelessness challenges after a decade of little action from those opposite, but it can't be fixed overnight. We are working every day to invest billions of dollars to help Australians. The HAFF will guarantee a minimum investment of $500 million each year. But that's not all: over time the HAFF will attract additional investment funds, and the fund will build. The Greens in particular have not understood this and refuse to accept the fiscal sense of augmenting the public's investment. Let's not stop there. The Housing Australia Future Fund is just one of the measures we are progressing. The Albanese Labor government has announced a new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. Of that, $398 million will be in Queensland. With the Palaszczuk government's partnership, this will be a $720 million investment in social housing over the next two years. The National Housing Accord will include federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024 to match up to another 10,000 by the states and territories. We are providing an additional $2 billion in financing for community housing providers for more social and affordable rental housing to the National Housing Finance and Investments Corporation. We have already unlocked $575 million for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for social and affordable homes and we are delivering a $1.7 billion one-year extension of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with states and territories. We provided a $67.5 million one-off homelessness boost for the states and territories. I call on those opposite in the Greens political party to stop posturing, stop being pompous, stop posing and pass this bill. They need to do the right thing for housing security in this country to help people in need and stop parading in this parliament in the way they do. MRH-90 Taipan 110 19:40 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I rise to speak about the helicopter crash that occurred on 28 July. Every profession has its own language, and the profession of arms certainly does. There is a term that originates from the Royal Air Force called 'duff'. It was a term that described inaccurate information. When you hear on the radio 'no duff', it means this is accurate and serious. On the night of 28 July, hundreds of young Australians in uniform were conducting a highly dangerous special operations mission in Queensland that had members of the Air Force, the Navy and Special Operations Command in support. It also had members of 6th Aviation Regiment in support. There were lots of complex moving parts. And this was all occurring while most of us slept. At some point, over the radio came 'no duff; fallen angel'. 'Fallen angel' are two words that, if you hear them on operations or in training, your heart sinks because you know what it means when a piece of machinery like that falls out of the sky. They're called angels because that's what they are—they are the people who take us into a mission, whether it's in training or on operations, and they're the ones that take you home. That's what they were loitering, ready to do—to take other Australians home from a mission. When you hear 'no duff; fallen angel', the exercise ends. Everyone freezes and moves into action to try and save their fellow Australians or, at the time, Americans who were in support, too. And that's exactly what they did. Everyone moved heaven and earth to try and see if there was some hope that they could be saved. Days later, we knew that hope had faded and that their bodies had been found. I want to say to the families, the parents, the children, the brothers, the sisters and the grandparents—because they were so young—the sacrifice that they have made for this nation means as much to me and to all of us as any Australian name on the War Memorial. When they signed up to the Australian Defence Force, they signed up to a contract that meant they were willing to give their lives for us. There is a saying in the Defence Force: train hard to fight easy. That's what we do in exercises. We train hard, very hard, and it comes with high risk. Again, whether it's on operations or in training, there is a moment when a notification process starts. I've been in that chain. On my second tour of Afghanistan, two soldiers died. I had a role to play in making sure that information was accurate and passed on. What I remember more than anything is the sense of guilt that I knew that that had happened and their family hadn't got the knock at the door yet. There is a sense of guilt because the people who need to know most are their family and friends. At some point, someone has to knock on a door and give that news, and that stays with those people forever, too. They'll always remember that. And there were those who were waiting on the ground to get onto that helicopter—14 others. We lost four. I'll say their names in the time remaining: Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. They come from the 6th Aviation Regiment. The member for Hughes, that's where they worked, but they lived in other areas. Like my friend, the member for Berowra, there's links to his electorate and others throughout this nation and this parliament. There will be an inquiry, and that won't be easy. And we need to give the families their full support. All of the ADF and other organisations who are wrapping their arms around the families, including the Commando Welfare Trust who I spoke to last week, will be doing their very best to help them and their families. There are tough times ahead for you, and we are here for you—because you are here for this country. Hawke Youth Advisory Committee, Holdsworth, Ms Lynette, Margaret, OAM 111 19:45 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My electorate of Hawke is much younger than the rest of the country. The issues that are important to us are vastly different from many others across our country. We're a rapidly growing seat on Melbourne's growing outer western fringe. We have the fastest growing council area in Melton and a booming multicultural population. To try to deal with some of the challenges we face, it's important that we listen to the voices of our young people in our communities. And we've been doing just that in Hawke. The Hawke Youth Advisory Committee is a group of 10 young people, from the Hawke electorate, who have come forward and are ready to have their voices heard by the Australian government. The members of this committee are dedicated to raising awareness for issues important to them and other young people in our community. They have been attending regular meetings to raise these issues directly with me, and I have then, in turn, been raising their issues directly, here, in Canberra, whether it's mental health in schools, opportunities in education, pathways to the workforce or climate change and so much more. It was a great opportunity for them when consultations for the Albanese government's new youth engagement strategy opened. The committee has put forward a submission providing insight into the life of young people and the issues affecting them in our community. This committed group have given me an opportunity to better understand how the young people of Hawke are affected by the decisions that we make every day up here, what we need to do to address these tissues and how we can best work with them to solve the relevant problems. I thank, very much, Minister Anne Aly for her generosity and commitment to listening to the voices of our young people. She will be making time to meet with the group next week, to discuss their submission in more detail. I also thank all the committee members for their hard work and dedication in making sure that we are hearing their concerns loud and clear. I look forward to working with them well into the future. Lynette Margaret Holdsworth OAM was a larger-than-life figure who left a lasting mark on our community in Hawke. I could reel off the extraordinary list of her awards and achievements, all worthy of mention. However, while I know Lyn was very proud of her accomplishments, what drove her every single day was her family, her friends and her tireless work in our community. If you happen to find yourself in our neck of the woods, take a quick trip down to Toolern Creek. The trees you walk amongst will have been planted by Lyn and her dedicated band of volunteers and workers, thousands of trees all lovingly nurtured and cared for, a living memorial for Lyn that will stand for decades to come. There's more than one string to Lyn's bow. Over the years, she welcomed many people on community based orders, teaching them life skills and imparting her wisdom through her tree-planting program. She never judged, and she was always happy to have another pair of hands to help with the tree-planting effort. She was also a fierce advocate for people living with a disability, drawing on her own life experience of caring for her beloved daughter, Simone. Melton was more than just Lyn's home town. Melton was her life, and our community embraced her. As a testament to how much Lyn meant to our community, the flags in High Street flew at half-mast on the day she was laid to rest. Those who knew Lyn knew what an extraordinary powerhouse she was. Never one to take a step back, Lyn grabbed life with both hands. In her own words: 'Anything can be done, bit by bit. Find your niche. Never be afraid!' Lyn will be very fondly remembered by the Melton ALP branch for her unwavering commitment to standing up for those in need all across our community. She leaves behind her loving daughter, Simone; her extended family; friends; and our whole community in Melton. Vale Lyn Holdsworth. You are a true hero of our community. May you rest in peace. Homelessness Week 111 19:50 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Can I start by commending the member for Menzies for his very poignant speech here in the chamber this evening and add my deepest sympathies to the families of those fallen angels in that most unfortunate ADF accident over the last few weeks. It is very sad indeed. I rise tonight to speak about another sad area across our great nation, and that is homelessness. It is national Homelessness Week, which raises awareness of homelessness and the solutions needed to end homelessness. I have a great investment in this area because on the Gold Coast it is also a problem, with property prices increasing. The Gold Coast is feeling the full impact of the cost-of-living crisis. Our local charities are stepping up, and our community organisations are going above and beyond. I want to talk about some of those heroes in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast and highlight the work and great effort that they go to to help so many who are suffering from homelessness at the moment. The Vinnies CEO Sleepout happens every year on the Gold Coast. It was held again. We—they raised $693,000. I say 'we' because I was there last year. I couldn't go this year, because it was during a sitting week, so perhaps next year Vinnies can put it on a non-sitting week. I'm happy to be there to raise money for our local community, to help our own on the coast into affordable housing built by the Gold Coast community for the Gold Coast community and developed in my electorate. This is what the Gold Coast community does. We get behind our own. We look out for each other. I want to thank all of those who contributed to the Vinnies CEO Sleepout this year, particularly the ambassadors, Karen Phillips and Jamie Preston, among so many others, who did the heavy lifting to get people to sleep out to raise money for our local Gold Coasters. Charities and organisations really do have to pick up the slack left by the Albanese government; and the Queensland state government, who have failed for almost three decades to deliver affordable and social housing for Gold Coasters in need. I don't know what they've been doing with federal government funds for the last 30 years, but, as the member for Blair spoke about, the Labor government is in lock step with Queensland. That puts the fear of God into me. If Queensland's results in social and affordable housing are what we have to look forward to from the Albanese government, then I'm frightened. With the population of the Gold Coast only set to rise over the coming years, this issue needs to be addressed as a key priority, especially for young people and women. There are many women on the Gold Coast living in their cars. And, of course, it's also now a problem for seniors. It is increasingly difficult to access a rental property on the Gold Coast, with hundreds of people applying for a single property. We've got Rotary clubs stepping up to build affordable housing on the Gold Coast to support our community, and, of course, there is the great work of Vinnies, as I mentioned. Senator Dean Smith, the shadow minister for competition, charities and Treasury, visited Moncrieff. We undertook a roundtable with a number of attendees. I want to name a few of them: Joan O'Keefe from Friends With Dignity; Vicki James from the Gold Coast Hospital Foundation; Donna Cooper, Karen Brauer and Lyn Mansfield from Hopes Starts Here; Kirsten Jackson, Mal and Roxanne Scott—great volunteers—from the Lions Club of Carrara; Thili Wijesinghe from Multicultural Communities Council Gold Coast; Theresa Bettles from Rosies Friends on the Street; Ross Augustine and Franz Huber from Rotary Club of Surfers Sunrise; Rock O'Keefe from Rotary International; Yas Matbouly and Georgia Spicer from Serving Our People; Lisa Burr from Set Free Care; Di Kozik from St John's Crisis Centre; Jake Coates from Thriving Multicultural Communities; Glenn Norris from Volunteer Marine Rescue Southport; and Nicole Smith from Volunteering Gold Coast. In Moncrieff we have a proud history of volunteering and supporting those in need, with local charities and community organisations actively working together to meet demand, a collaborative approach to address a common issue. I congratulate all of those volunteers and thank them, as their federal member, for all the work they do in our community to fill that hole for those who are suffering from homelessness. Albanese Government: Cost of Living, Moreton Electorate: Cost of Living 112 19:55 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I know very well that too many households in Moreton are feeling the pressure of rising cost-of-living expenses. These are very tough times. That's why in this year's budget the Treasurer, my good friend Jim Chalmers, announced a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package to assist household budgets. It includes a record investment in bulk-billing; making medicines cheaper for around six million Australians; increasing the base rate of JobSeeker and youth allowance; the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in almost 30 years; increasing the cut-off age for youngest children for single parent payment eligibility to 14; and up to $3 billion off electricity bills, through the Energy Bill Relief Fund. Hopefully, this is relief that some people in my community have now started to see if their latest power bills. We're also investing in renewable projects, which is starting to have a positive effect already. As every sensible Australian knows, as anyone who understands electricity generation knows, that was always going to happen eventually. Renewables don't cost as much, so the companies don't have to charge as much. The wholesale electricity price is now at $108 a megawatt, compared to $264 a megawatt in the June quarter of 2022. Gas was at $31.76 in May last year; the August average is $10.73. Another thing that helps with the cost of living is having a secure job, obviously. The unemployment rate is now at 3.5 per cent; it was 3.9 per cent when we came into office. The participation rate is at 66.8 per cent, up from 66.4 per cent. The gender pay gap is down, from 14.1 per cent to 13.3 per cent. The number of women employed full time is up, from 3.6 million to 3.9 million. The number of long-term unemployed is down, from 122,000 to 100,000. Annual wage growth has risen, from 2.4 per cent up to 3.7 per cent. Remember the coalition's design feature of trying to suppress wages. We're also delivering on training and skills, which is so important for the nation's future prosperity. We've done this by offering fee-free TAFE courses, as we're in need of more skilled labour. We're also making university accessible for more people. In relation to industrial disputes, there were 128,000 days lost in the June quarter of last year; in the March quarter, based on the latest figures available, it was 7,700. That's good news for the nation and bad news for all the wet blankets opposite. Mr Chester IPZ You've missed more hours in here! Mr PERRETT HVP On cue, the wet blanket speaks up! Remember the industrial relations legislation and all the catastrophising of those opposite. They delivered a conga line of jeremiahs. There were 128,000 days lost under them and 7,700 lost under this government. We know inflation figures were the highest they've been this century. Inflation was 2.1 per cent in the March quarter of last year; in the June quarter of this year it's 0.8 per cent. And, of course, the Albanese Labor government was able to deliver a surplus of around $20 billion, which can go to paying off some of that interest, something the previous Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government couldn't do. They made the mugs to celebrate, but they weren't ever able to deliver. This is cost-of-living relief against the backdrop of high global and domestic inflation. The Albanese government's focus is on supporting household budgets, without adding to inflation. We don't forget that those opposite pushed their foot hard on the inflation accelerator in their last budget. Remember: inflation takes the most from those with the least, the ones we should be looking after. When it comes to support measures for the households in Moreton that are doing it tough, let's look at the track record of those opposite. We know they like sitting on their hands, because that's what they did when they were in government, but they've dragged that practice onto the opposition benches. The opposition leader, the Hon. Peter Dutton, voted against cheaper child care. The opposition leader, the Hon. Peter Dutton, voted against cheaper medicines. The opposition leader, the Hon. Peter Dutton, voted against affordable and social housing. He talked about the community groups he'd had meetings about housing with but then voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. The opposition leader, the Hon. Peter Dutton, voted against strengthening the social safety net. The opposition leader, the Hon. Peter Dutton, voted against energy price relief—can you believe that? This is a leader who's focusing on the politics, never the people. As soon as you put the people of Australia last, for the sake of your party, you've lost your way and you've lost your direction. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 113 NOTICES Presentation 113

Wednesday, 9 August 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Archer ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 117 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Fowler Electorate: Mandean Community, Fowler Electorate: Small Business 117 09:30 Ms LE 295676 Fowler On 11 June I joined my Sabean Mandean community in Fowler on the first-ever Remembrance Day organised by the Mandean youth of the community, which included Jenna, Yasmine, Maia, Elan, Sam, Emile and Samer. I was inspired by their determination to preserve their identity and traditions. For these young Australians, the day allowed them to reflect upon the significant cultural history of this minority group and honour the Mandean martyrs who died during wars and many other tragic events in Iraq, Iran and Jordan. This is the first time the Mandean community has come together to mark this date as their Remembrance Day. It held profound meaning for their community as they remembered the hardships endured and lives lost and paid tribute to those who sacrificed everything for the sake of their faith and traditions. I stand in solidarity with the Mandean community, acknowledging their history, struggles and aspirations. We must strive to create an environment where individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural backgrounds, can live without fear of persecution or discrimination in this rich and culturally diverse society of ours. More recently, on 26 July, I held the Fowler Small Business Forum, where I invited local businesses to come together with the aim of hearing from local business owners about what areas are working for them and what needs to be done and improved. There have been many policy and legislation changes which impact small business, such as the industrial relations reform, the 'closing the loophole' bill and the review into Australia's migration system. I was joined by the honourable Bruce Billson, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, who was able to answer questions and provide relevant information to support the businesses. I thank Mr Billson for providing our small-business community with insights into the work of his office. His overall knowledge of the sector was clearly visible. It is comforting to know that small business and family enterprise have a passionate ally in him, who's advocating strongly to government. Also, thanks to the Fairfield HQ for assisting us with the space and ensuring that people were able to get the most out of the forum. The Fairfield HQ is a business hub and co-working space that I can proudly say I advocated, which the mayor, Frank Carbone, and Fairfield City Council really support in developing. If you're a small business in south-west Sydney, please do check it out. I know that the forum gave many attendees the opportunity to be heard and to understand that there is an agency that understands their struggles and challenges. More needs to be done for small businesses in Fowler, and I will continue to work with agencies such as the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to ensure that there is support, resources and, especially, information in language that can be accessible to multicultural communities. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 117 09:32 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth We all know in this place that, if you want change, you have to work to make it happen. It's in that spirit that I want to thank all of those who I've been walking alongside in the Perth electorate, working to make change to our Constitution. It has been incredibly heartwarming to see people from all walks of life choosing to give up their time, energy, thoughts and ideas in talking to their neighbours about making change and enhancing our Constitution and the representative government we have here, through constitutional recognition through a voice. What I've seen in my community is people who recognise that talking to each other one-on-one is the best way to cut through the misinformation, cut through the divisive language and talk about how we, together, forge a stronger future for all Australians. What I've seen in Perth is people joining us at street stalls and doorknocks. Indeed, we even have one gentleman, David Dyke, who has made himself a homemade sandwich board and walks up and down the Maylands foreshore, talking to people on their Sunday morning walks about why he believes we should enhance our Constitution. In that spirit of thanking people who are making change in our community—part of the 18 million Australians who get to help change and decide the future of our Constitution—I want to thank, in representing all of those Australians, the people who joined me in Yokine on the weekend for a doorknock. We knocked on a thousand doors and had fantastic conversations. In that spirit, I thank Aharon Friedland, Amira Nunn, Angela Leech, Anne Magee, Charlee Chmielewski, Cyril Toman, Dennis Liddelow, Diane Dowdell, Isabella Sovianti, Jaqui Hayward, Jake Wittey, Jill Edward, Julie Crowley, Lisa Fanciulli, Lisa Thomas, Maria de Molina, Marissa Williams, Mark Thompson, Mona Pforr, Peter Sourivong, Rosemarie Parker, Roya Ansari, Sharai Moore and Stephen Graves. These are just ordinary Australians who are getting out there, looking to make a difference. If doorknocking is your thing and you like talking to people—you like interacting with other humans—then I encourage you to sign up to volunteer and engage in this campaign to enhance Australia's Constitution through constitutional recognition of our First Australians. If doorknocking's not your thing, you could put up a sign in your yard or on your front gate, you can choose to call people or you can just have conversations with your friends, because ultimately this is a decision that 18 million voting Australians will make later this year, and the best way to make sure we get that decision right is for all Australians to engage in the democratic process. Bowel Cancer 118 09:36 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes Strike out bowel cancer. This short, simple sentence encapsulated the mission and vision of Scott Rindfleish. As an avid softballer, it was his last pitch. Scott, sadly, passed away on 10 October last year. He was 40 years old. He was a Rindfleish, part of a family of softball royalty in the Sutherland Shire in New South Wales and indeed in Australia. Scott was the son of Andrew and Susan, brother of Adam, husband of Peter Wards and brother-in-law of Kelly Gentle. Their commitment to playing, coaching and umpiring the game has been recognised by the Sutherland Shire Softball Association, by Softball NSW and by Softball Australia. As an international softball umpire, Scott was inducted into both the Softball Australia Hall of Fame and the Softball NSW Hall of Fame. When diagnosed with terminal bowel cancer, Scott used his time—his final time—to establish the Scott Rindfleish Foundation, with its stated mission to make bowel cancer preventable and eventually a completely curable disease. I'm proud to be speaking about this foundation and am honoured to have recently accepted the role of ambassador to this important organisation, having known the Rindfleishes through our local softball community for decades. The stated vision of the Scott Rindfleish Foundation is to work to increase awareness of bowel cancer prevention, to support patients and their families through that bowel cancer journey and to make efforts towards scientific research to eventually find a cure. We've made significant inroads on bowel cancer in recent years. Bowel cancer develops from the inner lining of the bowel. It is estimated that more than 15,000 Australians each year are diagnosed with bowel cancer, and more than 5,000 die each year. It is the fourth most common cancer now in Australia and it's estimated that one in 19 will be diagnosed by the time they are 85. Whilst the average age of diagnosis is the late 60s, many more Australians, like Scott, are developing the cancer much earlier. Scott was in his 30s when diagnosed. If detected early, bowel cancer is one of the most treatable cancers through surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. Ninety-eight per cent of bowel cancers can be treated if diagnosed and treated early. If not, it is the second most deadly cancer in our country. So, while Scott was still fighting for his life, he established the foundation. The first fundraising event of the foundation will be launched on 1 September, through a golf day. With support, we can strike out bowel cancer. Burt Electorate: Volunteers 118 09:39 Mr KEO 249147 Burt GH (—) (): I'd like to shine a light on the tireless work of some volunteers in my community. Coming from a large Hills family myself, I know firsthand the importance of the work of our volunteer firefighters. Indeed, my brother is one. Year in, year out, our local volunteer firies have their work cut out for them. Perth's south-eastern suburbs are prone to bushfire. It feels like only yesterday that my parents' place, where I grew up, was damaged in the 2011 Kelmscott bushfires, with many homes around them completely destroyed. Recently, I had the opportunity to announce an agreement between the Albanese government and the City of Armadale to construct the new Roleystone Karragullen Volunteer Bushfire Brigade fire station. This $2 million funding will make a dramatic difference to how our volunteer bushfire brigade operates, and it will be able to withstand unpredictable weather and fire events. Once completed, the station will feature battery storage and solar panels, store hundreds of litres of water and even have a special communications office that can be stood up in the event of a fire in our region. The new station will be turned around quickly, ready for the bushfire season just around the corner, because we don't have time to waste. I'm so proud that the Albanese government has been able to work with the City of Armadale to make sure that our community has access to the facilities we need and deserve to mitigate against bushfire and to defend ourselves when we need to. I also want to officially congratulate in this place local legend and Kelmscott Bulldogs Football Club vice president, Rob Turner. In this 125th year of the club, Rob has been announced as this year's Rio Tinto WA Football Volunteer of the Year Disability & Inclusion Ambassador. There were many worthy competitors for this award and it was a great surprise to Rob. Rob founded the Kelmscott Bulldogs inaugural all-abilities team in 2021 to open up opportunities for people living with disability. Starting out with seven players, thanks to Rob's advocacy and dedication, and that of the other inclusion volunteers, the team now has 40 players and made the finals this year. Rob is one of many dedicated volunteers in our community, and he has previously received a Burt volunteer award. This weekend, we'll be celebrating the efforts of the hardworking volunteers in our community with the seventh annual Burt Volunteer Awards. In Burt, we're lucky to be surrounded by so many selfless individuals who work tirelessly to make our community a fantastic place to live. Volunteers are the lifeblood of our community, and they should be celebrated more. The volunteer awards are an opportunity to thank our dedicated volunteers, to celebrate their work and to encourage more people to volunteer. This year, there are five volunteer categories: environment, sport, disability services, community services, multicultural and youth. I can't wait to celebrate our dedicated volunteers this weekend at our awards day. Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma 119 09:42 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to speak about a devastating childhood cancer that causes more deaths in our precious young Australians than any other disease. Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, is a brain tumour with, tragically, no treatment. Patients typically survive for a matter of months following diagnosis. Just 10 per cent of patients survive for two years, and less than one per cent survive for five years. We all have families: we are mothers, grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters and cousins. Most of us know what it's like to lose a loved one, but what if that person has barely had a chance to live? Last week I met with Beau and Terry Kemp, who told me their harrowing story of losing their only son, Ryley, five months ago at just eight years of age. Their story is just heartbreaking, and for them to be sitting in my suite and talking so candidly is a testament to their strength. We have no cure for this terrifying disease, but that does not mean we should not be investing in this research. Between 2014 and 2018, the government funded $970,000 allocated to DIPG for medical research. But there has been absolutely no funding since. By comparison, leukaemia has had $140 million allocated since 2014. We only need to look at the survival rates of children with that disease and how they have improved over the years to know how valuable investment in research is. While meeting with the Kemps, I also had the pleasure of speaking with Professor Matt Dunn. Professor Dunn is a medical biochemist and professor of paediatric haematology and oncology research at the University of Newcastle, Australia, and a deputy director of the Hunter Medical Research Institute's Precision Medicine Research Program. He is also the founder and director of RUN DIPG, a charity dedicated to improving the outcomes for patients and their families impacted by this horrible disease. Matt lost his own daughter to DIPG in 2018, and I'm sure it feels like yesterday for him and his family. I've written to the federal health minister, Mark Butler, imploring him to commit medical research funding for DIPG through Australia's $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. Professor Dunn told me he and his wife were told when his daughter was diagnosed, 'Go home and make memories.' He is committed to research in this disease until that line is no longer the standard line used by doctors. We in this House should make every effort to ensure there is hope and that miracles can occur. I am committed to supporting these wonderful parents. Refugees 119 09:45 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I've always argued that Australia should be ambitious in our reform of our refugee policies and programs, and since my election to this place in 2016 I have advocated for that reform and for assistance for these new Australians—yes, for a more compassionate approach but also for a more effective approach, with a smarter and more effective set of policies to assist asylum seekers and refugees. The Albanese government committed to delivering these policies that make a real difference to the way that refugees are processed and resettled in Australia, and we're delivering on those commitments. We recently ended the cruel and indefinite detention of refugees on Manus and Nauru, with all those previously detained having now been released, and earlier this year, significantly, we announced the end of the temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas, with 19,000 refugees to be granted permanent residency. Many of those eligible for the resolution of status visa have applied and had these granted. I've met with hundreds of refugees who have been on TPVs and SHEVs and I've heard their stories. Thousands of these people had been left in limbo for years under the previous government. They needed to reapply every three to five years for protection in order to remain in Australia. The system has failed this group of people. The previous government left them living effectively in limbo, but that's no more. This is a group of people who've been found to be refugees, but they were required to keep reapplying for that visa and living in limbo. Over the last 10 years, they worked here, they paid taxes and they ran businesses that employed other Australians, but, without a permanent visa, many have been left unable to get a loan to buy a house and many cannot build their own businesses further, travel or pursue further education. We all know the evidence is there that refugees make an incredible contribution to this country. That old dog whistle they're taking welfare and all the rest of it is just not true. It is a false narrative. They make a tremendous contribution to this country. According to a recent report by Settlement Services International, our economy could benefit by over $1 billion if we did more to harness the skills of these migrants and refugees. This government has made promises to support this cohort, as I've said, and we've already started. We have committed to doubling Australia's annual humanitarian refugee intake. We support a humanitarian migration program that reasonably responds to international humanitarian crises as they arise. We've committed $500 million to the work of the UNHCR. We've appointed a special envoy for refugee and asylum seeker issues to advance Australia's national interests and leadership on refugee issues within our region. We're reinstating statutory requirements for the Department of Immigration to report on how claims are processed within 90 days. We will continue this work for a more compassionate and effective policy program for assisting asylum seekers and refugees, because it is in our national interest. Payne, Mr Keith, VC, AM 120 09:48 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to highlight an exceptionally brave individual from my electorate of Dawson: former warrant officer class 2 Keith Payne, VC, AM. A born-and-bred north Queenslander, Keith dedicated his entire life to serving our nation and was one of only four Australians awarded the Victoria Cross following the Vietnam War. Keith joined the Australian Defence Force in August 1951 at just 18 years of age and proudly served Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation, the Korean War and the Dhofar Rebellion as well as the Vietnam War. While serving in Vietnam in 1969 and commanding the 212th Company of the 1st Mobile Strike Force Battalion, Keith and his men came under heavy mortar fire and rocket fire. Filled with adrenaline, Keith ignored the shrapnel that had become lodged in his skull, arms and hands from a hand grenade burst. His company isolated and surrounded, Keith's only thought was getting his surviving men out safely. Ignoring his severe injuries, Keith ran across exposed ground, hurling grenades and firing his gun in an attempt to save his troops. For the next three hours, at great personal risk and in the dark of night, Keith searched tirelessly for the remaining members of his scattered unit, managing to avoid heavy fire. He miraculously rescued 40 men. With the area now heavily dominated by enemy forces, Keith bravely led his unit back to his base. It was no surprise that, on his return to Australia, his bravery was acknowledged, and Keith received the Victoria Cross from Queen Elizabeth II in Brisbane on 13 April 1970. Settling in Mackay and traumatised by active duty, Keith turned to helping fellow veterans and their families, especially those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder due to their military service. I also acknowledge the tremendous advocacy work for veterans in my electorate of Dawson. Keith Payne's story is an inspiration to us all. Due to Keith's advocacy, he secured an election commitment from the previous coalition government for $5 million to go towards veteran and first responder wellness in Dawson and neighbouring Capricornia. I call on the Labor government to please support this very important project. Deputy Speaker, you may be wondering why I tell you Keith Payne VC, AM's story here today. This guy is a local legend and he is turning 90 years old this month, so I want to give him a big birthday shout-out. Happy birthday, mate. Frangos, Mr James (Jimmy), Johnstone, Mr Graeme 120 09:51 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I would like to pay tribute to two lions of my community that we have recently lost. Jimmy Frangos put Daylesford on the map as a food destination. The Frangos family arrived from Greece when Jimmy was just a little boy and spent their first years after their arrival in Geelong and Warrnambool. After majoring in fine arts at RMIT and then being conscripted to serve in Vietnam, Jimmy married his wife, Dianne, in 1968, and they raised their three daughters in Daylesford and in Ballarat. Their hospitality venues in Ballarat included the French Bakehouse, Cottage Kitchen, Cafe Pazzani, Cocos and the Ansonia. Everyone of a certain age in Ballarat would have very fond memories of at least one of these venues. In 1996, the family developed Frangos and Frangos in Daylesford, and they later developed Koukla. With its open fire, its large shared table, its stylish design and its European menu, Frangos and Frangos immediately made its mark on Daylesford. Jimmy also operated the Swiss Mountain Hotel in Blampied, which is one of Victoria's oldest weatherboard pubs and a simply beautiful country venue. Jimmy was a builder, a designer and an artist, but more than anything else he was an iconic frontman. He was always ready for a chat and always welcoming, and he was an entrepreneur, a prolific rose gardener and a genuinely lovely person who will be very sadly missed. Jimmy is survived by his wife, Dianne, and his three beautiful daughters, Petra, Bianca and Melia. I want to say to them: we're really sorry that we've lost Jimmy. Vale, Jimmy Frangos. Graeme Johnstone was a pillar of the Clunes community. He was born in Warrnambool in 1946, and the family had a dairy farm near Allansford. Graeme trained as a cadet midshipman and spent two years in Plymouth at the Manadon Royal Naval Engineering College before finishing his degree at RMIT. Through his distinguished naval career, Graeme served on a number of ships and ferried Australian troops to and from Vietnam. He became a teacher—in fact, he taught my husband—transforming children's lives by creating space for them to express themselves through theatre. He also had a great love of rugby. He formed a deep involvement with and love of the Croydon rugby club, playing until he was 50. He arrived in the Gold Rush town of Clunes in 1997. With his wife, June, he opened the Dukes B&B, which soon became a popular destination with its spectacular cooked breakfasts. Together with the late Michael Cheshire, Graeme established the now internationally recognised Clunes Booktown, and after being inspired by his wife's pottery he started the Clunes Ceramic Award. He also served on the Hepburn regional tourism board and as president of the Clunes Tourism and Development Association. My condolences go out to Graeme's family, especially June, Kylie, Kate and Andrew. Our region has lost a wonderful community activist. His legacy will continue. He was someone I was very proud to call a friend. We've lost really beautiful human beings in both these people. Menzies Electorate: Community Sporting Organisations 121 09:54 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Sporting clubs are more than vehicles for competition; they are families that recognise when some members are vulnerable and hold them in their loving embrace. Riley Byrnes was 11 years old and a star player of the Mitcham Football Club. He was sadly diagnosed with leukaemia in May 2022. After Riley found out he was going to lose his hair due to chemotherapy his teammates decided to shave theirs in support of him. With direction from Club President Matt McCubbin and Junior Club President Anthony Grace, the Great Shave for Riley was born, with local barbers volunteering their time. The captain of the seniors footy team went as far as auctioning his shave to the highest bidder. The entire club became involved and they raised an impressive $14,000 for the Royal Children's Hospital Foundation. The foundation is now using the Mitcham Football Club as a template for other sporting clubs and community groups. Riley, who was an essential player in his under-12s cricket premiership team and has had over 30 blood transfusions, became a huge advocate for blood donation, with the club rallying behind him. Sadly, we know that donated blood is always in short supply, especially platelets. This is why the Mitcham Cricket Club, under the leadership of Vice-President Stephen Leslie, heeded Riley's call and registered the club for Lifeblood's local sporting clubs blood challenge. The junior cricketers ran for Riley and parents and members donated blood in droves. They were determined to make a difference and to honour Riley's journey, and they did. In the Mitcham Cricket Club's first attempt at this challenge they won the categories of most lives saved and most new donors and they tied for the category of most plasma donations. The Mitcham Cricket Club saved the lives of 114 people in three months with their donated blood, thanks to Riley's activism. I'm incredibly proud of the contributions of both outstanding clubs in supporting Riley and the broader community and I'm incredibly proud of Riley. He has shown heroism and a determined nature that we can all be inspired by. So well done, Riley, and well done to the two clubs that came behind you. I'm very proud of you. Brand Electorate: Health Care, Western Australia: Rockingham By-Election 121 09:57 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I was honoured to have Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in my electorate recently for the official opening of Rockingham's first bulk-billed urgent care clinic. The new clinic is one of seven urgent care clinics the Albanese Labor government is delivering for all Western Australians. I'm pleased to report that the clinic located at the Rockingham Medical and Dental Centre is already providing much-needed care to the people of Rockingham and Kwinana and is helping to reduce pressure on our hospital and emergency departments. I was really pleased to see at that opening the Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook; former premier Mark McGowan; and the then candidate for Rockingham Magenta Marshall. I'm really pleased to report that Magenta Marshall has since been elected as the new member for Rockingham, after successfully securing the seat at the Rockingham by-election on 29 July. Magenta was an outstanding local candidate and ran a fantastic campaign, with her team knocking on almost 10,000 household doors and making more than 6,000 calls for the by-election. I've known Magenta for quite some time now. I know that she will work day in and day out for the great people of Rockingham. Like me, Magenta was born and raised in the community she now represents. I'm looking forward to working alongside her as the new local state MP for where I live and in the Cook Labor government, which will continue to deliver for the people of Rockingham. Not only was the 29 July result a big win for WA Labor in Rockingham but also it was a massive rout for the Liberal Party of WA. Obtaining a dismal 17.68 per cent of the primary vote, the Liberal Party suffered their second-worst primary vote in my hometown since the seat's inception in 1976. They only did worse with the absolutely astounding performance of a nine per cent primary vote in 2021. The WA Libs didn't even come in second place. They didn't even scramble to second place in the Rockingham by-election. It was a damning indictment of the WA Liberals and the so-called clan faction that runs the party in the west. Will the WA Liberals ever learn that Western Australians will not put up with the nonsense the WA Liberals are going through? This by-election came after the resignation of the former Premier and member for Rockingham, Mark McGowan. On behalf of the people of Brand and also the people of Rockingham, I thank Mark for his service over 30 years to the local electorate and to the wider community of Western Australia. He has steered us through some very difficult times. I want to wish Mark and his family, who have served alongside him, all the best for the future. I look forward to seeing him at the Mike Barnett Sports Complex, which is named after the member for Rockingham before Mark. It's an important tradition in the town to support the local, much loved basketball club the Rockingham Flames, and I congratulate the Cook Labor government on supporting them with a $10 million upgrade for one of the most popular sports in the state. Flame on! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 122 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Gender Equality 122 10:00 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley As others who have spoken to this before me have noted, in the latest World Economic Forum Global gender gap report, Australia has moved from 43rd place to 26th place. That's a pretty impressive jump of 17 spots. It is the largest improvement in Australia's ranking in the report since the index started comparing nations in 2016. There is no doubt that that jump was contributed to significantly by the fact that, for the first time in history, we have a federal government which has more women than men in it—53 per cent are women—and we have a government that has spent the last 12 months starting to implement an agenda for gender equality that goes from workplaces to politics to schools to all aspects of society. The Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, is right when she says that better gender representation leads to better outcomes. It is almost obvious—although for hundreds of years people, men, didn't seem to realise it—that the more people you have around the table from different backgrounds bringing different experiences and different points of view to a discussion, the better the outcomes you will get and the more representative the outcomes will be. So it's a significant achievement, but there's no doubt that we still have a long way to go in Australia for gender equality. We're all pretty wrapped up in the Matildas at the moment. Seeing how those young women, who are strong and fierce and feminine and tough and just amazing athletes, are representing their country in a way that we would want anyone, male or female, to represent their country and the way that Australians are responding to that is amazing. More Australians watched their last match than watched the AFL grand final, which seems to be blowing some people's minds, although a lot of us would say that we've been telling you for a very long time that women's sport is exciting. It's different to men's sport in many ways. Sure we don't jump as high or run as fast—always; sometimes we do—or kick the ball quite as hard or throw it as far— Mr Burns 278522 You do compared to some of us; that's for sure! Ms MURPHY 133646 We do compared to the member for Macnamara—apart from basketball because you can just reach up and put the ball in the hoop! But we're skilled and we're tactical and we're strategic and we do jump high and run fast and throw hard and kick far, and it's interesting to watch. The issue is not just that Australians are wrapped up in women's sport at the moment but how do we use that moving forward? Things have changed significantly since I was a young girl in the eighties, where the only time I got to see a woman in a sports magazine was when they had the bikini edition of Sports Illustrated. My dad always used to say to me, 'Write to the editor. If you don't like it, write to the editor and get it changed.' Things have changed, but they haven't changed enough, and we need to leverage this moment in time to support women to be involved in sport at all levels and in all ways. It's still the case in our country that when a dad who's never played basketball says, 'I'll step in and help coach my daughter's under-10 basketball team,' people say, 'Isn't that wonderful?' but when a mum who's never played soccer says, 'I'll step in and help coach my son's under-10 soccer team,' there's a bit of a, 'But do know what you're doing?' Men who have had a bit of a go at playing tennis when they were in high school are accepted to coach their kids' tennis teams, but women who have been professional tennis players aren't accepted to coach elite junior boys teams. We still have a fair way to go when sports like netball are actively embracing boys playing and men being on their committees but many football clubs have never had a female president, let alone a woman on their committee. We still have a fair way to go to say that gender equality actually means that men and women can be involved in boys', girls', men's and women's sports at all levels, doing all things. Coaching, being administrators, being physios, being commentators—it doesn't matter. They can do it. I know that the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Women are engaged in thinking about this issue, and I'm very keen to be part of that. Gender equality is not just about numbers and statistics. It's about outcomes and it's about culture. I think we still have a culture in Australia where, if you turn on a television, nine—if not 10—times out of 10, the ads for domestic cleaning products still have a woman who's depicted as the mother washing the kids' clothes, mopping the kitchen floor or cleaning the dishes. They still have the mother, nine if not 10 times out of 10, cooking cupcakes with the kids and cooking dinner. There is still an inherent gender bias in much of our popular culture that not only holds women back because it perpetuates the idea that that unpaid work, which is often the care component of being in a relationship, or being part of a family, is women's work. It also holds men back from having the sort of engagement with their families and children that can be and is fulfilling. During COVID one of the things that fathers, particularly fathers in their 20s, often said to me was that the thing they didn't expect, because they had to work from home or couldn't work for a period of time, was how much time they got to spend with their kids and how great that was. They said it made them realise how much time they hadn't been spending with their kids and what they had been missing out on. That's one of the consequences of gender inequality and gender stereotypes in this country when it comes to what we can do. It is no coincidence that feminised industries are the lowest paid industries and that feminised industries are, by and large, the care industries—that is, work that used to be unpaid domestic caring work. Again, that is a gender inequality that keeps women in low-paid industries and keeps them low paid but also tends to exclude a lot of men from things like early childhood education and care, aged care or nursing. These are occupations which are incredibly fulfilling, and which men are very good at, but a gender stereotype holds them back—let alone the pay. It's bad for women, it's bad for men and it's bad for the economy. These are the sorts of things that government can do something about, like the Albanese Labor government supporting the historic pay rise for aged-care workers. But government can't fix or change this completely. It's a cultural attitude. It needs the involvement of leaders from across business, the civic sphere and government. We need to be conscious of those sorts of things and conscious of the history that leads to today, where, yes, we have more women than men in the government, but we still have over 100 years of a parliament which hardly had any women in it for a very long time, has had one female prime minister and hasn't had women in leadership. One government with a lot of women in isn't going to change 100 years of built-up culture with conscious and unconscious bias. I was listening to the amazing June Oscar on the radio this morning and she was asked whether, when her term as commissioner is over, another woman should be appointed as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner, and she said: 'Absolutely, because, for 30 years, until I got this job, there'd never been a woman, and having one woman in the job isn't going to change that.' So, while the result that I started talking about is a terrific result and should be celebrated, and the Labor government which I'm proud to be a part of should be congratulated for all the measures that have been put in place to close the gender pay gap and encourage gender equality in this country, there is a lot more to do, and I look forward to being part of that work. Domestic and Family Violence 123 10:10 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to speak on the recent commencement of the 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement for all employees of small businesses. Firstly, it is absolutely imperative that we collectively acknowledge and confront the harrowing reality of violence directed towards women and children and that all of us use this time to denounce this violence in its entirety. In fact, the tragic toll this year has witnessed an alarming and heartbreaking number of lives cut short due to family and domestic violence. These losses of life encompassed women of all ages, a multitude of cultural backgrounds, different employment situations, different education levels and different income ranges. These women resided in our neighbourhoods, leading lives uniquely their own. Tragically, their lives were cut short at the hands of their current or former intimate partners. We all know these horrific statistics. One in four women have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. One in four women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15. One in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. One in six women and one in nine men have experienced physical or sexual abuse before the age of 15. But these individuals are not just anonymous statistics. These were women who were held dear and whose presence in the lives of those who loved them was so abruptly and violently taken away. However, let us not forget that the reach of violence is, of course, not confined to lives lost. It extends to those living every day in fear of such violence. This reality is a painful reminder of the magnitude of the issue at hand. Of course, all forms of violence against women and children are utterly, utterly unacceptable. Our government's commitment to ending family and domestic violence is unwavering and absolute. Just last week, as the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, I was very proud to join the Minister for Social Services in commemorating the start of 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave for small businesses. From 1 August, small business employees were given a new right to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. This brings them in line with the same entitlements in place since 1 February for at least seven million employees who work for large or medium businesses. And it includes casuals. Small businesses have an extra six months to adjust to the change, in recognition that they may not have the same human resources capacity as larger businesses, and to make arrangements to make sure they can administer that leave effectively. The government has provided a range of tailored supports and guidance to help small businesses to understand their obligation and be able to administer the leave entitlement both sensitively and lawfully. This includes a newly-launched podcast, Small Business, Big Impact, hosted by Gretel Killeen, which I know will greatly assist small businesses in recognising and responding to family and domestic violence. Crucially, the 10 days paid leave extended to all categories of employment, whether they be rostered, casual and part-time positions or full-time roles. As a Labor government, we know how crucial this is. We know that all employees must have the right to access this life-saving entitlement, and now they do. Research underscores the vital role that access to a stable income plays in empowering individuals to be able to actually leave violent relationships. Statistics reveal such a stark reality: one in five women have taken time off due to violence inflicted by a former partner, and one in 11 due to violence perpetrated by a current partner. Paid leave supports individuals to attend court proceedings, seek counselling, engage with law enforcement or navigate the many challenges involved in the process of relocating home or changing their children's school. This leave represents a tangible layer of support for those vulnerable women and children who are experiencing the trauma and reality of domestic violence. This leave will save lives and it represents yet another stride towards our goal of ending violence against women and children in one generation, as outlined in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. The national plan launched by this government provides a blueprint for all of society and all levels of government to end violence against women and children in one generation. Clear actions to implement the national plan will be outlined in two supporting five-year action plans. Those action plans will show steps that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments will take to address the key areas in the national plan. In our 2023-24 budget, the Albanese government was proud to commit an additional $589.3 million to deliver women's safety initiatives under the national plan, and this was on top of our record investment of $1.7 billion in women's safety through the October budget. That's a total of $2.3 billion. We are funding a whole range of different initiatives to help deliver this plan across prevention, intervening early and supporting the delivery of vital frontline services. These include: $169.4 million over four years for 500 frontline service and community workers; $159 million over two years to extend the National Partnership on Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Responses, with state and territory governments to continue to address many service gaps; $104.4 million to expand the role of Our Watch, to address the drivers of violence against women and children; $38.2 million in funding to extend the escaping violence payment trial and the Temporary Visa Holders Experiencing Violence Pilot Project; and $12.1 million over four years to develop and distribute social media resources on consent for young people and to support community led sexual violence prevention programs. Our government is steadfast in our commitment to ending gender based violence, and we know that it's this coordinated action that will get us there. As we also know, on 28 October 2022 our government appointed the inaugural Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner. Ms Micaela Cronin commenced in the role on 1 November 2022, and is one of only three national domestic violence commissioners worldwide. The commissioner is absolutely central to the oversight of the national plan. Commissioner Cronin is a really key advocate for victim-survivors, and she works across states and territories to help coordinate key national safety and service frameworks. I would also like to make very specific mention of the Lived Experience Advisory Group currently being established by the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. We know that all policy responses must have the voices of victim-survivors embedded within them and listened to. This must be ongoing and constant. Ending violence against women and children requires our collective commitment, action and unwavering resolve—that's all of us, all levels of government and all of us within the community. The lives lost, the trauma experienced and the fear endured by victim-survivors demand our understanding, our empathy, our attention and, most importantly, effective measures and effective action. Some of the initiatives I have outlined here today mark steps in the right direction, but we all know that our work is far from done. We know that we have to continue working together. We must continue to advocate, implement and evolve our efforts until we can, collectively and proudly, declare that our society is free from family, domestic and sexual violence. I know that these views are shared throughout the entire chamber and held very, very deeply, and that we're all working together towards this goal. In fact it's the duty of all of us, collectively, to ensure that every woman and child lives in safety, with dignity and without fear. 10:19 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Domestic violence is happening at unprecedented rates across Australia. My electorate of North Sydney welcomes the beginning of paid family and domestic violence leave. In 2022, 56 women lost their lives to domestic violence, with another 38 losing their lives this year alone. Shockingly, 11 women lost their lives in this last month. That's 94 women in 84 weeks—a record of accomplishment any nation could not be proud of. Every year, nearly 8,000 women return to dangerous environments after fleeing domestic violence because they feel they have nowhere else to go, while another 9,000 become homeless. Crisis response services are overburdened, and emergency shelters are overflowing. These are just the stories we know of—people who have found a way to leave—with the reality being that thousands are trapped silently in violence. The implementation of this payment, an annual allowance of 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave that's made available to all employees—be they full-time, part-time or casual employees—is to be welcomed, and it's my hope that this leave will encourage more of those who currently feel they have no way out to take those first important and, often, tentative steps to get themselves and those they love to a safer environment. While I welcome this move from the government, we need to also acknowledge that, in of itself, it will not solve the extensive challenges faced by women experiencing domestic violence, and we remain a long way from ending violence within one generation. The truth is that that outcome is going to require far more work and will only be successful if supported by an integrated response—leveraging the legal, economic and government ecosystems to achieve it—while also challenging ourselves to think differently. For a start, the huge variation of family violence laws— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 21 to 10 : 37 Ms TINK 300124 With domestic violence happening at unprecedented rates across Australia, my electorate of North Sydney welcomes the beginning of paid family and domestic violence leave. In 2022, 56 women lost their lives to domestic violence, while another 38 have lost their lives this year. Shockingly, 11 women have lost their lives in the past month alone. That's 94 women in 84 weeks—not a record of accomplishment any nation could be proud of. Every year in Australia nearly 8,000 women return to dangerous environments after fleeing violence, because they have nowhere else to go, while a further 9,000 become homeless. Crisis response services are overwhelmed, and emergency shelters are overflowing—and these are just the stories we know of. These are people who found a way to leave, but the reality is that thousands more are trapped in violence silently. The implementation of this payment, then—an annual allowance of 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, made available to all employees, be they full time, part time or casual—is to be welcomed. It's my hope that this leave will encourage more of those who currently feel they have no way out to take those first important and often tentative steps to get themselves and those they love into a safe environment. While I welcome this move from the government, we also need to also acknowledge that, in and of itself, this will not solve the extensive challenges faced by women experiencing domestic violence and we remain a long way from ending violence in one generation. In truth, that outcome is going to require far more work and will only be successful if it's supported by an integrated response leveraging the legal, economic and government ecosystems and applying, potentially, a new way of thinking. For a start, the huge variation of family violence laws and justice responses across the country is just one of the areas we must address. I argue that the current crisis requires a coordinated response through federal law. Then the stay-at-home programs under the national Keeping Women Safe in their Homes initiative are not working, with the majority of women believing that remaining in their home is not possible at the point of separation. With family and domestic violence being the main reason women and children leave their homes and the leading cause of homelessness for this group, we must find a way to reverse this belief. It's just common sense that communities and families will be stronger when it is the perpetrator who is required to leave a domestic arrangement when there is violence. This is not to condemn the perpetrator to the same reality women currently face, which is homelessness, but to not pursue this course because it threatens to victimise the perpetrator is ridiculous. On the flipside, we cannot have women leaving and feeling like they're sitting targets for continued harassment and violence because the fractured justice system, frontline services and existing public protection policies do not provide an integrated response. Recently, the CEO of a women's shelter in my electorate told me that the state of housing is dire and the need is immediate. We cannot wait for housing to be built. Funding alone will never be sufficient in the current climate, and as a parliament we cannot simply measure our efforts by what our government is prepared to spend. While the record investment contained in the 2023-24 federal budget was welcomed, sadly it barely touches the sides of what is required to enable those facing violence to escape without ending up in poverty. All of us in this place, then, must hold ourselves accountable for genuine progress to end violence against women. I echo the minister's statement. If we all work together and if we all pull in the same direction, this can be achieved. People experiencing violence should never feel like they are standing alone. Instead, they should be provided with all of the support they need to rebuild their lives as quickly as possible. In conclusion, then, while the government's commitment to ending violence against women and children in one generation is admirable, it's going to take much more than words, and one good policy will not get us there. We have a responsibility to carry this work forward, and I call on the government to: No. 1, look at federal law to better coordinate state justice responses; No. 2, scale up the economic response beyond just funding to maintain relevance in the current economic climate; and, No. 3, walk the talk and action the commitment they have made to end violence within one generation. I must confess that's a walk I would happily take together. 10:42 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm This really important topic of family and domestic violence leave is something that I think goes beyond just the leave. The government's commitment to improving people's lives and making sure that we reduce gendered violence goes beyond just the leave, although that is, of course, very important. To have provided 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for workers right across Australia is incredibly significant, particularly because it is the only implemented form of leave that includes casual workers. We know that for so many people, particularly those in insecure work, decisions often have to be made between whether they get paid or whether they are safe, and it is really so critical that, with this family and domestic violence leave being implemented, workers, particularly women workers, will no longer have to make that really terrible choice. I have spoken to many women over the course of the work I've done, before entering this place and since, about what difference this is going to make. I know it will be significant, and I know workers and workplaces right across the country have really supported our introduction and implementation of this piece of legislation, because we know it will change lives. I think that, through the normalisation of people taking family and domestic violence leave, we'll begin to see other conversation start to happen and we'll be able to see cultures and behaviours change. This is a really pivotal change in the way that we think about workplaces and about the things we need to do to truly make a difference to getting rid of family and domestic violence in our communities. I note that our government last year launched the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, with the incredibly ambitious but appropriate goal of eliminating gendered violence within one generation. Family and domestic violence leave is a huge stride in enhancing workplace rights and safeguarding the wellbeing of employees. We know that small-business employees will be part of this, as well as employees in larger companies. The introduction of 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, which never existed before, is really critical in creating a fair and supportive work environment for everybody. I also want to acknowledge that this change came about because of the really powerful and courageous advocacy of victims-survivors and employee organisations in particular to raise this issue, to elevate this issue, to the national consciousness and result in the kind of change that we see today. I do not think their courage in pushing forward this change can be emphasised enough. It is a change that will mean that other women will not have to experience the terrible decision-making processes that they've had to, when they were forced to choose between their wages and their safety. That is a terrible position for anybody to be put in. I think that the comments the minister made in the ministerial statement earlier this week have really helped to keep alive the need to take action to eliminate gendered violence. I note too that this morning the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, made comments in relation to safety on campuses and the need to eliminate gendered violence in those settings. Of course, we know that the work to eliminate gendered violence is not going to be isolated to any particular area of society. Indeed, with family and domestic violence leave, efforts are being made to provide support for people in their workplaces who are contending with things in their personal lives. Through the priority recommendation to work through a national process with states and territories to try and deal with the issue of gendered violence on campuses, we understand that in educational settings this is also a pervasive issue that needs attention. It will require a whole coming together of society to make sure that we are able to eliminate gendered violence within a generation, which is our goal. Personal safety should never be compromised for economic stability, and the implementation of family and domestic violence leave acknowledges that quite clearly. We know that too many people in the past have, unfortunately, stayed in very dangerous situations and have had to put their personal safety at risk because they felt that they couldn't make the choice to step away from work for the period they needed to to make arrangements to leave a very unsafe relationship. As part of the implementation of our family and domestic violence leave, the Fair Work Ombudsman has provided tailored advice, guidance and support to help all businesses understand their responsibility, which is really important because—it's really great, of course, that we've introduced this new right to leave, but it's really important that people can take advantage of this provision and make the right decision for themselves in relation to getting out of a dangerous situation when they need to. This has been a really collaborative process to get this tailored guidance and support together, as well as to get the family and domestic violence leave settings right, and it has involved experts from family and domestic violence organisations as well as small business representatives and those I mentioned earlier as being part of the process, the victims-survivors and employee organisations. In my own electorate I have met with various family and domestic violence prevention groups, including within universities, who are at the cutting edge of research in this area and are helping to push forward ideas around the cultural and behavioural change that needs to happen right across our communities—in workplaces, schools and universities—to make sure that we eliminate, as much as we can, gendered violence in our communities in the short term, with that longer term goal of ridding our society of it within a generation. Having the 10 days of leave under this new right is a very important provision, but I think the ultimate goal, to eliminate gendered violence, is something that we all need to commit to as a society and as a parliament. I know that these changes will save people's lives. I look forward to working with people in my own community to do more so that, in the next generation, people don't need to make the decisions they currently have to make, because we will have reached that goal of eliminating gendered violence within a generation. 10:49 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay This morning I rise to talk about the Minister for Social Services's statement relating to family and domestic violence leave. I thank her for bringing such an important topic to the House for discussion. The reforms to family and domestic violence leave brought forward by the Labor government are on top of the measures put in place by the previous coalition government. In December 2018 the coalition enshrined five days of family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards. We know those suffering family and domestic violence, particularly women and children, need avenues of support that allow them time to recover and do what is necessary to ensure their safety and that of their family. Family and domestic violence leave ensures that this can take place. It allows them time to put the relevant legal measures in place with police, if need be; to speak with financial counsellors; and to have time with family and friends to recuperate and make a plan to protect themselves and potentially their children as well. As the member for Lindsay there is one statistic I am not proud of relating to my electorate. My community has some of the highest rates of family and domestic violence when it comes to the state of New South Wales. It is not a list you want to be top of. I thank, for their important work, the local women's shelters, the emergency housing providers and the officers of the social housing team at the local New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice Penrith office who every day—every single day—pick up the pieces of distraught families who need their care and support to escape violent and coercive occurrences. I want to place on the record again my thanks to the police officers at the Nepean Police Area Command on general duties and those who specialise in assisting family and domestic violence victims. Recent statistics from the Nepean PAC demonstrate that domestic violence is the No. 1 issue impacting the Penrith community, with the last quarterly statistic up—not down—for domestic violence. I note that the Nepean command is working on a new system for domestic violence—a dedicated family and domestic violence arrest team. My office and I regularly meet with family members impacted by family and domestic violence. It's always such a horrible feeling to have a family come through the door escaping a horrible situation and having nowhere to go but the local federal member's office. Each story is unique, each story is so extremely difficult and each story is heartbreaking. I want to ensure that each story is not just a statistic but is the start of another very important conversation on how to end family and domestic violence in Lindsay and across the nation. It is not just a conversation but a conversation that turns into action that makes a difference. The coalition when last in government took strong action to address women's safety. In fact, we had a Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Anne Ruston. We expect that significant work to continue under this government. The first action plan on family and domestic violence has not been delivered—it has been delayed. I know these matters can be complex and need to be right and fit for purpose, but we do need to ensure that those impacted by such violence are given support now. The Albanese government at the election committed to the establishment of 500 frontline service positions to assist women in need of support. I really encourage this happening because the community needs it, and they want to know when it will be delivered. The previous coalition government provided investment for women across the previous two financial years, including $3.4 billion in 2021 to 2022 and an additional $2.1 billion in 2022 to 2023. Specifically, this funding saw $1.3 billion for women's safety initiatives, support for women in leadership to drive positive change, boosts to women's labour force participation and improving women's health outcomes. I am proud that I secured funding for local caseworkers for the Penrith Women's Health Centre. They are frontline caseworkers really making a difference on the ground. That is really important. The thing is that it doesn't matter how much governments are investing—both coalition and Labor—because when you see domestic violence figures increasing in a community it means that the money that is being thrown at things is just not making enough of a difference. Over a short period of time earlier this year we had two domestic violence related deaths in my community of Lindsay. That's two families and friendship groups—people that they knew—rocked with the loss of a loved one who was tragically murdered by their partner. Around one woman per week is killed by their partner or former partner. This statistic is harrowing. In 2021, 135 lives were lost due to family and domestic violence. There were an additional 27 on top of that last year. I would like to thank my coalition colleague and shadow minister for women, the member for Farrer, for her contribution to this ministerial statement. I do note the coalition's ongoing work and interest in the family and domestic violence space and with regard to associated leave mechanisms for workers impacted by such behaviour. With leave adjustments being made to support more families, particularly women and young women workers, facing family and domestic violence, we need a leap in plans to stop the ongoing prevalence of violence impacting every single community in Australia. Whether it's in Lindsay in Western Sydney, remote communities of the Northern Territory or the North Shore of Sydney, we need more support to stop family and domestic violence. I know that each state and territory government is working towards eliminating it. We do need a strong overarching national plan in place that is suitable and will stop the perpetrators of all forms of family and domestic violence. 10:55 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The statistics that I'm about to read out are not easy to hear. They paint a stark picture of the often hidden but insidious act of domestic violence and its pervasive and indiscriminate spread in homes across our nation. Here are the ugly facts of domestic violence: one in four women have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15; one in four women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15; one in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15; one in six women and one in nine men have experienced physical or sexual abuse before the age of 15. This year alone, we've already seen too many lives lost to family and domestic violence. We can no longer ignore the brutal reality of domestic violence. That's why our Albanese Labor government has legislated groundbreaking reform: 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for all Australian workers. It's why we are committed to ending violence against women and children, violence that is often hidden in plain sight. In my electorate of Corangamite in Victoria, we've seen a growing number of family violence cases reported over the past five years. It is encouraging that these cases are being reported, but it reveals just how systemic family violence is. Statistics from the Victoria Police show that just last year there were approximately 4,800 cases of domestic violence in local government areas across my electorate alone. This is unacceptable. These women come from all walks of life—different ages, cultures, professions and backgrounds. They share a heartbreaking story—their lives and their children's lives tragically cut short or brutally upended at the hands of a current or former partner. These women are aunties, sisters, daughters, friends and colleagues. They are women we have loved and women we have lost too soon. Of course, we know that it's not just women and children facing injury and losing their lives to violence; it's also women and children living every day in fear because of the violence they are experiencing. It's women who find tracking devices in their children's toys, who field abusive calls at their workplace every day and who wake up to hundreds of abusive calls on their phones. It's women who make the brave choice to leave, bundling their children into the car, and then are forced to couch-surf and give up their jobs because they have no secure place to call home. This must change, and the perception of family violence must change. It's revealing that the 2021 national community attitudes surveyfound that, while many Australians—91 per cent—recognise that violence against women is a problem in Australia, only 47 per cent recognise that this is a problem in their own suburb or town. We need to shatter the perception that family violence happens elsewhere and not in your own backyard. Ten days of paid family violence leave is the Albanese government's first step in supporting women and men experiencing domestic violence. I am proud that, when I was mayor of the Surf Coast Shire, we were the first employer in the world to introduce this reform. I'd like to recognise the member for Cooper, who, in her former role as the ACTU president, helped to achieve this groundbreaking reform. Now it's enshrined in our nation's federal legislation. But there's so much more to do and the Albanese government understands this. That's where our National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children comes in. It provides a blueprint for the whole of society and an all-levels-of-government approach to end violence against women and children in just one generation. In rolling out this plan, I am proud that in the two successive budgets the Albanese government has made is a record investment of $2.3 billion for a range of initiatives to end violence against women and children. These include investments in prevention, because we know that prevention is the key to generational change. And so we have legislated for a positive duty on employers to take a proactive role in ensuring their workplaces are free of harassment. We're investing in consent and respectful relationships education in schools and communities across the nation. We're also investing in early intervention and responses to domestic violence because we know they're so important to prevent violence from occurring and escalating. We're improving access and quality of support to those seeking urgent help via the family and domestic violence helpline, the 1800RESPECT line. And we're providing support to small businesses through the Small Business, Big Impact podcast released last week, to give them the skill set to support employees who may be suffering from family violence. I strongly encourage all my local small business owners to listen to this podcast. The other area which we're investing in is healing and recovery, because healing and recovery lead to breaking the cycle of ongoing violence, supporting women so they do not return to a violent situation and giving them the tools to move on with their lives. I would like to acknowledge our unions, which have fought so hard for paid family and domestic violence leave through the Fair Work Commission. And I would like to acknowledge the amazing work done in this space by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and by the Minister for Social Services. Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the victim-survivors who have raised their voices to inform government, educate community and empower our institutions to do better. Our government recognises that elevating the voices of victims and survivors is a key driver to changing our nation's culture and the perception of domestic and family violence. The Albanese government is committed to a country free of gender based violence, where all people can live free from fear and violence and be safe at home, at work, at school, in the community and, of course, online. We acknowledge the lives of those lost to gender based violence and we commit to working to create an Australia where women and children can live their lives freely and safely in all environments. We must all commit to the view that women should not experience violence—that it is not inevitable and it is not acceptable. Finally, I would like to share some of the words of those victim-survivors contained in the opening statement of our national plan: Abuse and violence is a problem for victims, but it is not the victims' problem. Genuine change begins with a willingness to listen. We must stop protecting perpetrators with our silence, and through inaction. We must be willing to sit in discomfort. It is time to be brave. It is time to act. 11:03 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Gender based violence is unacceptable. Violence against women is unacceptable. These things really should not be controversial at all. If there's anything that all of us in this House can agree on, surely this is it, and yet the current numbers are staggering. One in four women has experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. One in four women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15. One in five women has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 and one in six women, and one in nine men, has experienced physical or sexual abuse before the age of 15. And one in six women has experienced economic abuse by a cohabiting partner. However, the most egregious number I have is 31. Thirty-one women have been killed by gender based violence this year alone, and we're only two-thirds through the year. Last year the number was 56. The killing needs to stop. The violence needs to stop. The amount of suffering being experienced by women across our country is truly heartbreaking, and the lack of change is demoralising. The Albanese government has not shied away from the dire reality of the situation, and we have taken on the responsibility of supporting women struggling with domestic and intimate partner violence. We're taking this seriously because we understand that, without support and resources, women will continue to be abused and killed. We are taking steps to address this issue and implement the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. Domestic and family violence is the main reason women and children leave their homes in Australia and is the leading cause of homelessness in children. We will invest $100 million under the Housing Australia Future Fund to address this. We are implementing all recommendations from the Respect@Work report because Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces should be a positive example and set the standard for all Australian workplaces. We've legislated a positive duty on employers to ensure their workplaces are safe for all employees and free of harassment. We are investing in consent and respectful relationships education in schools to ensure that we are challenging gender based biases before they become deeply ingrained. This means our children will be taught how to respect and support future partners. It aims to bring about a cultural change required to curb the number of perpetrators of intimate partner violence in the future but also to empower those who experience violence, either now or in the future, to recognise that it is wrong and that they do have options and rights and to take action. We're improving the support offered by 1800RESPECT and have already expanded it to be able to assist people experiencing workplace sexual harassment. We are funding direct assistance in the form of $39.6 million for additional support through the Escaping Violence Payment program, $25 million over five years for innovative sponsors to address the behaviour of perpetrators and $12.6 million over two years to extend the program assisting temporary visa holders who experience family, domestic and sexual violence. These are just some of the measures the Albanese government is working on so that we can achieve our goal of ending gender-based violence within one generation. It's an ambitious goal, and we have a lot of catching up to do, but, if we all work together, we can achieve it. Within this long list of actions we are taking is our commitment to instituting 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. This policy has been in place for large and medium businesses since the beginning of February this year, and now we're bringing this into effect for small business as well. From 1 August, all Australian workers have access to paid domestic violence leave. We are changing our nation's narrative around this issue and providing support to those who desperately need it. Victim-survivors leaving or thinking about leaving violent relationships need to be able to attend lawyers, counsellors, financial counsellors and banks and make the arrangements for a safe escape. One of the most dangerous times for a victim of domestic violence is when they make the decision to leave. Up to 75 per cent of abused women who are murdered are killed after they leave. It is an exceptionally dangerous but courageous thing to do. Importantly, family and domestic violence leave is available for people working casually because we know that family and domestic violence can impact anyone and women, who are often the victim-survivors, are overrepresented in the casual workforce. They also need to know that they will have an income after they have left, because poverty and not knowing how they will survive and where they will go is one of the major reasons that women don't leave and one of the major reasons that they go back to a violent household and a violent partner after they have left. Paid family and domestic violence leave is one step in ensuring that a woman does not need to choose between her job and her safety. Small business have had an extra six months to adjust to the changes in leave entitlements in recognition of the fact that many do not have the same human resource capacity as large businesses. To ensure that smaller business do have resources required to make the arrangements to administer the leave effectively, the Albanese government has provided a range of supports and guidance from the Fair Work Ombudsman. To further support small businesses the Australian government and Lifeline Australia have released a fantastic podcast called Small Business, Big Impact on how to support employees experiencing family and domestic violence. The podcast is a helpful tool that small businesses can utilise to prepare for conversations about paid family and domestic violence leave, including how they can best support their employees. In each podcast episode, the host, Gretel Killeen, speaks with an expert guest to discuss the signs of domestic violence and how employers can talk to their employees about it. I would encourage small businesses in my electorate to make use of this. The government have also commissioned the website smallbusiness.10dayspaidfdvleave.com.au specifically to assist small businesses with this transition and provide information. Existing government funded services, like 1800RESPECT and DV-alert, will continue to support business and their employees while dealing with family and domestic violence. These supports are a vital part of our plan to implement this change to leave entitlements. We want to work together with small businesses so that they are empowered to play an important role in eradicating DV. I often speak in this place about my time as CEO of Catherine House, but many years earlier I also ran women's health and safety services for SA Health. This role included a number of women's health services which also provided domestic violence services and a perpetrator rehabilitation unit. I saw the impact that psychological abuse had on women—strong, confident and capable women—who, after years of manipulation, found themselves paralysed, fearful and unable to think of a way to save themselves. I saw the impact that financial abuse had on women who, although sometimes working themselves, had no financial resources to buy themselves lunch, let alone fund a way to escape. They had no access to bank accounts and no access to credit cards. I saw the impact of social isolation on women whose own families thought they had abandoned them and whose friends had drifted away after they repeatedly missed catch-ups because they weren't able or allowed to leave the house. I saw firsthand the impact a strong support network, or lack thereof, had on a woman's ability to survive and escape a violent relationship. I saw how all of these factors, all of these abuses, come together to keep victims-survivors trapped. And I saw how it sometimes ended in tragedy—56 last year and 31 this year so far. This has to stop. Every year the Pay Our Respects group organises a vigil on the steps of the South Australian Parliament House. Each woman of the group represents one woman killed in Australia in the past year. Their names and a little bit about their lives are read out. We do this because they're not just numbers. They are real people with names, with families and with friends. Each year we say that we hope we won't have to be here again next year. And each year we are back again, reciting the names of more women who have been killed. Lives lost. Futures lost. Families and friends in mourning. Communities and neighbourhoods in shock. The violence has to stop. This government is committed to making it so. 11:13 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins On 1 August small-business employees gained access to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. This occurred after years and years of advocacy by unions, stakeholders and victims-survivors. It's applicable to workers who are working full time, part time or on a casual basis, and it is not pro rata. It is available upfront. It is not accrued, and it certainly doesn't carry over year after year. It replaces a previous entitlement of five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave. It means that small businesses in Australia, all five million or so of them, are now aligned with the seven million people who work in large and medium business around the country. Why did we do this? We did this because around 800,000 women, we think, experience the physical and mental health impacts of family and domestic violence. It is likely an underestimate. We do know that one in four women before the age of 15 experience intimate partner violence, and this has further impacts on their social and economic participation. It results in a disrupted work history, which leads to an entrenchment of casual and part-time work, and that then has further, outsized impacts on a woman as she progresses through her working life—principally, less pay, lower income, fewer assets, less super. Is it any surprise, then, that family and domestic violence is a potent driver of homelessness and the risk of homelessness for women and children? There are several resources available to small business owners. One is 1800RESPECT. It is a national service. There is Lifeline and women's legal services; there is Kids Helpline, specific to children; and there is a men's line, called MensLine Australia. I highlight these because small businesses have a huge role in being upstanders in helping to identify the clues and the signs of domestic violence in their workers. I just want to go through some of these. It's quite informative. Some of the signs that are worth picking up on are workers who do not turn up to work or turn up late. In other words, there's a change in their usual behaviour. These workers and victims may have trouble concentrating. Why would that happen? Concussion is one reason that would happen. Severe trauma is another reason why workers would struggle with concentration, as well as choking injuries to the neck, which can lead to anoxia of the brain. These are clues that are worth staying across. You might find that your workers are making mistakes that are uncharacteristic of them. So you'll see perhaps a change in the quantity or quality of their work. Things like bruises, black eyes and broken bones are obviously red flags, but they may not be obvious. Why? Because victims often conceal these injuries or apply make-up. Then there will be signs of emotional distress, and that may manifest as unusual quietness, isolation or withdrawal from co-workers, and repeated bouts of emotional lability, particularly tearfulness, at unexpected times, even uncharacteristically, or disproportionate to whatever has been done or said. You may notice that workers are receiving an unusual number of emails or texts and are moving away from their co-workers in order to respond to these. There may be an abrupt change in their address. They may also be receiving unwelcome visits at the workplace from the perpetrator, and this in itself will incite a very strong negative reaction from the victim. Then there are features of coercive control. Limited access to money is one—a survivor not having any money at work or no access to an ATM card, perhaps skipping meals because they can't afford their lunch. Then of course there will be restrictions on movement. These workers may not turn up to social functions, for example, because they are being prevented from doing so by the perpetrator. I think it's really important that employers are alive to these clues and, also, are prepared to have difficult conversations. These are conversations that I had to have thousands of times in my career. The first advice I'd give you is to be prepared. Understand what your obligations are, hence circle back to those resources, particularly the ones I mentioned but also the Fair Work Ombudsman's website, which is very useful. Make sure these conversations are treated confidentially and keep repeating that. Create a private space to have these conversations and do them in person. Why? These sorts of conversations are not done online or over the phone because you miss those paraverbal clues that convey probably more than the language itself. Also, when a victim is facing another person through a screen, they have to maintain eye contact and gaze, and that in itself can be quite traumatising for victims, who may want to turn away or withdraw every now and then. It's just not conducive to having these difficult conversations. So I would caution against that. In terms of your opening lines, they might be: 'I've noticed a change. Is everything okay? How are you going generally?' Keep it broad, keep it general, but be empathetic and be patient. Understand that your employee may not disclose anything in that first conversation, but extend the invitation that you're always available to talk to them. Ask your employee if there's anything else you can do to ensure that the workplace is safe for them and for others. It may be useful to schedule regular wellbeing check-ins with all your employees, so that no single person feels like they are being singled out at a time of distress, as that can actually heighten their own distress. I think it's also important to understand that these conversations are not easy for anyone, and, when a person is traumatised, they may only absorb 10 to 20 per cent of what you're actually saying, so it does need to be repeated. I've often followed things up with something written that I hand to the person, so that they can go away and reflect on that document. Obviously, do not be judgemental and do not push people. Just listen, and realise that you are not a professional counsellor—you are their boss; you are their employer—but understand your obligations and also understand how you should direct victims to the professional support services around them. I would also say that, once your employee has taken out domestic violence leave, you don't necessarily have to keep an ongoing connection. You need to take the lead from your employee. They may not want to talk to you during that period, because they're sorting out their life or seeking assistance and support from elsewhere. If you do want to keep in touch, ask them how they want you to keep in touch. It may be that the traditional or conventional phone is not the appropriate platform. They may want an encrypted platform to have that conversation with you. So it's worth asking those questions. A person experiencing family or domestic violence often will not leave an abusive partner in the first instance. So do not wade into judgements around the perpetrator. Avoid it. It is difficult, particularly when there are children involved. Victim-survivors are most at risk of harm, and indeed death—noting that, on average, one woman is murdered every week by a current or former partner—when they actually leave their partner, so be aware of that. In addition, having these conversations can also put a significant burden on you as an employer. I think it's important that employers are aware they need to actually look after themselves. Self-care is incredibly important, because vicarious traumatisation is a thing. I'll conclude by saying that we, in the Albanese government, have invested in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and we've invested a record amount of $2.7 billion, but governments alone cannot fix this problem. It's now up to the people, including small-business owners, to breathe life into this plan. We all have a role to play. We cannot be bystanders. The information is out there. Seek it out, educate yourselves and stand up. 11:23 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very pleased to be able to rise in this chamber to speak on the family and domestic violence leave statements. I think I'd like to start by firstly acknowledging the profound and ongoing impacts of family and domestic violence in Australia. This year, we've already seen 33 women lose their lives through acts of violence. This is an issue affecting women of every age; from every cultural background; with different jobs and different levels of education; living in different suburbs, towns, and cities; leading different lives—but all with their lives cut way too short. Too many women and children are living in fear in their own homes because of the violence and coercion they are experiencing there, in the very place they should expect to feel safe. Things have to change. No-one should be living in terror each and every day or living in fear that the person who purports to love them is in fact the most dangerous threat in their lives. That's why our Labor government, under the leadership of Minister Amanda Rishworth, has been working very closely with all the state and territory governments who have a shared commitment to ending violence against women and children in one generation. It is a big commitment, it is ambitious, but it should absolutely not be beyond us to ensure that women and children are not subjected to violence and coercion in the next generation. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children is the second national plan, of course, and I would like to acknowledge the work of the former Labor minister for women, my friend and colleague Julie Collins, the member for Franklin and current Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business, who saw us through with the first of the national plans, in any Australian parliament, to end violence against women and children. She help established Our Watch; ANROWS, an important body to ensure that we had the very best research and materials at hand; and gender reporting legislation—all very important hallmarks in ensuring that we not just put an end to violence and coercion but also tackle the very drivers of that violence, which we know includes gender inequality. We now have our second national plan to end violence against women and children, and this will take us through the period from 2022 to 2032. It provides us with a blueprint for a whole-of-society approach—an all-levels-of-government approach—to end violence against women and children, as I said, within one generation. I'm really pleased that, over two successive budgets, our Labor government has made a record investment of $2.3 billion for a range of initiatives to end violence against women and children. We know that prevention is key for generational and important societal change. Investments in early intervention are so important to actually stopping violence from occurring and escalating. We're also making investments in terms of response so that women have a place to go and the support they need to leave a violent situation, which is often one of the most terrifying decisions for women because we know the real risk and danger is when you've actually made the decision to leave—that's when you are at most risk. The other area we're investing in, which is critically important, is healing and recovery because investment here leads to breaking that cycle of ongoing violence and stops women potentially returning to violent circumstances. We know it's not just about addressing the acute effects of violence; it's also important to tackle the gender inequality that drives gendered violence. That's why you will see gender equality at the centre of this government's thinking. We have a majority of women in government for the first time in Australia's history since Federation. We have more women in a federal cabinet than ever before. So this is never an add-on extra for Labor; gender equity is at the front and centre of all our thinking in all policies and all work that we do. To get rid of gender inequality, we're tackling that on a number of fronts. Firstly, we're implementing all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report because it's crucial all workplaces in Australia should be safe and respectful places to work and should reflect best practice in terms of the prevention of sexual harassment, bullying and sexual assault. We've legislated for a positive duty on employers to provide workplaces free of harassment. I mean, who would have thought that was a radical idea? Yet, sadly, the opposition did not support us in seeking a positive duty to ensure that workplaces are free of sexual harassment. We're investing in consent and respectful relationships education in schools, as well as broadly across the population. We're also implementing improvements to offer support to 1800RESPECT, meeting the needs of those people who experience workplace sexual harassment. Of course, leaving a violent relationship can be, as I mentioned earlier, one of the most dangerous times for women. It's one of the most dangerous times not just for women but for their families and everyone they love around them. In addition to the safety implications, women face multiple and systemic barriers when leaving a violent relationship. That decision can lead to homelessness, economic insecurity, social isolation and the loss of employment, income, assets and support networks. These are huge barriers, all of which we can do something about. We must change this so that women feel safer to leave a violent home. This week we marked the beginning of paid domestic violence leave for all workers in all businesses, including casual workers. I could not be more proud of this moment for the Australian people. This access to paid leave will make a practical difference for women escaping family and domestic violence, who now will not have to choose between their job and having time off work to deal with family and domestic violence. Those legal appointments, interviews at the police station, moving your kids' school, and finding and dealing with real estate are all time-consuming, and women need paid leave to do that. I am so pleased that we have seen businesses, both big and small, embracing the start of paid domestic and family violence leave, because this leave will save lives and it's an important step towards our goal of ending violence against women and children. To assist in the change with this new paid leave, the government has just released a new podcast, in partnership with Lifeline Australia, titled Small Business, Big Impact: How to Support Employees Experiencing Family and Domestic Violence. The podcast is hosted by Gretel Killeen, a great advocate and voice for Australian women. The podcast, designed for small business, has been guided by experts from the family and domestic violence sector alongside representatives from small business and their peak bodies. It'll help to prepare small-business owners for those important conversations in their workplaces about paid family and domestic violence leave and how they're going to be able to support their employees. That's usually what employers want to be able to do: ensure that they're there to be able to support good people working for them that they want to retain and keep in a safe working and living environment. I want to give a shout-out to the amazing women who—along with their representative union, the ASU—for 10 years visited us in Parliament House to talk to us about the need for this paid family and domestic violence leave. We couldn't get it through in the former government. I've been here for nine years trying to advocate for this leave. So it was with real joy that, with the election of the Labor government, we were finally able to bring this to fruition. The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to a country free of gender based violence where all people live free from the fear of violence and they are safe at home, at work, at school, in the community and wherever they live and go. We should not accept anything less than that, ever. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 Statements have concluded. BUSINESS 134 BUSINESS Rearrangement 134 11:33 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore by leave—I move: That order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 134 CONDOLENCES Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay 134 11:34 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Simon Findlay Crean's untimely death, I think, was a shock to many Australians but particularly those in the Labor Party and the broader labour movement. Certainly in my home state of Tasmania it was met with great sadness by so many. Unknown I'm sure to many in this place, Simon was a great friend of Tasmania. His brother was also our state Treasurer for six years, from 1998 to 2004. At this time we are thinking of David and of course Simon's family. It has been a very difficult time, I'm sure, for his family members, and my sincere condolences go to Carole, the children and the grandchild and, of course, to David, Sue and their family. It must be an incredibly difficult time. We're so sorry about the untimely death of such a great man and such a giant of the Labor Party. Indeed, Simon was very well known for his love of regional Australia. He loved nothing more than to get out and about. Like so many, I have some wonderful stories of times with Simon out and about in my electorate and in the Tasmanian community. As a great friend of Tasmania he was down very frequently. Importantly, as a minister in the Hawke and Keating years and then again in the Rudd and Gillard years, Simon often brought with him funding for great Tasmanian projects, which was much appreciated by the Tasmanian community. He understood regional development, which so few in this place do. He understood how it could transform regional communities. He understood that sometimes governments need to invest in ideas that will generate regional economic activity and that towns and regions can grow from that. Some of the things he was instrumental in in Tasmania I want to run through, because they were significant. He established the first cooperative research centres, including the CRC for the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean at the University of Tasmania, way back in 1991. That was incredibly significant at the time and we have now, in Tasmania, got more scientists per capita in Hobart around the Antarctic sciences than anywhere else in Australia. It is quite significant. That was started by Simon back in the day, and I'm sure many others. He then went on to add to that with his investment in the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies down on the waterfront. He was determined to secure the future of the Australian Maritime College in Northern Tasmania when it was desperate for funding back in the mid-1990s. He really understood what we were doing in Tasmania in terms of diversifying our economy, but he also understood that, in diversifying our economy, some of the economies of old needed future investment and innovation to transform, such as our forestry industry, for instance. He was instrumental in providing funding to do additional processing and value-adding of this timber product in Tasmania. He was also instrumental in the APPM Boyer Mill in providing them with funding to rejuvenate and revitalise the facility there to allow them to innovate and diversify in terms of products. That allowed what were large employers in Tasmania to continue to employ Tasmanians while at the same time modernising and moving with the times. He really understood what it meant to those regional communities in which some of these businesses were based. With a bit of government support, they could change and they could innovate, revitalise and change direction slightly to keep that employment in those regional economies. He was much loved by many of our local mayors and local governments in Tasmania. He spent a lot of time talking to them about projects. I remember one particularly in my own electorate that was taking a waste product from sewage and reusing it in area that traditionally didn't get a lot of rainfall. It opened up agriculture in the Coal River Valley in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Lyons. We now have in the Coal River Valley a whole stream of vineyards. It's a great success. We also have from that area some of the world's best whiskeys, can I say, from some of our distilleries. You think back to the decades that that investment has had a return for the Tasmanian economy, and it was only by people with a vision and understanding of regional communities that some of that transformation happened. That's the person that Simon Crean was. That's why he was so loved in Tasmanian communities and by so many local government members across our state. His brother David was of a similar vein and did some transformational things for the Tasmanian economy. I know that David must really be missing his brother Simon during this period of time, and reflecting on things where they worked together that made Tasmania a much better place. Simon, of course, contributed in so many other ways. But I thought it was important for me, as Tasmania's senior member in the Labor Party, to put on the record our love for Simon and our honour for his achievements on our behalf. I thank Simon and his family for allowing him the time to invest in our communities and in his roles as a member of parliament and, importantly, as a minister that did make such a difference to the lives of so many people, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. Vale, Simon Crean. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:41